SBF is finding out


Every where I turn, there’s another interview with Sam Bankman-Fried. He’s been chattering away like a chimpanzee on meth to anyone who asks for a few minutes of his time.

Bankman-Fried has spent the past few weeks in his Bahamas estate, giving numerous interviews to reporters and making dozens of social media posts trying to explain how his company went from being one of the biggest and most-respected crypto exchanges to filing for bankruptcy after it could not meet its customers’ withdrawal requests. The company owes its top creditors $3 billion, according to bankruptcy filings, and investigators have sought answers on whether it used customer funds to lend money to Bankman-Fried’s investment arm, Alameda Research.

Bankman-Fried has said he made grave mistakes but has denied any malicious wrongdoing.

Yeah, “mistakes”. Is that what we call gross negligence, incompetence, and profiteering? Sure. “Mistakes.”

All those “mistakes” are adding up to this result:

Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX, was arrested Monday in the Bahamas after U.S. prosecutors filed an indictment against him.

Good.

Comments

  1. lochaber says

    Like Bernie Madoff, his mistake was that he stole from some very rich people. If he kept his grifting to lower-income folk, pension funds and such, he probably wouldn’t have been arrested.

  2. says

    So crowdsourcing pyramid schemes turns out to be a pyramid scheme. Remember the old days when there was only one pyramid in the pyramid scheme? Makes me miss Amway. NFTs and Crypto have ushered in a whole new world of scams.

  3. John Morales says

    Ray, that’s not how it worked.
    Basically, funds were misspent on property and luxuries and improper loans and ridiculous sponsorships, but the crux was the use of depositor’s funds (contrary to the terms of service) for speculative investments and for propping up Alameda.

    So, a fraud, but not fundamentally a pyramid scheme.

  4. drsteve says

    So to be clear: 1) crypto is in practice fundamentally a pyramid scheme, but 2) the whole FTX/Alameda thing was a more straightforward fraud built on the side of the pyramid.
    From which it follows that: 3) Binance and the other remaining bricks in the pyramid are very pleased right about now with how the fallout from 2 is helping distract from 1.

  5. Larry says

    Ken Lay, ENRON: Mistakes were made
    Bernie Madoff: Mistakes were made
    Karl Milken: Mistakes were made
    Ivan Boesky: Mistakes were made
    Charles Keating: Mistakes were made

    Different tune, same fucking song.

  6. says

    @ John
    So what you’re saying is it IS a pyramid scheme, but homeboy decided to stack another scam on top of the pyramid, but the pyramid was so pointy if fell over? You say crypto, I hear “pyramid scheme”. That simple. One thing we can all agree on though, we LOVE seeing grifters locked up.

  7. StevoR says

    @ ^ vereverum : Who? Does wikicheck :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Tarlek

    Ok – but seems that character shows :

    “.. flashes of integrity and ingenuity. When he discovered that a diet pill he has sold advertising space for had resulted in a teenager being hospitalized, he immediately went on the air to denounce the product and announce that the station would no longer run their ads. In another instance, when Carlson pulled out of a planned series of musical ads for a funeral home, Herb remembered that the station still owned the rights to the jingle and he re-wrote the lyrics to fit an ad campaign for a local tire store.”

    Which I don’t think SBF has really shown.

  8. lanir says

    Sure, mistakes. I mean, we were told Roy Moore assaulting teenage girls when he was in his 30’s was a youthful indiscretion, too. And I guess when most of the people in power seem to be in their 70’s maybe it is, if only by comparison. But it’s all just desperate attempts at PR long after anyone has any reason to buy into that BS.

  9. gijoel says

    A lot of what drives these techbros seems to be more egotism than intelligence or vision.

    Maybe he and Elizabeth Holmes can share a cell in the sooper-dooper minimum security prison they’ll be sent to.

  10. silvrhalide says

    I see Christmas came early this year. The gift of warm fuzziness as this entitled turd goes down in flames.

    “The Bahamas may be a place people go to get shelter and try to avoid getting dragged back to their home country,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law. “But the Southern District of New York is the gold standard, and if they’re on this, I think it’s unlikely the Bahamas can get one past them for too long.”

