cryptoanon

Brex

Key line here is that Sam transferred $4B from FTX to Alameda, unbeknownst to FTX executives, to bail them out.

Alameda messed up in the same way that three arrows did. That’s not necessarily Sam’s fault, because he did not run Alameda at the time. However, it seems like you build them out by providing them with a ton of FTT collateral so he’s pretty much complicit.

I never made any comments about FTX.

Ego wars. Sam made a joke about CZ getting arrested on US soil.

The wide range of Binance’s criminal behavior didn’t clue you in on his sharkiness prior to this?

I have no interest in Sam, Sam coins, or the cult of Sam.

What if I saw military helicopters flying above and told others “war has broken out!” I see how you can say that’s not misinformation, but wild speculation. For me, it’s both.

> I'm just saying, the idea that people are not entitled to come to conclusions based on partial information is not valid.

It’s possible to get scammed by a person that’s telling you that something is a scam. That’s an affinity scam.

I’m not trying to tell you what to think. I’m saying that there are material flaws in the analysis.

I do not have the burden of proof.

You’re right. I edited that in later but I’m going to take it out. He’s made some pretty damning accusations based on circumstantial evidence.

I’m not saying alameda is not insolvent. Im saying that the burden of proof is on the author to prove that they are insolvent.

Sure you can say this is a stress test - I’m just saying it’s misinformation. I am annoyed by people who spread misinformation for clout. Applies to both the bullish credit and the bearish crowd.