hidenotslide

But how is being delta neutral a scam? If they weren't taking the other side of the long futures trade, someone else would at an even worse price. And if they weren't buying it back lower, someone else would at a worse price.

The idea that Tether just prints out of thin air is a conspiracy theory, I've seen large traders confirm they can do create/redeems and there was some information released about their holdings of commercial paper, settlement with NYAG, etc. And they have frozen stolen funds in the past, in the case of the Poly network hack. USDT routinely trades at a premium to USD, the market does not seem worried.

Of course Binance and Tether and a lot of other unregulated crypto companies are shady, but it's more interesting to focus on the particular shady company in the original post.

I don't think you understood what Sam was saying, being short BTC futures is NOT the same as having a net short exposure to bitcoin prices. And what does Tether have to do with BitMart, an exchange I had never even heard of before this "hack"?

1) Those tests results would be highly correlated, so you wouldn't necessarily be much more than 99% accurate still.

2) If the prior probability of someone committing a crime on a given night is low, you are in the classical example of false positives doing harm via Bayes rule.

Apparently my answer is worse than the guy who thinks "The fed is literally giving asset holders free money" and the guy who makes a pitch for Bitcoin. Whatever. Utilize your downvote cartel however you see fit I guess.

Regardless of whether the loans are linked to individual deposits or borrowed from other banks, I was just trying to communicate how commercial banks could increase the money supply without input from the central bank. Nowhere did I claim the reserve requirement and monetary base were the limiting factor of the money supply (in fact the last sentence says supply of loans is influenced by interest rates). This is just what figure 1 depicts in the paper. The direct quote from the conclusion of the paper is "Most of the money in circulation is created, not by the printing presses of the Bank of England, but by the commercial banks themselves."

Furthermore I claimed that central banks affect the money supply via rates, which is supported via the conclusion as well: "The Bank of England is nevertheless still able to influence the amount of money in the economy. It does so in normal times by setting monetary policy — through the interest rate that it pays on reserves held by commercial banks with the Bank of England. "

Here is a simple way to demonstrate the point of the article. If I deposit $100 in a bank, the bank can lend out around $90 to someone else (fractional reserve banking). That person now deposits the money at another bank, and the "money supply" is $190 instead of $100.

On the other hand when a central bank "prints money", they use it to buy assets with an equivalent value, so there is no net transfer of wealth done by the central bank. That assumes they don't affect asset prices, which not a great assumption.

The way central banks affect the money supply is through interest rates to change the supply and demand of private loans that banks make, which indirectly affects the money supply.

His new investors made $10 million less than they would have if he had not stolen from them. Embezzlement is still a crime even if you are the CEO and the company is profitable. And there was a bunch of lying in securities disclosures of course, which is a crime by itself.

Probably because the cancels were followed up by aggressive sales calls that mentioned the issue. A quote from the article:

"The no-shows were accompanied by an OpenTable inquiry about Tavern’s 'sagging sales,' with a renewed attempt to convince them to switch."

I'm sure it is structured in a way that mitigates that issue. E.g. donate to an intermediary trust for the tax benefit, then that trust makes the gift to the university. In fact the article seems to name this entity as the Pearson Family Foundation.

Nassim Taleb is great at providing backward looking advice. My back got better, therefore I was right to ignore the expert advice. He has predicted about ten of the last two financial crises. I wouldn't take medical advice from a financial pundit who can't seem to go more than a day without picking a fight on twitter.