    @1 Getting indicted by the Southern District of New York is the business district in Manhattan–Wall Street. SEC might be going after the little idiot now but I bet that the Fed and possibly the IRS will move in for their pound of flesh. Civil suits by various Wall Street entities are a real possibility too.

  11. John Morales says

    Ray @9,

    @ John
    So what you’re saying is it IS a pyramid scheme, but homeboy decided to stack another scam on top of the pyramid, but the pyramid was so pointy if fell over? You say crypto, I hear “pyramid scheme”.

    No. Subject is SBF’s role.

    FTX was supposed to be a trading platform, where users put funds which were then traded by FTX on their behalf. Under the terms of service, those funds would not be used for any other purposes. But they did.
    So, two trading companies, neither of which were a pyramid scheme.

    Anyway. Whether or not cryptocurrency is a pyramid scheme is not of relevance; one entity (FTX) was supposed to use customers’ money only for customer-initiated trades and the other (Alameda) was a hedge fund — quantitative trading. Speculative.

    Basically, it was the business practices that were the problem, not that which was traded. It could have been any commodity other than crypto, and the result would have been similar. Naive (but self-centred and greedy) management with basically no record-keeping or risk management. Good while it lasted, I guess.

    The amazing thing is how otherwise-wise (heh) venture capital firms and other investors got sucked-in despite all the red flags, not that the scam came tumbling down.

  12. jo1storm says

    @John Morales

    You are technically correct, the best kind of correct. It wasn’t a pyramid scheme it was a Ponzi scheme that used multiple pyramid schemes as “international reply coupons” it was hawking to rubes to make it seem legitimate.
    Sam described it as such himself in an interview more than 7 months ago.

  13. chrislawson says

    @14– the capital firms and investors are, with few exceptions, just as gullible as anyone else. I read an interview with a clinical scientist who had been sent by his boss to look into Theranos. Initially skeptical of the claims on basic scientific grounds, he still gave Theranos a chance. After they repeatedly refused to answer his questions he was suspicous. After the third visit where he had turned up for a tour of the facilities only to be told that his tour had been cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances (so unforeseen they hadn’t even had time to call him!), he knew he was being railroaded, which meant Theranos was a scam. He reported all this to his boss…who invested millions in Theranos anyway because he didn’t want to miss out!

    More examples, including professional investors buying in despite Elizaberh Holmes repeatedly refusing to send them the essential financial infomation they requested: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/technology/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-investors-diligence.html

  14. chrislawson says

    Oh, and the best evidence of Theranos’s duplicity? When they started to get critical media coverage, they went to Hill + Knowlton.

  15. drsteve says

    Since the beginning of the summer I’ve been telling everyone I know with an interest in the sociopolitical impacts of Silicon Valley culture to check out the book System Error: Where Big Tech Went Wrong and How We Can Reboot, by Rob Reich, Mehran Sahami, and Jeremy Weinstein, which grew out of an undergrad seminar they’ve developed and taught over the last eight or ten years or so.

    Like I was saying just yesterday to a friend who’s now using his Stanford law degree working for Google, it makes me feel slightly better to know that future fellow Stanford alumni will have been grappling with these questions and having these discussions.

  16. whywhywhy says

    I guess I am a bit confused. Within weeks to months SBF has gone from rich wunderkind to sitting in jail in the Bahamas. Meanwhile the Trump family is still free and ‘makin deals’. Why? I often hear that financial crimes are complicated and take a great deal of time to build a case that will hold up in court. OK, why were folks able to move so quickly with SBF?

    Seems like we have Trump’s own words in so many instances describing his criminal actions. We have national security implications. We have major investigations of obstruction and convicted co-conspirators in prison.
    Is it simply that Trump has bribed the right folks and primarily runs cons that rip off middle class folks? Whereas SBF ripped off rich people? Am I being too cynical?

