This obviously contrasts a lot with Sam Bankman-Fried, whose colleagues pretty consistently described him as a bully, and whose affect was generally some variation of self-absorbed superiority.
“
This makes sense because while some people are trying to reinvent morals, they've been pretty understood for quite a few millennia, and likely more.
Not necessarily because they came down from high (literally and figuratively). But because they are just reflective of our untainted marshmallow grabbing toddler selves of justice and fairness. It's very likely in our DNA.
Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't be a jerk. SBF got three out of three for DZM. Karony got two out of three for DZM. And, more importantly, among other people close to SBF/Karony. If SBF was called a bully by people who used to call him friends, then that says a lot.
Now it could just be the drugs. I bet Karony wasn't on the stimulants that prominent EAs are on (and prominent Nazis were on). And if you remember your Behind-the-Music documentaries, a lot of musicians we now would think of as pretty decent were pretty terrible during the essential “hard core drugs before the downfall” part of the story. Forget what DARE taught you kids: Soft drugs give you munchies, hard drugs make you Nazis.
—
“
Who ‘owned’ the liquidity pool funds at the heart of the SafeMoon scandal was genuinely much less clear.
“
Not your keys, not your crypto. It's not just cexes vs personal wallets where that matters. If you have a token with an admin upgrade function, it can be used to create a function to take the token right out of your wallet, or any wallet. Sometimes it's that . If the code is obscured, there is just no telling. If it has certain functions to other contracts, and those contracts have an admin upgrade function, then it's the same thing with extra steps.
Let's say it's a function that sends to a special kind of liquidity pool and that liquidity pool has admin override capabilities. Imagine a vending machine with a refund function and a fluctuating price for the items due to market conditions. Sure the general public can do some stuff. Maybe you can put a washer in there and steal an item or two. Maybe with a lot of money you can manipulate the price a bit. But the guy with the key that can empty the items and coin catcher, that's who really has control.
And the one who uses that key to surreptitiously do so is the primary thief. For all I know that's just the guy who scampered off to Russia, and Karony was too tech illiterate to empty the liquidity pool himself. But that still doesn't say who “owns” it.
Ownership could be a philosophical thing. Can anyone “own” anything? Or it can be a pragmatic thing. The vending machine exists in physical space belonging to a country with laws. If the vending machine is not legitimate, then someone will be held accountable, such as the owner of the space. More likely than not, the vending machine will have branding, and if that is wrong, those misusing the branding will be in trouble. There is a big difference between a coke machine on a university campus, and a metal box that just says “magickal vendin masheen” in the middle of the woods. Very different expectations. So what are the expectations of crypto? Well, now it all depends on how people knew to go to the woods, what they were told would happen there, and by what means.
In the case of a typical vending machine, the kind we all typically see, should the CEO of Vending Machine Co be in trouble if he orders the vending machine maintenance guy (who also built it) to surreptitiously empty it and put it directly into his pocket and not in company funds/inventory? Of course. What about what anyone does to a sketchy box in the middle of nowhere, with no real markings, and whose existence was told to no one? Well that's not what's happening here. This is kind of in the middle, involving a lot of semi-legitimate branding, companies, assets, and messaging platforms. At the very least there's a lot more being said about this vending machine by those who control it that were meant to materially benefit the controllers over the users, and that which was said were known lies. And I love that simplicity when it comes to fraud. You lie and materially gain at the expense of others = fraud.
Does it answer who “owns?” Maybe not, but that's how I look at the roles here. SafeMoon was largely controlled by that vending machine and the ones with admin keys. Any amount being sold in other liquidity pools and cexes meant little more than the FTT being traded at places other than FTX.
–
“
FTX was convincingly sold as a real company. SafeMoon’s scammy nature was obvious from the name down.
