Yeah, it’s naive when people readily believe things that could easily be verified but aren’t. That’s why I’m a proponent of what this Lw user calls adversarial epistemology.
Wild guess they were covered at least partially by ftt token (ftx crypto token), which declined significantly in value (especially when CZ sold $500 million). How could anyone afford to pay interest on deposits while also fully covering the deposits? (Noncrypto banks have FDIC insurance) (Also as already mentioned some FTX assets were illiquid)
Sure. Certainly I don’t understand how assets can both have been covered but then they needed to be bought out by binance.
Potentially held in less liquid forms? So it could be difficult to get the money out fast enough.
If so, why not just point to the wallets and say “the money is here but it’s just gonna be slow to access”?
Yeah, it’s naive when people readily believe things that could easily be verified but aren’t. That’s why I’m a proponent of what this Lw user calls adversarial epistemology.
That’s a fractional reserve scheme—they said they were carrying it all in untouched accounts.
Is there any way that could possibly be true, given the events of the last few days?
I assume not, no.
Wild guess they were covered at least partially by ftt token (ftx crypto token), which declined significantly in value (especially when CZ sold $500 million). How could anyone afford to pay interest on deposits while also fully covering the deposits? (Noncrypto banks have FDIC insurance) (Also as already mentioned some FTX assets were illiquid)