  17. silvrhalide says

    @23 The difference is that SBF has literally no real assets, nothing that can be seized in compensation or for debt repayment. Mango Moron, on the other hand, has actual assets, mostly valuable real estate, that can in fact be seized to pay off debts, fines, to make restitution, etc. The real problem with the latter is that there are so many claimants for what will undoubtedly be a much smaller pie than previously advertised (by the Mango Moron). This necessitates careful claim-building, lawsuits, etc.

    And yes, the fact that Chump ripped off working class and middle class people certainly is a factor. SBF’s Ponzi scheme has the ability to destabilize Wall Street. Chump will hurt some European banks and Russian oligarchs but that’s about it. No American bank has given him a loan in decades, because he kept declaring bankruptcy. That’s why he got private loans from Russian oligarchs.

  18. silvrhalide says

    @25 SBF’s parents own the property or properties, not SBF. They are both Stanford law professors. Do you honestly think that their names wound up on the deed(s) to the property/ies by accident? They knew damn well what they were doing, which is why THEIR names, not SBF’s, are on the deeds.
    No, the parents will have legally rendered their properties untouchable by the legal system, at least as far as their son’s financial problems are concerned.

    Even if the parents’ properties were seized, so what? SBF lost billions in investor money alone, never mind about legal fees, fines, penalties, etc. He owes 3 billion just to his top creditors alone. $300 million is the equivalent of the loose change you find in the sofa cushions, literally pennies on the dollar. It isn’t going to make anyone hurt by this whole.

  19. John Morales says

    silvrhalide:

    Even if the parents’ properties were seized, so what?
    […]
    $300 million is the equivalent of the loose change you find in the sofa cushions

    So, it is not the case that there are literally no assets available.

    Also, from my cited source: “A spokesperson for his parents, both Stanford University law professors, previously told Reuters that they had been trying to return the deeds to the company “since before the bankruptcy proceedings.””

    Basically, he owns the vast bulk of both FTX and Alameda and therefore their assets, though he is no longer CEO. And the hundreds of millions spent on real estate are definitely assets that can be seized.

  20. silvrhalide says

    @27 ““A spokesperson for his parents, both Stanford University law professors, previously told Reuters that they had been trying to return the deeds to the company “since before the bankruptcy proceedings.”””

    How hard were they trying?
    You’re telling me that two Stanford law professors couldn’t figure out a way to give the properties they legally own to their son’s company? Before the shit hit the fan? Really? Now I’m wondering how their students ever manage to pass the bar. Or how these two manage to remain employed as law professors at Stanford.

    “he owns the vast bulk of both FTX and Alameda and therefore their assets, though he is no longer CEO. And the hundreds of millions spent on real estate are definitely assets that can be seized.”

    So SBF is the majority shareholder in two worthless and bankrupt companies.
    BTW, there’s hundreds of millions spent on real estate but that doesn’t mean that you will be able to sell those properties quickly or recoup the price of buying them in the first place. Like anything else, a salable object is worth only what people are willing to pay for it. And the real estate market has been cooling off for awhile now, due to the global recession.

    And if you believe any of the BF’s BS, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. It’s a great investment opportunity.

  21. John Morales says

    silvrhalide:

    You’re telling me that two Stanford law professors couldn’t figure out a way to give the properties they legally own to their son’s company?

    No, I’m telling you that’s what they are claiming to the press, not what I am claiming.

    And if you believe any of the BF’s BS [blah]

    Whatever made you imagine I believed any of his claims?

    Just pointing out that, however it pans out, he is not “literally” without any assets whatsoever.

    (For example, among many other thingies, there was a $1B personal loan to himself)

  22. jo1storm says

    @John Morales

    “No, I’m telling you that’s what they are claiming to the press, not what I am claiming.” No, that’s exactly what you are claiming else you wouldn’t be quoting them. See how that useless pedantry you are so fond of employing to pretend you are “the smartest guy in the room” works against you? And you are employing it always somebody uses the word literally. I guess it is pet peeve of yours. You are literally pedantic twit.

    “(For example, among many other thingies, there was a $1B personal loan to himself)” That’s not an asset, that is just another liability he is on the hook for. Because guess what the SBF had spent that loan on? It starts with C.