“
Not so obvious. FTX looked professional. SafeMoon looked unknown. A lot of tokens/projects start as larks that really don't help the creator that much. Some guy thought it would be funny to fork LiteCoin and associate it with a meme dog. Originally it sounds like it was all memes and fun. That guy is not rich because of it. Now, of course, I wouldn't trust who I think is the current, biggest bag holder (and pumper/dumper) of that pupper. SafeMoon was just an unknown while it was most popular.
–
“
I’m still pretty hazy on how SafeMoon became such a huge deal so fast - within just a couple of weeks of launching.
“
Reddit. Social media. This was before bots were /this/ bad. That dog-themed token was still, apparently, just good clean fun. This was back when most crypto was still ICO, and most ICOs were starting to smell bad. This was something exciting and non-ICO because it at least did something. Not saying I thought it couldn't easily be a scam, I think when I first heard of it that it was probably a scam, but it didn't come in on the regular, definitely-a-scam rails of the time. It was on the quite-possibly-a-scam-but-it’s-got-surprising-legs rail. A fervent following (back then) didn't mean you bought everyone to cosplay a cult or brainwashed them into a real cult. Before SafeMoon Army there was ChainLink Army. Boring a**, pretty-legit ChainLink had a fervent following. So that wasn't itself a red flag (then). I think SafeMoon was just an unknown.
–
“
Ellison also claimed that Bankman-Fried swapped his luxury car for a less flashy one to maintain a certain image.
"He said he thought it was better for his image to be driving a Toyota Corolla," she said.
So this quote from the site DZM linked to is not how DZM has ever phrased the Corolla. He never said that Ellison testified SBF swapped out a luxury car for a Corolla for his image. This is really how it needs to be presented. DZM doesn't mention a) the swap and b) Ellison testifying that SBF gave this reason. I suggest the first place the Corolla is mentioned in the book, it is phrased this far more powerful way.
Also, I thought the Business Insider article was going to be some questionable social media posts under the influence of drugs. Those were definitely on another level.
“
This obviously contrasts a lot with Sam Bankman-Fried, whose colleagues pretty consistently described him as a bully, and whose affect was generally some variation of self-absorbed superiority.
“
This makes sense because while some people are trying to reinvent morals, they've been pretty understood for quite a few millennia, and likely more.
Not necessarily because they came down from high (literally and figuratively). But because they are just reflective of our untainted marshmallow grabbing toddler selves of justice and fairness. It's very likely in our DNA.
Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't be a jerk. SBF got three out of three for DZM. Karony got two out of three for DZM. And, more importantly, among other people close to SBF/Karony. If SBF was called a bully by people who used to call him friends, then that says a lot.
Now it could just be the drugs. I bet Karony wasn't on the stimulants that prominent EAs are on (and prominent Nazis were on). And if you remember your Behind-the-Music documentaries, a lot of musicians we now would think of as pretty decent were pretty terrible during the essential “hard core drugs before the downfall” part of the story. Forget what DARE taught you kids: Soft drugs give you munchies, hard drugs make you Nazis.
—
“
Who ‘owned’ the liquidity pool funds at the heart of the SafeMoon scandal was genuinely much less clear.
“
Not your keys, not your crypto. It's not just cexes vs personal wallets where that matters. If you have a token with an admin upgrade function, it can be used to create a function to take the token right out of your wallet, or any wallet. Sometimes it's that . If the code is obscured, there is just no telling. If it has certain functions to other contracts, and those contracts have an admin upgrade function, then it's the same thing with extra steps.
Let's say it's a function that sends to a special kind of liquidity pool and that liquidity pool has admin override capabilities. Imagine a vending machine with a refund function and a fluctuating price for the items due to market conditions. Sure the general public can do some stuff. Maybe you can put a washer in there and steal an item or two. Maybe with a lot of money you can manipulate the price a bit. But the guy with the key that can empty the items and coin catcher, that's who really has control.
And the one who uses that key to surreptitiously do so is the primary thief. For all I know that's just the guy who scampered off to Russia, and Karony was too tech illiterate to empty the liquidity pool himself. But that still doesn't say who “owns” it.
