Iâm confused why this is down voted. It factually is challenging to find information about what FTX actually did (see e.g. the lengthy arguments in this market), and the question appears to be asked in good faith.
Iâd have found it okay if the question had explicitly asked for just good summaries of the trial coverage or the sentencing report.
(E.g., thereâs the twitter handle Inner city press that was tweeting transcript summaries of every day on trial, or the Carl Reilly youtube channel for daily summaries of the trial. And thereâs the more recent sentencing report that someone here linked to.)
Instead, the question came across as though thereâs maybe a mystery here for which we need the collective smarts and wisdom of the EA forum.
There are people who do trial coverage for a living whoâve focused on this case. EAs are no longer best-positioned to opine on this, so itâs a bit weird to imply that this is an issue that EAs should discuss (as though itâs the early days of Covid or the immediate aftermath of FTX, when the EA forum arguably had some interesting alpha).
Itâs also distracting.
I think part of what made me not like this question is that OP admits on the one hand that they struggled with finding good info on Google, but then they still give their own summary about what theyâve found so far. Why give these half-baked takes if youâre just a not-yet-well-informed person whoâs struggled to find good summaries? It feels like âdiscussion baiting.â
Now, if someone did think that SBF/âFTX didnât do anything illegal, I think that could be worth discussing, but it should start with a high-quality post where someone demonstrates that theyâve done their homework and have good reasons for disagreeing with those who have followed the trial coverage and concluded, like the jury, that SBF/âFTX engaged in fraud.
I think the tone I wrote it in gave the impression that I was saying âI donât see how what they did is illegalâ rather than âwhat did they do that was illegalâ. I try and avoid that kind of thing next time.
I asked this question on the EA Forum just because EA is why Iâm interested in the story, and I trust the EA Forum to produce good discussion that gets to heart of what Iâm interested in, compared to the only other place where I know I can ask a direct question, which is Reddit. Any implication that there was still a mystery to be figured out was accidental.
As for the half-baked takesâactually I donât think I gave any. None of what I said was an opinion it was simply an account of the easily findable facts.
Iâm confused why this is down voted. It factually is challenging to find information about what FTX actually did (see e.g. the lengthy arguments in this market), and the question appears to be asked in good faith.
Agree, I suspect most people downvoted it because they inferred it was a leading question.
I downvoted the question.
Iâd have found it okay if the question had explicitly asked for just good summaries of the trial coverage or the sentencing report.
(E.g., thereâs the twitter handle Inner city press that was tweeting transcript summaries of every day on trial, or the Carl Reilly youtube channel for daily summaries of the trial. And thereâs the more recent sentencing report that someone here linked to.)
Instead, the question came across as though thereâs maybe a mystery here for which we need the collective smarts and wisdom of the EA forum.
There are people who do trial coverage for a living whoâve focused on this case. EAs are no longer best-positioned to opine on this, so itâs a bit weird to imply that this is an issue that EAs should discuss (as though itâs the early days of Covid or the immediate aftermath of FTX, when the EA forum arguably had some interesting alpha).
Itâs also distracting.
I think part of what made me not like this question is that OP admits on the one hand that they struggled with finding good info on Google, but then they still give their own summary about what theyâve found so far. Why give these half-baked takes if youâre just a not-yet-well-informed person whoâs struggled to find good summaries? It feels like âdiscussion baiting.â
Now, if someone did think that SBF/âFTX didnât do anything illegal, I think that could be worth discussing, but it should start with a high-quality post where someone demonstrates that theyâve done their homework and have good reasons for disagreeing with those who have followed the trial coverage and concluded, like the jury, that SBF/âFTX engaged in fraud.
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation.
I think the tone I wrote it in gave the impression that I was saying âI donât see how what they did is illegalâ rather than âwhat did they do that was illegalâ. I try and avoid that kind of thing next time.
I asked this question on the EA Forum just because EA is why Iâm interested in the story, and I trust the EA Forum to produce good discussion that gets to heart of what Iâm interested in, compared to the only other place where I know I can ask a direct question, which is Reddit. Any implication that there was still a mystery to be figured out was accidental.
As for the half-baked takesâactually I donât think I gave any. None of what I said was an opinion it was simply an account of the easily findable facts.