That is easy. Every new coin operates as a ponzi, so their FTT was one. Did I do well? It wasn't the ponzi part that brought them down, it was the unsecured loans, the slushing of money between companies and such frauds that did them in.
Well it looks like we will see a book from Michael Lewis on the FTX fiasco. One of the greatest financial writers alive has been embedded with FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried for 6 months and has a book on the way https://fortune.com/2022/11/13/michael-lewis-ftx-sam-bankman-fried-crypto-book-movie-deal/ Michael Lewis’ next book is about FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, and the best-selling author has been embedded with the disgraced crypto mogul for the past six months. That’s according to reporting from The Ankler on Sunday. Lewis, of course, has seen several of his books turned into movies. For instance Moneyball, starring Brad Pitt, was based on the author’s 2003 Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. The location of Bankman-Fried has been a matter of intense interest this weekend, after he resigned as FTX’s CEO on Friday as it declared bankruptcy. Many in the crypto world speculated that he fled on a private jet to Argentina, but he replied to a Reuters journalist on that with a simple “nope” via text message. Bloomberg reporting now suggests he’s in the Bahamas, where FTX is based. Either way, his rapid rise and sudden fall feels like movie material, and many are wondering who will get the rights to the story. If an author of Lewis’ stature has been embedded with Bankman-Fried, that’s big news not only in book publishing, but in Hollywood, too. At the center of The Ankler’s reporting is an email it says it obtained from Matthew Snyder, an agent at Creative Artists Agency (CAA) in Los Angeles. Snyder reportedly sent the email to potential buyers on Friday. According to The Ankler, the email reads: “For the past six months or so, Michael has been traveling with and interviewing Sam Bankman-Fried. His childhood, early success at Wall Street, embrace the effective altruism and the creation of a crypto empire that catapulted him in record time into the ranks of the richest people in the world seemed more than sufficient for a signature Michael Lewis book. “Of course, the events of the past week have provided a dramatic surprise ending of the story. It also highlighted the rivalry between Bankman-Fried and Binance head Chnagpeng Zhao. Michael Lewis likens them to the Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader of crypto. “Michael hasn’t written anything yet, but the story has become too big for us to wait. “Let me know if I’ve piqued your interest.” It seems unlikely Bankman-Fried will be viewed as a Skywalker-type hero after the events of this week, but his rivalry with Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, founder and CEO of crypto exchange Binance, is well established. Last weekend, a tweet from from the Binance CEO that he was dumping FTX-linked coins helped spark a wave of withdrawal requests from FTX customers. Concern about FTX’s solvency spread quickly. Binance signed a letter of intent to acquire FTX, then backed out just a day later, stating that the company’s issues “are beyond our control or ability to help.” By week’s end FTX declared bankruptcy. “At some point I might have more to say about a particular sparring partner, so to speak,” Bankman-Fried said in a 22-tweet thread on Thursday. “But you know, glass houses. So for now, all I’ll say is: well played; you won.” Dramatic stuff, indeed.
I already answered my question in my previous post. I know you didn't read it so I reposted it here. Not going to say the same thing. You don't want to read it, then you move on.
A simple yes or not would suffice. Instead you got afflicted with keyboard diarrhea. Thanks but no thanks.
But they weren't bankrupt before Binance decided to dump their FTT over. I asked the same question again and again and nobody could attest that they were in trouble before. So what if Binance left it alone and didn't sell? FTX would still be standing. And Binance only sold AFTER that coindesk article revealing that FTX held the majority holding of FTT. If that coindesk article didn't get published or didn't reveal that information, would Binance have sold? No because Binance didn't sell before the article, only after. It's not like FTX only had majority holding of FTT after the coindesk article; it held it since long time ago. Whatever risk that Binance was concerned about has always existed. WHY didn't Binance sell before if it was so concerned about "risk"? The only answer you can get is Binance wasn't concerned about whatever "risk"; it's in the same shit as FTX. Why would it be concerned about "risk"? LOL It was just being an a$$hole and just wanted to fuck FTX over.
Well if you have a brain, you would've deduced whether the answer is yes or no from my post. My post is not really long if you know how to read. LOL Anyway I am moving on.
And in fact I have already answered with a "Yes" or "No" in my response. It just shows you really didn't read it. And it has nothing to do with the length of the post. LOL
While you talk about the crypto ponzi shit show, central banks buy gold. Slowly, fast, desperately.... They believe in only one asset. Gold.
You will find that ratio in many companies' financial statements especially the ones from China. LOL So you confirm that all Chinese companies are Ponzi schemes then? Exactly. FTX was "once seen as among the best-run exchanges". How could one of the best-run exchanges declare bankruptcy overnight if they didn't get sabotaged? High debt-to-asset ratio just shows perhaps a bit imprudent financial management practices but then again maybe FTX spent too much on running a good exchange by taking on debts. Did this "source familiar with the matter" elaborate as to what the liabilities were incurred for? I will only believe this "industry recovery fund" when I see one. The a$$hole also promised that he would donate 99% of his wealth and so far that hasn't happened either. So far the SOB is all talks but no real shit.
Well the fact that FTX didn't file for Chapter 11 before Binance fucked it over speaks for itself. You are the one who says it's not so; the company was bad already before the fuck-over. So you are the one who needs to provide evidence to prove that.