Ownership could be a philosophical thing. Can anyone “own” anything? Or it can be a pragmatic thing. The vending machine exists in physical space belonging to a country with laws. If the vending machine is not legitimate, then someone will be held accountable, such as the owner of the space. More likely than not, the vending machine will have branding, and if that is wrong, those misusing the branding will be in trouble. There is a big difference between a coke machine on a university campus, and a metal box that just says “magickal vendin masheen” in the middle of the woods. Very different expectations. So what are the expectations of crypto? Well, now it all depends on how people knew to go to the woods, what they were told would happen there, and by what means.
In the case of a typical vending machine, the kind we all typically see, should the CEO of Vending Machine Co be in trouble if he orders the vending machine maintenance guy (who also built it) to surreptitiously empty it and put it directly into his pocket and not in company funds/inventory? Of course. What about what anyone does to a sketchy box in the middle of nowhere, with no real markings, and whose existence was told to no one? Well that's not what's happening here. This is kind of in the middle, involving a lot of semi-legitimate branding, companies, assets, and messaging platforms. At the very least there's a lot more being said about this vending machine by those who control it that were meant to materially benefit the controllers over the users, and that which was said were known lies. And I love that simplicity when it comes to fraud. You lie and materially gain at the expense of others = fraud.
Does it answer who “owns?” Maybe not, but that's how I look at the roles here. SafeMoon was largely controlled by that vending machine and the ones with admin keys. Any amount being sold in other liquidity pools and cexes meant little more than the FTT being traded at places other than FTX.
–
“
FTX was convincingly sold as a real company. SafeMoon’s scammy nature was obvious from the name down.
“
Not so obvious. FTX looked professional. SafeMoon looked unknown. A lot of tokens/projects start as larks that really don't help the creator that much. Some guy thought it would be funny to fork LiteCoin and associate it with a meme dog. Originally it sounds like it was all memes and fun. That guy is not rich because of it. Now, of course, I wouldn't trust who I think is the current, biggest bag holder (and pumper/dumper) of that pupper. SafeMoon was just an unknown while it was most popular.
–
“
I’m still pretty hazy on how SafeMoon became such a huge deal so fast - within just a couple of weeks of launching.
“
Reddit. Social media. This was before bots were /this/ bad. That dog-themed token was still, apparently, just good clean fun. This was back when most crypto was still ICO, and most ICOs were starting to smell bad. This was something exciting and non-ICO because it at least did something. Not saying I thought it couldn't easily be a scam, I think when I first heard of it that it was probably a scam, but it didn't come in on the regular, definitely-a-scam rails of the time. It was on the quite-possibly-a-scam-but-it’s-got-surprising-legs rail. A fervent following (back then) didn't mean you bought everyone to cosplay a cult or brainwashed them into a real cult. Before SafeMoon Army there was ChainLink Army. Boring a**, pretty-legit ChainLink had a fervent following. So that wasn't itself a red flag (then). I think SafeMoon was just an unknown.
–
“
Ellison also claimed that Bankman-Fried swapped his luxury car for a less flashy one to maintain a certain image.
"He said he thought it was better for his image to be driving a Toyota Corolla," she said.
“
https://www.businessinsider.com/caroline-ellison-alameda-ftx-sbf-controversial-online-quotes-2022-11
So this quote from the site DZM linked to is not how DZM has ever phrased the Corolla. He never said that Ellison testified SBF swapped out a luxury car for a Corolla for his image. This is really how it needs to be presented. DZM doesn't mention a) the swap and b) Ellison testifying that SBF gave this reason. I suggest the first place the Corolla is mentioned in the book, it is phrased this far more powerful way.
Also, I thought the Business Insider article was going to be some questionable social media posts under the influence of drugs. Those were definitely on another level.
–
“
if you have a genuine moral compass.
“
Wow.