This is CZ tweet that makes me wonder: Regarding FTT, it's a token that was used as collateral of Alameda. Both FTX and Alameda seem to be insolvent. I don't see how the token would have survived, with or without Binance liquidation. Then why should a company hold an asset issued by a competitor that they deem insolvent?
SBF attacked Binance in a failed liquidation scheme back in 2019. CZ found out who was behind it. Now he got his revenge when he saw an opening for counter-attack. Also, it comes to light now, that SBF was doing this to other exchanges as well, then later comes in as a hero.
Except FTX wasn't insolvent before Binance dumped FTT. That's why I asked was there any evidence that FTX was already insolvent or in trouble before the dumping? Unless there was, it's Binance's dumping of FTX's proprietary crypto that precipitated the downfall and created its insolvency. FTT is different from LUNA which was a widely traded crypto and was failing due to a reason that was beyond the control of or could be caused by Binance so if Binance wanted to control its exposure to LUNA due to LUNA's potential risk, that's understandable. But like I said before, FTT is different, one, it didn't have an active market; FTX and Binance were the only two holders of that crypto, so Binance knew it has direct control over the fate of the coin and FTX which held the majority of the holding according to that coindesk article. Second, Binance was not aware of any potential risk to FTT or any risk of FTX's insolvency before that coindesk article. If it had, why didn't it start selling before the publication of that coindesk article? Was it any coincidence that it started dumping FTT immediately after the publication of that article? I thought not. So there was no any "post-exit" risk, only risk that Binance's pre-emptive "exit" created by itself. Nice try by Binance in trying to spin this one. No he is not getting out of this and shouldn't. Like I said, what Binance did is in violation of numerous security laws and security regulatory bodies should look into what Binance did more closely.
Did they do anything illegal selling FTT? They owned, they sold it. So AFAIK no. I don't see FTX crying manipulation. Unless you know different, what is your point?
Are you saying that FTX was not insolvent because Binance held the lifeline of their ponzi scheme, so it's binance fault because they let the ponzi crumble? Were they solvent because of the value of a token they created?
Yes. Please read my previous post below: So it's fine that the robber gets away with it just because the victim who got robbed didn't complain? LOL This is for SEC to investigate and prosecute Binance. Please see my first paragraph above.[/QUOTE]
Please provide evidence that FTX was involved in a ponzi scheme. And please provide independent evidence, not Binance's own PR spin that proves that FTX was insolvent BEFORE Binance's fuck-over.
Not going to reopen prior multiple posts just to find out whether you believe CZ did anything illegal. Restate it, otherwise we can just move on.
1x10 ratio assets to liabilities (see below) screams of Ponzi. (Bloomberg) Crypto whipsaw Major cryptocurrencies bounced after Binance Chief Executive Officer Changpeng Zhao said the world’s largest digital-asset exchange plans to set up an industry recovery fund. That comes after a tumultuous weekend for rival FTX, which was once seen as among the best-run exchanges but has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Worrying details that have emerged include the fact that just before filing for bankruptcy, FTX Trading International held just $900 million in liquid assets against $9 billion of liabilities, according to sources familiar with the matter.
I don't have evidence, does anyone? it's just opinions. Maybe is not a ponzi and it's just a billion dollars fraud. Can you provide any evidence of the contrary? Chapter 11 speaks for itself.