If you think SBF didn’t know that AR was “borrowing” client monies until after all such borrowing was done, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that.
No, I was suggesting that I agree with “the three key witnesses for the prosecution that no one understood what had happened with the $8B in fiat deposits until it had already happened”—I wasn’t talking about all borrowing.
I don’t see how the terms of service are even relevant to claims about fraud against investors/lenders. That’s ~$3B on those counts alone.
Maybe, but people have a tendency to lump these different figures together (as it looks like you just did wrt AR’s borrowing) and I don’t think that’s helpful when trying to figure out what exactly FTX did wrong. Why shouldn’t we look at them one by one?
Besides, surely the weaker the case for fraud against customers, the more honest FTX’s self-representation would appear to be, and so the weaker the case for fraud against investors/lenders?
No, I was suggesting that I agree with “the three key witnesses for the prosecution that no one understood what had happened with the $8B in fiat deposits until it had already happened”—I wasn’t talking about all borrowing.
Maybe, but people have a tendency to lump these different figures together (as it looks like you just did wrt AR’s borrowing) and I don’t think that’s helpful when trying to figure out what exactly FTX did wrong. Why shouldn’t we look at them one by one?
Besides, surely the weaker the case for fraud against customers, the more honest FTX’s self-representation would appear to be, and so the weaker the case for fraud against investors/lenders?