First comment. This post is interesting me because it mentions four individuals, all of whom raise questions of moral (as opposed to strictly legal) behavior.
1. SBF (an acronym, it stands for some guy's initials).
2. Elon Musk (not someone I want to write about, since he has a reputation for actively going against detractors, and, you know, is every once in a while the richest person on earth by some metrics).
3. Jump Leader (which if whistleblower is right, is really Bill DiSomma--which doesn't exonerate Kanav Kariya completely if he knew what happened, but at least gets sympathy from anyone who ever had to do something icky that their boss wanted them to do).
4. Mister Mango (what I call Avi Eisenberg, because I always forget his name).
Of these four, who might be the most unethical?
1. Let's start with SBF. His behavior can always be distilled to two things: A) No one wants to think of themselves as a bad guy. B) Regardless of how smart you are, you can always take logic and introspection to the point that is most convenient to you and no further. Slavery is my favorite example of how lots of people could conveniently not think of themselves as bad people, e.g. Thomas "All Men Are Created Equal--Ignore That Sally Hemings Thing" Jefferson. I was using slavery as an analogy for SBF on the CoinDesk (RIP) Discord back when SBF hadn't yet completely cratered. SBF is probably the worst offender because he broke the simplest of moral rules: Don't Lie and Don't Steal. Over and over and without compunction. Humans are creatures of habit. We shouldn't do any of those even once because then it'll be easier to do them more often. SBF is so far gone, he probably worries about accidentally doing something like his projected image and then getting on the slippery slope of being honest and fair. Because, you know, can't ultimately become a really, really good guy to everyone else and not just himself any other way. Based on what we know (which is a HUGE caveat, because he didn't keep his mouth shut nearly as much as the next two probably know to do, so who knows how really bad they are), probably most unethical.
2. Elon... I'm scared of this dude. Let's just say that he claims to be for free speech, but clearly not the kind that is critical of him. Further, I find it extremely hard to believe that he believes his own claims. Self-driving cars are next year (ever year for the last ten years jalopnik.com/elon-musk-tesla-self-driving-cars-anniversary-autopilot-1850432357), etc. But, again, the brain has lots of nice ways of convincing itself of things, even if it's just for the few seconds it is saying whatever convenient thing it is saying (e.g. to investors). There is something about the flavor of his lies. When they are about hot-button topics it's easier to get distracted by what they are about (note www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/elon-musk-twitter-zuckerberg-lies-1234808808/ is it the lies or what they are about that get the most opprobrium)? But ultimately, they are lies. Do Not Lie. And per that last link, the fact that he's aligning more and more with, well, stuff that 1700s slavery states would have liked, doesn't help. It's convenient for him. He may not be wanting slaves to pick cotton (or mine opals) but he probably wants the nice juicy tax breaks and super-rich-people-influence of a political party that manages to be powerful despite its overall lack of popularity. A party that gets its power partly due to the 1700s slave states and the compromises that were made for them. Regardless, Don't Be Racist is a pretty clear moral rule. I don't know how SBF felt about his mom, but we know how Elon felt about his dad, and if he's sliding towards becoming more like that, it's not a good thing. (E: Please don't come after me.)
3. Jump Leader. Backroom deals are not very crypto ethics. So thatās bad on its own for anyone claiming to be crypto and not TradFi. But after the Jump bailout, after Do Kwon kept up the lies that his āperpetual motion machineā (DZM uses this term, as have I for a very long time, it definitely is the best way to describe the scheme), Jump had a responsibility to reveal what it did. Ethically, that is (maybe legally). This is clearly a lie of omission. Which are tricky ones to morally judge. They canāt be looked at in isolation. Perhaps if they had nothing else visibly to do with Terra Luna, it might even be /somewhat/ excusable (per number 4 to follow, itās notoriously hard to short sh*t, so options are limited). But āJump Crypto was active in the Terra ecosystem, frequently posting governance proposals and heavily invested in the project, including building a Terra cross-chain bridge and co-leading a $1 billion capital raise to seed the Luna Foundation Guard.ā www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/17/jump-crypto-is-unnamed-firm-that-made-128b-from-do-kwons-doomed-terra-ecosystem-sources/ In this context, itās definitely an egregious lie of omission because they are actively saying that Terra is up-and-up per everything else. So, it broke Donāt Lie. Once that I know of. But when itās that big and that hardā¦ For such a huge, massive fraud like Terry Luna. One time is bad enough.