    He spent it on trying to prop up his Ponzi scheme by buying his crypto coin. Literally robbed Peter to pay Paul. Do you agree that he was running a Ponzi scheme at least?

  23. John Morales says

    jo1storm:

    “No, I’m telling you that’s what they are claiming to the press, not what I am claiming.” No, that’s exactly what you are claiming else you wouldn’t be quoting them.

    I didn’t quote them at all, and I only referred to them once they were referred to me; I only linked to the article within which the claim was summarised.

    (See, this is why I love arguing online instead of in person; I can point you to the actual comments as written to establish the evident veracity of my claims)

    See how that useless pedantry you are so fond of employing to pretend you are “the smartest guy in the room” works against you?

    To what putative pedantry do you refer?

    (I do love how this has become about me supposedly pretending to be smart, in your estimation — kinda telling that you perceive me thus)

    And you are employing it always somebody uses the word literally. I guess it is pet peeve of yours. You are literally pedantic twit.

    Heh. Sure, sometimes, when somebody writes ‘literally’ they may not be literally being literal.
    So, in your estimation, it is not the case that the claim “The difference is that SBF has literally no real assets” is not a literal use of ‘literally’, right?

    (I mean, only were that the case would it be the case (heh) that I had been pedantic)

    So. Since you appeal to my pedantry, and so as not to disappoint, here’s some for you:
    When you wrote “you are employing it [that useless pedantry you are so fond of] always somebody uses the word literally” (grammar aside), it literally means I have never failed to employ it.

    (How is that little niggle of yours advancing the subject at hand?)

    “(For example, among many other thingies, there was a $1B personal loan to himself)” That’s not an asset, that is just another liability he is on the hook for.

    Your cargo-cult style of understanding these things is apparent.

    An asset of Alameda and also a debt by the dude himself, who owns 90% of Alameda)

    He spent it on trying to prop up his Ponzi scheme by buying his crypto coin. Literally robbed Peter to pay Paul.

    Heh. No. Alameda (run by his ex-girlfriend — who was in a polyamorous relationship with 9 others including him in the super-luxurious accommodations they all shared) used FTX funds (mysteriously, he claims) to speculate.

    Do you agree that he was running a Ponzi scheme at least?

    Mmmm. Depends on how you define a Ponzi scheme, but it’s certainly not a classical one. The business was not set up as such, but it was functionally run as such. In particular, FTT was not a regular cryptocoin, but rather a… let’s say, cryptoscrip which could be traded on the market, but which could not directly buy stuff. It was the main modality of the wealth transfer.

    Where the money went isn’t that mysterious, either… Alameda’s speculative trading with FTX depositors’ money did not pan out well.

    (I summarised the case @4)

  24. jo1storm says

    “(I do love how this has become about me supposedly pretending to be smart, in your estimation — kinda telling that you perceive me thus)”

    Yes, I am perceiving that you are attempting to present yourself as the smartest man in the room. Enron’s guys were “smartest men in the room” too. Do you know the difference between trying to present yourself as something and actually being something?

    So, in your estimation, it is not the case that the claim “The difference is that SBF has literally no real assets” is not a literal use of ‘literally’, right?

    Correct. And in this specific case it is distinction without difference. He personally owns less than 0.1% of what he owes.

    The business was not set up as such, but it was functionally run as such.

    So he was running a Ponzi scheme. Good. Glad we agree on this.

    An asset of Alameda and also a debt by the dude himself, who owns 90% of Alameda)

    And Alameda is on the hook for how much? And 10% of Alameda is owned by who else?
    Its a shell game, simple as that. He loans money to himself that he doesn’t own 100% then he owes his money to himself and 10% others. And Alameda got the money from a lot of other people. So you are again being needlessly pedantic, because he is just shifting liabilities around. From his company liabilities (money the company owes to other people) to his personal liabilities (money he personally owes to other people) and back again and around and around we go.

    it literally means I have never failed to employ it.

    Exactly. I can almost set my alarm clock on you employing it every time somebody uses the word literally or practically in their reply to you or in their comment to any post.

