As you’ve linked me to this comment elsewhere, I’ll respond.
I’m not sure why EAs who knew about Caroline and Sam dating would have felt the need to ‘disclose’ this? (Unless they already suspected the fraud but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that anyone did?)
Sam and FTX seem about as frugal as I’d expect for an insanely profitable business and an intention to give away the vast majority of tens of billions of dollars, too frugal if anything (although I actually think my disagreeing with you here is a point in favour of your broader argument—the more Sam splurged on luxuries, the less it looks like he was motivated by any kind of altruism)
What financial and other support did FTX receive after the early Alameda split by people who were ‘warned’? (There may well be a substantial amount, I just don’t think I’ve heard of any.) I’ll note, though, that it’s easy to see as ‘warnings’ now what at the time could have just looked like a messy divorce.
Admittedly I don’t know much about how these things work, but yet again this looks like hindsight bias to me. Would this have been a priority for you if you had no idea what was coming? If the firewalling was delayed for whatever reason, would you have refused to award grants until it had been? Perhaps. But I don’t think it’s obvious. Also wouldn’t they still be vulnerable to clawbacks in any case?
Again, I just don’t think I know anything about this. In fact I don’t think I knew Sam was under government investigation before November. I’d be curious if you had details to share, especially regarding how serious the allegations were at the time and which meetings he was invited to.
1 - it’s because Sam was publicly claiming that the trading platform and the traders were completely firewalled from one another, and had no special info, as would normally (e.g. in the US) be legally required to make trading fair, but which is impossible if the CEOs are dating
2 - I’m not objecting the spending. It was clear at the time that he was promoting an image of frugality that wasn’t accurate. One example here, but there are many more.
3 - A lot of different Alameda people warned some people at the time of the split. For a variety of reasons, I believe that those who were more involved would have been warned commensurately more than I was (someone who was barely involved).
4 - Perhaps, but it is negligent not to follow this rule, when you’re donating money from an offshore crypto exchange.
5 - I’m just going off recollection, but I believe he was under serious-sounding US govt investigation.
1 - Oh I see. So who knew that Sam and Caroline continued to date while claiming that FTX and Alameda were completely separate?
2 - You link to a video of a non-EA saying that Sam drives a corolla and also has a shot of his very expensive-looking apartment...what about this is misleading or inaccurate? What did you expect the EAs you have in mind to ‘disclose’ - that FTX itself wasn’t frugal? Was anyone claiming it was? Would anyone expect it to have been? Could you share some of your many actual examples?
3 - (I don’t think you’ve addressed anything I said in this section, so perhaps we should just leave it there.)
4 - Perhaps, but as I indicated, it looks like it wouldn’t have made much difference anyway.
5 - (Okay, it looks like we should just leave this one there too.)
As you’ve linked me to this comment elsewhere, I’ll respond.
I’m not sure why EAs who knew about Caroline and Sam dating would have felt the need to ‘disclose’ this? (Unless they already suspected the fraud but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that anyone did?)
Sam and FTX seem about as frugal as I’d expect for an insanely profitable business and an intention to give away the vast majority of tens of billions of dollars, too frugal if anything (although I actually think my disagreeing with you here is a point in favour of your broader argument—the more Sam splurged on luxuries, the less it looks like he was motivated by any kind of altruism)
What financial and other support did FTX receive after the early Alameda split by people who were ‘warned’? (There may well be a substantial amount, I just don’t think I’ve heard of any.) I’ll note, though, that it’s easy to see as ‘warnings’ now what at the time could have just looked like a messy divorce.
Admittedly I don’t know much about how these things work, but yet again this looks like hindsight bias to me. Would this have been a priority for you if you had no idea what was coming? If the firewalling was delayed for whatever reason, would you have refused to award grants until it had been? Perhaps. But I don’t think it’s obvious. Also wouldn’t they still be vulnerable to clawbacks in any case?
Again, I just don’t think I know anything about this. In fact I don’t think I knew Sam was under government investigation before November. I’d be curious if you had details to share, especially regarding how serious the allegations were at the time and which meetings he was invited to.
1 - it’s because Sam was publicly claiming that the trading platform and the traders were completely firewalled from one another, and had no special info, as would normally (e.g. in the US) be legally required to make trading fair, but which is impossible if the CEOs are dating
2 - I’m not objecting the spending. It was clear at the time that he was promoting an image of frugality that wasn’t accurate. One example here, but there are many more.
3 - A lot of different Alameda people warned some people at the time of the split. For a variety of reasons, I believe that those who were more involved would have been warned commensurately more than I was (someone who was barely involved).
4 - Perhaps, but it is negligent not to follow this rule, when you’re donating money from an offshore crypto exchange.
5 - I’m just going off recollection, but I believe he was under serious-sounding US govt investigation.
1 - Oh I see. So who knew that Sam and Caroline continued to date while claiming that FTX and Alameda were completely separate?
2 - You link to a video of a non-EA saying that Sam drives a corolla and also has a shot of his very expensive-looking apartment...what about this is misleading or inaccurate? What did you expect the EAs you have in mind to ‘disclose’ - that FTX itself wasn’t frugal? Was anyone claiming it was? Would anyone expect it to have been? Could you share some of your many actual examples?
3 - (I don’t think you’ve addressed anything I said in this section, so perhaps we should just leave it there.)
4 - Perhaps, but as I indicated, it looks like it wouldn’t have made much difference anyway.
5 - (Okay, it looks like we should just leave this one there too.)