4. Mister Mango. I need to know more about this case. No one is giving it the justice (no pun intended) it deserves to really look at where he lied and/or possibly stole. The first question I have is regarding any User Agreements he had with Mango or the external markets he used to influence (manipulate? It may be semantics, but I do think important to think about) the oracle(s). What makes that tricky is User Agreements, particularly EULAs but others as well, are the one area I think everyone knows is the most fraught with moral ambiguity. Many are written with neither the intention to be read nor understood. Many are written not because the writer actually cares about what the signee does, but what a regulatory agency might do to them. Many of them are written not just to avoid legal ramifications, but to put in spurious arguments that can be used to litigate another into submission with the huge resources they have. And sometimes, they just donāt exist. I can say one thing, I have NEVER seen a DeFi protocol have in its user agreement āAnd must agree not to do any activity that can materially and to an extreme degreeāas considered reasonably extreme by a jury of peersāaffect the oracle prices of any financial instrument that they are involved with using the protocol.ā Or some such. If it exists in an agreement, itās not prominent. And I will leave it to you to guess if I read every user agreement, I will not try to guess if you read all 56 pages of the EULA every time you buy an iPhone (www.businessinsider.com/apple-terms-and-conditions).
And it could be such a line would be ridiculous to put in anyway. Or try to follow. But Mr. Mango, he was like āyep, I did this.ā He didnāt hide it. Thereās ātalking too muchā when youāre SBF and youāre just trying to manipulate public opinion. And then thereās this, where I think the guy is more like Hannibal Buress asking āwhy are you booing me? Iām right!ā And then thereās doing financial moves that really hurt other investors when youāre super rich, doing them over and over, doing them with your own products and companies, and will attack your detractors. And then thereās doing something that hurt other investors, even if it is just once, but on such a huge, billion-dollar scale while again telling everyone that the protocol involved is the best thing in the world.
But the thing with Mr. Mango isā¦ I just donāt know enough. I do know thereās not enough ways to short bad finance or bad code. With regards to bad code, I bet whitehats feel a bit icky having to exploit first and then ask for 10%. And whitehats usually just have to risk time, not funds, for the most part. Bad finance? That Hindenburg guy is probably risking his life every time. Shorting has infinite downside, while longing has infinite upside. I know that about finance and code, but I donāt know enough about the guy who is Mr. Mango. And, should code be law? Well, I prefer that than, say, the kind of law that is a giant tax cut being put in right after a bigot who lost the popular vote gets into power. But Iām not talking law so much. Yes, legality is important. But how ethically wrong was what Mr. Mango did? Is Mr. Mango at least the least unethical of this bunch?
First comment. This post is interesting me because it mentions four individuals, all of whom raise questions of moral (as opposed to strictly legal) behavior.
1. SBF (an acronym, it stands for some guy's initials).
2. Elon Musk (not someone I want to write about, since he has a reputation for actively going against detractors, and, you know, is every once in a while the richest person on earth by some metrics).
3. Jump Leader (which if whistleblower is right, is really Bill DiSomma--which doesn't exonerate Kanav Kariya completely if he knew what happened, but at least gets sympathy from anyone who ever had to do something icky that their boss wanted them to do).
4. Mister Mango (what I call Avi Eisenberg, because I always forget his name).
Of these four, who might be the most unethical?
1. Let's start with SBF. His behavior can always be distilled to two things: A) No one wants to think of themselves as a bad guy. B) Regardless of how smart you are, you can always take logic and introspection to the point that is most convenient to you and no further. Slavery is my favorite example of how lots of people could conveniently not think of themselves as bad people, e.g. Thomas "All Men Are Created Equal--Ignore That Sally Hemings Thing" Jefferson. I was using slavery as an analogy for SBF on the CoinDesk (RIP) Discord back when SBF hadn't yet completely cratered. SBF is probably the worst offender because he broke the simplest of moral rules: Don't Lie and Don't Steal. Over and over and without compunction. Humans are creatures of habit. We shouldn't do any of those even once because then it'll be easier to do them more often. SBF is so far gone, he probably worries about accidentally doing something like his projected image and then getting on the slippery slope of being honest and fair. Because, you know, can't ultimately become a really, really good guy to everyone else and not just himself any other way. Based on what we know (which is a HUGE caveat, because he didn't keep his mouth shut nearly as much as the next two probably know to do, so who knows how really bad they are), probably most unethical.