  25. jo1storm says

    I mean, you could even model it as a shell game.
    Shell A, Shell B, Shell C. A is for Alameda, B is for Bankman Fried personally, C is for cryptocurrency exchange FTX.

    All are owned by the same guy, sloshing the money around. From B to A, from A to B, from B to C… So where did the bean go?

    Answer: In practical, functional terms, doesn’t matter, because the same guy is 90+% liable and “on the hook” for everything.

  26. John Morales says

    jo1storm, ah, the nostalgia.

    Yes, I am perceiving that you are attempting to present yourself as the smartest man in the room.

    Exactly.

    Enron’s guys were “smartest men in the room” too.

    You mean perceived as such, no? After all, it’s this weird perception of yours that’s the subject at hand.

    Do you know the difference between trying to present yourself as something and actually being something?

    Well, it’s more complicated than that; think about it: two two-state variables, so 4 combinations. That is to say, it’s quite possible for someone who is something to present themself as that something, though, admittedly, it is easier than for someone who is not said something to present themself as that something.

    (Of course, you’re still under the impression that I’m somehow “presenting myself” as smarter than I really am — that is, adopting a persona)

    Correct.

    Heh. Parse it again.

    (I did contradict myself, you know. Double negation is complicates stuff!)

    And Alameda is on the hook for how much? And 10% of Alameda is owned by who else?

    You do know you’re on the internet, right?

    Easy enough to find stuff; say, https://www.ft.com/content/c28e0570-d4c4-433c-b0a0-c99fba613822

    Exactly.

    Well, that’s quite the thesis.

    (So… how can you tell whether or not I’m being pedantic? :) )

  27. jo1storm says

    (I did contradict myself, you know. Double negation is complicates stuff!)

    No you didn’t. There is use of the word “literally” that means “in practical terms” and not literally literally. Only you sound as “valley girl” or a 90s kid if you use it too much.
    “Literally called me that. Totally radical dude!” etc. So I see no contradiction there.

    And Alameda is on the hook for how much? And 10% of Alameda is owned by who else?

    You do know you’re on the internet, right?

    And intentionally pretending to miss the point and ignoring everything after the previous sentence for trolling purposes. It doesn’t matter how much Alameda Research owns because Alameda is (90%) owned by the same guy. So liability is his any way you cut it. What Alameda owes SBF owes, although indirectly. Same goes for FTX.

    (So… how can you tell whether or not I’m being pedantic? :) )

    I have functioning eyes.

  28. John Morales says

    *shrugs *

    Sure. BTW, my #37 was a response to your comment which included the term which you assert I never (ever!) fail to address pedantically.

    Heh. Sour grapes indeed.

  29. jo1storm says

    Sure. BTW, my #37 was a response to your comment which included the term which you assert I never (ever!) fail to address pedantically.

    I literally know. So what, silly man?

  30. John Morales says

    So, your assertion has evidently been proven wrong.

    (Misplaced certitude; also, your sarcasm detector needs tuning)

  31. jo1storm says

    Misplaced certitude

    Still nitpicking. I see that I have literally failed to change the variable by observing it. Shucks.
    ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  32. jo1storm says

    Brought to you from the pro-crypto youtube channel called Altcoin Daily. In the tag of the video is literally this:
    “Coins I hold or will hold more than $1k worth (in no particular order): BTC, ETH, ADA, MINA, SUPER, FEAR, VPP, XCAD, FORM, REALM, XDEFI, ERN, OPUL, LINK, INJ, TRUST, NIF, VPAD, SENATE, SIDUS, CELL, GSG, DON, Itheum, BICO, SIS, METIS, CLS, GRT, ENV, BNB, GMPD, BREED, MSCP.”

    And to extra cover their ass:
    “This information is what was found publicly on the internet. This information could’ve been doctored or misrepresented by the internet. All information is meant for public awareness and is public domain. This information is not intended to slander harm or defame any of the actors involved but to show what was said through their social media accounts. Please take this information and do your own research.”

    On topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIzJaIbOh40

  33. John Morales says

    jo1storm, not often a chew-toy fails to realise their status.

