Given how fast crypto markets can move, I think this is liable to be quite time-sensitive?
Additionally, in terms of consumer confidence in FTX, I imagine the brand impact of “FTX withdrawals didn’t work for 48 hours” is fairly different from that of “FTX withdrawals didn’t work for 3 weeks”.
I used to interview software engineers for a living. Something I noticed often in interviews: “stress-induced tunnel vision”. The candidate being interviewed would react to the pressure of the interview by going depth-first when they should’ve gone breadth-first in their problem solving.
On the other hand, John Cleese did this great talk about how a relaxed frame of mind is key for creativity.
The FTX team has more information than we do. (I don’t think I understand what’s going on myself.) But they are probably also very stressed out.
If they’re stressed in a way that impairs lateral thinking, the idea of talking to Dustin Moskovitz might not have occurred to them. Even if it did, this thread could surface considerations that relevant parties hadn’t thought of.
More generally, if EAs outside FTX are less stressed out, they might be better positioned to think of an idea out of left field that saves the company. IMO, for the next 48 hours we should be “all hands on deck”, brainstorming ideas to save FTX (assuming they don’t object). Seems like it’s worth a try at least.
SBF was reportedly ringing about the billionaire world yesterday asking for emergency funds. Coinbase was definitely approached to see if they’d buy FTX: their CEO has confirmed this. If Binance are the only ones buying (maybe, perhaps unlikely the deal actually goes through) it’s because no one is touching this hot garbage even with a fifty foot bargepole.
It seems likely SBF rang Moskovitz if he also rang the founder of Coinbase.
@Lorenzo I agree with John there is some value in debating this, this question is not meant as speculation. We know FTX wants to be bought and we are merely debating whether Dustin could be a buyer. Having someone EA related buy out/help another EA related company or person could be high EV, especially if you consider this a hostile takeover from Binance.
Trying to brainstorm… I noticed this tweet from CZ, which states:
We gave support before, but we won’t pretend to make love after divorce. We are not against anyone. But we won’t support people who lobby against other industry players behind their backs.
Maybe SBF can hire an apology coach (if that exists? I might know someone kinda like that actually—but someone SBF knows is probably better) and find it in his heart to apologize to CZ for “lobbying against other industry players behind their backs”, and anything else he may have done that CZ resents? Is there a way FTX can, legally or otherwise, commit to avoid lobbying CZ dislikes in the future?
It’d be a shame if humanity’s future was derailed due to our oversized egos...
Given how fast crypto markets can move, I think this is liable to be quite time-sensitive?
Additionally, in terms of consumer confidence in FTX, I imagine the brand impact of “FTX withdrawals didn’t work for 48 hours” is fairly different from that of “FTX withdrawals didn’t work for 3 weeks”.
I think it’s very likely that the people involved are aware of this, and have a lot more information than we do.
Also I don’t see how discussing this on the forum would help, given that it’s not action relevant for us.
I used to interview software engineers for a living. Something I noticed often in interviews: “stress-induced tunnel vision”. The candidate being interviewed would react to the pressure of the interview by going depth-first when they should’ve gone breadth-first in their problem solving.
On the other hand, John Cleese did this great talk about how a relaxed frame of mind is key for creativity.
The FTX team has more information than we do. (I don’t think I understand what’s going on myself.) But they are probably also very stressed out.
If they’re stressed in a way that impairs lateral thinking, the idea of talking to Dustin Moskovitz might not have occurred to them. Even if it did, this thread could surface considerations that relevant parties hadn’t thought of.
More generally, if EAs outside FTX are less stressed out, they might be better positioned to think of an idea out of left field that saves the company. IMO, for the next 48 hours we should be “all hands on deck”, brainstorming ideas to save FTX (assuming they don’t object). Seems like it’s worth a try at least.
SBF was reportedly ringing about the billionaire world yesterday asking for emergency funds. Coinbase was definitely approached to see if they’d buy FTX: their CEO has confirmed this. If Binance are the only ones buying (maybe, perhaps unlikely the deal actually goes through) it’s because no one is touching this hot garbage even with a fifty foot bargepole.
It seems likely SBF rang Moskovitz if he also rang the founder of Coinbase.
@Lorenzo I agree with John there is some value in debating this, this question is not meant as speculation. We know FTX wants to be bought and we are merely debating whether Dustin could be a buyer. Having someone EA related buy out/help another EA related company or person could be high EV, especially if you consider this a hostile takeover from Binance.
Trying to brainstorm… I noticed this tweet from CZ, which states:
Maybe SBF can hire an apology coach (if that exists? I might know someone kinda like that actually—but someone SBF knows is probably better) and find it in his heart to apologize to CZ for “lobbying against other industry players behind their backs”, and anything else he may have done that CZ resents? Is there a way FTX can, legally or otherwise, commit to avoid lobbying CZ dislikes in the future?
It’d be a shame if humanity’s future was derailed due to our oversized egos...
Even if that has extremely low odds of working that seems like it could be worth a try. Ego’s have caused many catastrophe’s before.