It's funny as I just wrote a comment that basically states why people might invest in something that could be an Enron. Because if it's an Enron, yeah, it's gonna collapse. But if it's a Credit Suisse, money laundering is a utility that lasts a long time. (Note: I know Credit Suisse /kinda/ collapsed and is now part of UBS, but it never really went away and certainly lasted longer than Enron.)
Essentially, yeah, it could just be BS rehypothecation with no other utility. Or it could be that some people need to do something Tesla would never mention in any earning report. For example, clean some money. Maybe even clean the money of someone who, I don't know, got access to gold mine of data through running a disastrous program that has hurt government institutions for decades to come.
"
Further, if something is working that shouldn't, it could be: a) you don't understand it (possible but doubtful in this case), b) it's working temporarily by taking money away from old investors unknowingly a la ponzi (likely, and frankly not something you want to try to time longing or shorting), or c) is not temporary money shifting but instead fulfilling a robust / more-long-term “need” that nonetheless cannot be openly revealed to most investors (e.g. money laundering). I wouldn't be surprised if some people thought Do Kwon was just doing for Koreans what a certain crypto personality is/was likely/possibly doing for the Chinese with a technology that was basically a copy/paste of a better established and more supported technology (Ethereum). Maybe they thought even though he was South Korean, he was laundering for Lazarus, and that's how Anchor was affording the returns. Who would know? And you know what they say about Lazarus, biblically that is. In which case, what death spiral, right?
We can say that with SBF, Do Kwon, it's b. Simply misappropriating funds. But then you got Tether, Tron. Which may be c. Doing something that is desired, and profitable, but explicitly unknown, likely because it can't be done openly. Because Tether has many times lost credibility regarding actual asset backing and Tron has many times lost credibility regarding decentralization and innovation. That suggests it has gotta be “something else.” They certainly are doing whatever it is pretty well, and have for a pretty long time, and of course the greatest supply of USDT is /on/ Tron, so it suggests whatever they are doing they are essentially doing together. Criminal investigations surround both. The leader of Tron only getting his SEC case dropped once the president of Cantor Fitzgerald, which “handles” assets for Tether, started working for a felon also known as the President of the United States, also known as the person “associated” with a crypto “project” that the leader of Tron “invested” in.
One has to wonder, between b and c, is it only b that collapses spectacularly? In TradFi, you got Enron and Credit Suisse, the former is gone, but the latter survives.
When it's in the shadows, it could be either. At least it's understandable that an investor (scrupulous or not) might think even if it makes no sense, it's something that might keep making money and not go away any time soon.
if it walks like an enron & squawks like an enron . . .
It's funny as I just wrote a comment that basically states why people might invest in something that could be an Enron. Because if it's an Enron, yeah, it's gonna collapse. But if it's a Credit Suisse, money laundering is a utility that lasts a long time. (Note: I know Credit Suisse /kinda/ collapsed and is now part of UBS, but it never really went away and certainly lasted longer than Enron.)
Essentially, yeah, it could just be BS rehypothecation with no other utility. Or it could be that some people need to do something Tesla would never mention in any earning report. For example, clean some money. Maybe even clean the money of someone who, I don't know, got access to gold mine of data through running a disastrous program that has hurt government institutions for decades to come.
"
Further, if something is working that shouldn't, it could be: a) you don't understand it (possible but doubtful in this case), b) it's working temporarily by taking money away from old investors unknowingly a la ponzi (likely, and frankly not something you want to try to time longing or shorting), or c) is not temporary money shifting but instead fulfilling a robust / more-long-term “need” that nonetheless cannot be openly revealed to most investors (e.g. money laundering). I wouldn't be surprised if some people thought Do Kwon was just doing for Koreans what a certain crypto personality is/was likely/possibly doing for the Chinese with a technology that was basically a copy/paste of a better established and more supported technology (Ethereum). Maybe they thought even though he was South Korean, he was laundering for Lazarus, and that's how Anchor was affording the returns. Who would know? And you know what they say about Lazarus, biblically that is. In which case, what death spiral, right?
We can say that with SBF, Do Kwon, it's b. Simply misappropriating funds. But then you got Tether, Tron. Which may be c. Doing something that is desired, and profitable, but explicitly unknown, likely because it can't be done openly. Because Tether has many times lost credibility regarding actual asset backing and Tron has many times lost credibility regarding decentralization and innovation. That suggests it has gotta be “something else.” They certainly are doing whatever it is pretty well, and have for a pretty long time, and of course the greatest supply of USDT is /on/ Tron, so it suggests whatever they are doing they are essentially doing together. Criminal investigations surround both. The leader of Tron only getting his SEC case dropped once the president of Cantor Fitzgerald, which “handles” assets for Tether, started working for a felon also known as the President of the United States, also known as the person “associated” with a crypto “project” that the leader of Tron “invested” in.
One has to wonder, between b and c, is it only b that collapses spectacularly? In TradFi, you got Enron and Credit Suisse, the former is gone, but the latter survives.
When it's in the shadows, it could be either. At least it's understandable that an investor (scrupulous or not) might think even if it makes no sense, it's something that might keep making money and not go away any time soon.
"
https://davidzmorris.substack.com/p/nikolas-trevor-milton-is-hilariously