    Still nitpicking.

    If pointing out the bleedingly obvious is considered “nitpicking”, I suppose so.

    (Also, I could not pick nits were there no nits to pick, right? ;) )

    BTW, you clearly have not seen the video itself; clearly, you think it merely some sort of opinion piece, rather than what it actually is — a window into the political fallout of this incident.

    (Do you even know which informal fallacy it is you just employed?)

  34. jo1storm says

    (Do you even know which informal fallacy it is you just employed?)

    Probably poisoning the well. I watched the video, it has pro-crypto spin and is doing a lot of cherry picking.

    <

    blockquote> If pointing out the bleedingly obvious is considered “nitpicking”, I suppose so.< /blockquote>
    Nah. :)

    not often a chew-toy fails to realise their status.

    True. Which is the realization I tried to force on you with my “And you are employing it always somebody uses the word literally. I guess it is pet peeve of yours. You are literally pedantic twit.” comment. But, as previously noticed, I failed.

  35. John Morales says

    jo1storm:

    Probably poisoning the well. I watched the video, it has pro-crypto spin and is doing a lot of cherry picking.

    Nah. It was straight-out argumentum ad hominem .

    Also, the overwhelming bulk of it was actual footage of the hearing, and the I personally found the section where AOC was questioning the liquidator rather informative. You know you can see the entire hearing should you care to, instead of the selection provided there. Several hours of it.

    True. Which is the realization I tried to force on you with my “And you are employing it always somebody uses the word literally.

    <snicker>

    But, as previously noticed, I failed.

    Heh. Tilting at windmills never ends well.

    (But I do like the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” vibe you exhibit)

  36. jo1storm says

    Nah. It was straight-out argumentum ad hominem .

    Potato, potatoe…
    Are you ignoring that I actually watched the video and written what I found wrong with it later? How can it be ad hominem if I am pointing somebody’s ideological position they themselves disclosed?

    Also, the overwhelming bulk of it was actual footage of the hearing, and the I personally found the section where AOC was questioning the liquidator rather informative. You know you can see the entire hearing should you care to, instead of the selection provided there. Several hours of it.

    Wrongly assuming that I didn’t do so already. How else would I know they were cherry picking? Thus my comment of:

    I watched the video, it has pro-crypto spin and is doing a lot of cherry picking.

    So, in short: Tc Tc Tc. Shame on you.

  37. John Morales says

    jo1storm:

    Potato, potatoe…

    Spoken like an ignoramus.
    Different things, they are, and not only terminologically.

    Are you ignoring that I actually watched the video and written what I found wrong with it later?

    You perceived it as being from a suspect source with an agenda and cherry-picked to (presumably) advocate for that agenda.

    So, what did you think of AOC’s thrust in the questioning, and of the responses thereto? No comment about that so far, though I myself did find it informative.

    Wrongly assuming that I didn’t do so already.

    I assume nothing other than that you are on the internet.
    Whether or not you have already seen it is not relevant to whether or not you can see it, should you choose to do so.

    (If you’re gonna pretend to logic, best to at least get the fundamentals right)

    How can it be ad hominem if I am pointing somebody’s ideological position they themselves disclosed?

    Your dismissal was on the basis of the source alone; only belatedly did you claim you’d watched it, and that there was bias and cherry-picking therein.

    (Obviously, can’t pick cherries where there are none, and having watched it, you know you don’t get single sentences or phrases, but the actual perorations and the questions and responses they elicited from a selection of pollies)

    So, in short: Tc Tc Tc. Shame on you.

    Heh. Your attempted onomatopoeia is on a par with your logic.

  38. jo1storm says

    You perceived it as being from a suspect source with an agenda and cherry-picked to (presumably) advocate for that agenda.

    Which is the correct assumption. Because despite

    the overwhelming bulk of it was actual footage of the hearing,

    it was interspersed with video author’s comment before the footage which tells you what to think about footage that will follow after the comment. Comments like “At this point in the hearing, AOC unleashes her conspiracy theory” and “Brad Sherman has spent his whole time grandstanding and not doing his job” and “Luckily, there were proper senators defending crypto”. I call that a spin and yes, poisoning the well.

    but the actual perorations and the questions and responses they elicited from a selection of pollies)

    Yes, but not all questions and responses, thus cherry picking by making a selection in the first place! That’s what cherry picking means! They are not harvesting all “cherries”, but picking and choosing.