2. Elon... I'm scared of this dude. Let's just say that he claims to be for free speech, but clearly not the kind that is critical of him. Further, I find it extremely hard to believe that he believes his own claims. Self-driving cars are next year (ever year for the last ten years jalopnik.com/elon-musk-tesla-self-driving-cars-anniversary-autopilot-1850432357), etc. But, again, the brain has lots of nice ways of convincing itself of things, even if it's just for the few seconds it is saying whatever convenient thing it is saying (e.g. to investors). There is something about the flavor of his lies. When they are about hot-button topics it's easier to get distracted by what they are about (note www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/elon-musk-twitter-zuckerberg-lies-1234808808/ is it the lies or what they are about that get the most opprobrium)? But ultimately, they are lies. Do Not Lie. And per that last link, the fact that he's aligning more and more with, well, stuff that 1700s slavery states would have liked, doesn't help. It's convenient for him. He may not be wanting slaves to pick cotton (or mine opals) but he probably wants the nice juicy tax breaks and super-rich-people-influence of a political party that manages to be powerful despite its overall lack of popularity. A party that gets its power partly due to the 1700s slave states and the compromises that were made for them. Regardless, Don't Be Racist is a pretty clear moral rule. I don't know how SBF felt about his mom, but we know how Elon felt about his dad, and if he's sliding towards becoming more like that, it's not a good thing. (E: Please don't come after me.)
3. Jump Leader. Backroom deals are not very crypto ethics. So thatās bad on its own for anyone claiming to be crypto and not TradFi. But after the Jump bailout, after Do Kwon kept up the lies that his āperpetual motion machineā (DZM uses this term, as have I for a very long time, it definitely is the best way to describe the scheme), Jump had a responsibility to reveal what it did. Ethically, that is (maybe legally). This is clearly a lie of omission. Which are tricky ones to morally judge. They canāt be looked at in isolation. Perhaps if they had nothing else visibly to do with Terra Luna, it might even be /somewhat/ excusable (per number 4 to follow, itās notoriously hard to short sh*t, so options are limited). But āJump Crypto was active in the Terra ecosystem, frequently posting governance proposals and heavily invested in the project, including building a Terra cross-chain bridge and co-leading a $1 billion capital raise to seed the Luna Foundation Guard.ā www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/17/jump-crypto-is-unnamed-firm-that-made-128b-from-do-kwons-doomed-terra-ecosystem-sources/ In this context, itās definitely an egregious lie of omission because they are actively saying that Terra is up-and-up per everything else. So, it broke Donāt Lie. Once that I know of. But when itās that big and that hardā¦ For such a huge, massive fraud like Terry Luna. One time is bad enough.
4. Mister Mango. I need to know more about this case. No one is giving it the justice (no pun intended) it deserves to really look at where he lied and/or possibly stole. The first question I have is regarding any User Agreements he had with Mango or the external markets he used to influence (manipulate? It may be semantics, but I do think important to think about) the oracle(s). What makes that tricky is User Agreements, particularly EULAs but others as well, are the one area I think everyone knows is the most fraught with moral ambiguity. Many are written with neither the intention to be read nor understood. Many are written not because the writer actually cares about what the signee does, but what a regulatory agency might do to them. Many of them are written not just to avoid legal ramifications, but to put in spurious arguments that can be used to litigate another into submission with the huge resources they have. And sometimes, they just donāt exist. I can say one thing, I have NEVER seen a DeFi protocol have in its user agreement āAnd must agree not to do any activity that can materially and to an extreme degreeāas considered reasonably extreme by a jury of peersāaffect the oracle prices of any financial instrument that they are involved with using the protocol.ā Or some such. If it exists in an agreement, itās not prominent. And I will leave it to you to guess if I read every user agreement, I will not try to guess if you read all 56 pages of the EULA every time you buy an iPhone (www.businessinsider.com/apple-terms-and-conditions).
And it could be such a line would be ridiculous to put in anyway. Or try to follow. But Mr. Mango, he was like āyep, I did this.ā He didnāt hide it. Thereās ātalking too muchā when youāre SBF and youāre just trying to manipulate public opinion. And then thereās this, where I think the guy is more like Hannibal Buress asking āwhy are you booing me? Iām right!ā And then thereās doing financial moves that really hurt other investors when youāre super rich, doing them over and over, doing them with your own products and companies, and will attack your detractors. And then thereās doing something that hurt other investors, even if it is just once, but on such a huge, billion-dollar scale while again telling everyone that the protocol involved is the best thing in the world.
But the thing with Mr. Mango isā¦ I just donāt know enough. I do know thereās not enough ways to short bad finance or bad code. With regards to bad code, I bet whitehats feel a bit icky having to exploit first and then ask for 10%. And whitehats usually just have to risk time, not funds, for the most part. Bad finance? That Hindenburg guy is probably risking his life every time. Shorting has infinite downside, while longing has infinite upside. I know that about finance and code, but I donāt know enough about the guy who is Mr. Mango. And, should code be law? Well, I prefer that than, say, the kind of law that is a giant tax cut being put in right after a bigot who lost the popular vote gets into power. But Iām not talking law so much. Yes, legality is important. But how ethically wrong was what Mr. Mango did? Is Mr. Mango at least the least unethical of this bunch?