  39. John Morales says

    jo1storm:

    I call that a spin and yes, poisoning the well.

    But the footage of the hearings was the footage of the hearings, neither spin nor poisoning the well. That’s called ‘content’, and is the relevant part.

    You know, your ad hoc ex post facto justifications are pretty evident; if only you’d made any of those claims @44!

    BTW, you still have not given any indication — other than your assertion — that you actually watched it. I did ask a question about its content, but you’ve conspicuously ignored it.

    (Fourth test you’ve failed, that is)

    Yes, but not all questions and responses, thus cherry picking by making a selection in the first place!

    Yeah, cherry-picking one which was anti-crypto, one which was pro-crypto, and one which was concerned with the malfeasance at hand.

    That’s what cherry picking means! They are not harvesting all “cherries”, but picking and choosing.

    So what cherries were left unpicked? What was in the hearings that made the bits that were featured be non-informative?

  40. jo1storm says

    But the footage of the hearings was the footage of the hearings, neither spin nor poisoning the well. That’s called ‘content’, and is the relevant part.

    No, the whole video is the content and relevant part. Like me telling someone before playing the debate “The guy with the green tie is smart, the one with the yellow tie is a blithering idiot and you shouldn’t listen to a word he says.”, you don’t think that would color people’s perceptions? And then interspersing the yellow tie’s talking points with “What an idiot!” and similar comments, like that won’t alter perception.

    You know, your ad hoc ex post facto justifications are pretty evident; if only you’d made any of those claims @44!

    Brevity is the heart of wit. I made my point succinctly.

    BTW, you still have not given any indication — other than your assertion — that you actually watched it. I did ask a question about its content, but you’ve conspicuously ignored it.

    I am not here to answer your questions. But here: What AOC says cannot be called conspiracy theory, more like reasonable assumptions from the data. People get rich, they try to influence local government. There are indications that SBF did just that.

    (Fourth test you’ve failed, that is)

    And I should care about bridge troll’s tests… why exactly?

    Yeah, cherry-picking one which was anti-crypto, one which was pro-crypto, and one which was concerned with the malfeasance at hand

    Removing all the context and actual arguments. The same way if I asked 20 people what is the moon dust made of, then put three answers presenting them as equal. Those answers being

    “Why do you care?! Doesn’t matter!”,

    “Lunar soil is composed of various types of particles including rock fragments, mono-mineralic fragments, and various kinds of glasses including agglutinate particles, volcanic and impact spherules.The agglutinates form at the lunar surface by micrometeorite impacts that cause small-scale melting which fuses adjacent materials together with tiny specks of elemental iron embedded in each dust particle’s glassy shell.Over time, material is mixed both vertically and horizontally (a process known as “gardening”) by impact processes. The contribution of material from external sources is relatively minor, such that the dirt composition at any given location largely reflects the local bedrock composition.”

    and “The Moon is made of cheese, therefore the moon dust is made from shredded cheese.”

    For the purpose of this example I am asking them at astronomy convention and 18 people gave the second answer. That’s called fake balance.

    So what cherries were left unpicked

    A lot of them, else the video would be longer than 4 hours long, like the original hearing.

    What was in the hearings that made the bits that were featured be non-informative?

    That’s beside the point I was making. They were incomplete and a pro-crypto spin was put onto them.

  41. John Morales says

    This is one of those endless ones, is it not? :)

    No worries, I’ll stop soon. Probably pissing PZ already, what with this blather.

    No, the whole video is the content and relevant part.

    A video well worth discussing over multiple comments, quite evidently.

    Brevity is the heart of wit. I made my point succinctly.

    Ah yes, it had a disclaimer and a set of tags.

    I am not here to answer your questions.

    Mmmhmm.

    What AOC says cannot be called conspiracy theory, more like reasonable assumptions from the data. People get rich, they try to influence local government. There are indications that SBF did just that.

    But those reasonable assumptions were a picked cherry, of course.

    And I should care about bridge troll’s tests… why exactly?

    Because you’re trying ever so desperately to suggest I’m trying to be the smartest person in the room.

    (Kinda easy for me, since I’m just me and you’re just you)

    A lot of them [unpicked cherries], else the video would be longer than 4 hours long, like the original hearing.

    Fifth one, that. Was a bit of a trick question.

    See, “cherry picking” refers to selecting bits from some body of work to form a narrative that are not representative of the of the actual thesis being advanced in order to misrepresent it.

    Clearly, what the thesis of the hearings that is being misrepresented is left to the imagination.

    That’s beside the point I was making. They were incomplete and a pro-crypto spin was put onto them.

    I see. You insinuated that the video was worthless based purely on its source and its disclaimer, but the point you intended to make was that it didn’t feature the entirety of the hearings and that you believe that pro-crypto spin was put on the featured bits, not that it had a particular source and it had a disclaimer.

    Heh.

  42. jo1storm says

    “cherry picking” refers to selecting bits from some body of work to form a narrative that are not representative of the of the actual thesis being advanced in order to misrepresent it.

    Clearly, what the thesis of the hearings that is being misrepresented is left to the imagination.

    Crypto-bro trying to misrepresent quantity and quality of actual arguments made during the hearing. Thus, cherry picking. There, I fixed it for you. No need for imagination.

    I see. You insinuated that the video was worthless based purely on its source and its disclaimer, but the point you intended to make was that it didn’t feature the entirety of the hearings and that you believe that pro-crypto spin was put on the featured bits, not that it had a particular source and it had a disclaimer.

    Why not both? The source itself is questionable, the content is as well. I addressed both the source and the content. What more do you want?

  43. John Morales says

    jo1storm:

    Crypto-bro trying to misrepresent quantity and quality of actual arguments made during the hearing. Thus, cherry picking.

    (sigh)

    Wikipedia: “Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.”

    No need for imagination.

    :)

    Why not both?

    You tell me; it was your post @44.

    What more do you want?

    I’m not the needy one, mate.

    But I note you still haven’t said what you imagine the position entailed by the hearings to be, though I suppose one could infer that you think it’s that cryptocurrency is bad since you think the alleged cherry-picking works to suggest that cryptocurrency is good. Or maybe it’s that regulating cryptocurrency is bad.

    (The vagaries of vagueness, eh?)

    Anyway, calling it a session. Don’t want to piss PZ any more.

    (I’m sure we’ll resume in future, since we both seem to like the banter)

  44. jo1storm says

    You tell me; it was your post @44.

    So, you decide to ignore all posts after that one. Classic.

    But I note you still haven’t said what you imagine the position entailed by the hearings to be,

    Why do you think there should be a single position entailed by hearings? Why not multiple positions? If that is the case (and it is) then you can say that video maker cherrypicked positions he liked. Or to be more specific, cherrypicked all positions that were according to their business interests. And those interests are: it is imperative for them to show that SBF is a single bad actor, there is nothing wrong with crypto currencies as a whole, the reporting must look balanced, do not look behind the curtain!

    though I suppose one could infer that you think it’s that cryptocurrency is bad

    It is a scam and it should be regulated into oblivion, but that is not the only position entailed by the hearings.

    since you think the alleged cherry-picking works to suggest that cryptocurrency is good.

    No, that’s the spinned part through the whole video, not just cherrypicked part. Pay attention.

    Or maybe it’s that regulating cryptocurrency is bad.

    Eh… Regulating cryptocurrency is a good thing, but not if the people influencing regulators are crypto bros. Which is the point AOC made. And video maker made accidentally, by calling people defending crypto and being influenced by crypto bros good and the person criticizing that to be “grandstanding”.

    Anyway, calling it a session. Don’t want to piss PZ any more.

    Yeah, if you keep insisting on being a horse’s arse, I guess we are done.

Leave a Reply