OT: Ray, how's your Bitcoin investment going?

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

You know, there's a strange disconnect that happens at times like this. I try to avoid the tin foil talk, but, here's what I know. We are watching what, and, these arent my words, it's in the Southern Distrct indictment, the greatest financial scam in history in dollar amount. And SBF has practically confirmed a lot of that out of his own mouth in interviews. A few months ago, this firm and the man child running it was the darling of politicians and many investors and business leaders. Now we are finding out it was one big fraud. Well, I think crypto is one big fraud, so, a really big fraud in the heart of a massive fraud. Lies upon lies upon lies. Then, in the other court, we have Ukraine, until recently considered one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and now at war and has shut down all opposition parties, totally non transparent, and receiving tens of billions of cash aid (besides the military aid) just to survive, because it really has no economy at the moment, it's infrastructure imploding. If we stopped the cash flow, it would fall in days. OK, now, I am told that these two entities have a relationship. Do you blame me for being cynical and thinking, hoo boy, I wonder how many Ferraris and luxury villas all that money is buying all over the world right now. It's not as though it will be the first time.
But, the argument back is that there are controls, there are regulations, there are adults watching! Don't worry, everything is cool, you're nuts to think otherwise. Really? Then how did we get to this point?

1) Agreed.

2) Second half: Rabbit Hole.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

All the politicians that benefitted from the donations shouldn't emerge unscathed. But they probably will.

While I broadly support stronger ethics rules for congress, I'm not sure it's feasible to expect members of congress to screen all their donors for uncharged criminal activity.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by prototoast

While I broadly support stronger ethics rules for congress, I'm not sure it's feasible to expect members of congress to screen all their donors for uncharged criminal activity.

It’s my understanding that there were several politicians who were actively engaged in trying to write less onerous crypto laws on his behalf. That certainly warrants scrutiny.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Rabbit Hole.

Just curious. how so?

[XXtwindad]

Really good read here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/s...ied-style.html

SBF’s shlubbiness was a kind of sartorial dog-whistle: Follow me. You too can live above the norms and constraints that the rest of the sheep have to hew to.

Lots of privilege and assumptions baked into that. As the article (rightly) points out, would a Black man with an unkempt Afro or an overweight woman with tousled hair and no make-up enjoy the same cachet? Doubtful.

Maybe this portends the end of the “Tech Bro” veneration. Let’s hope so, anyway.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Just curious. how so?

Show me the proof.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Show me the proof.

Proof of what, specifically. I went through a lot.

[mstateglfr]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

All the politicians that benefitted from the donations shouldn't emerge unscathed. But they probably will.

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

It’s my understanding that there were several politicians who were actively engaged in trying to write less onerous crypto laws on his behalf. That certainly warrants scrutiny.

Thats how a lot of legislation works though- donations are sent and legislators help keep the interests of large donors in mind when setting legislation.
It sounds like you just want the current reality to change.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

It’s my understanding that there were several politicians who were actively engaged in trying to write less onerous crypto laws on his behalf. That certainly warrants scrutiny.

It is broadly true that members of congress may push for legislation that is favorable to their donors, or block legislation that is unfavorable to their donors. This is true whether or not those donors are later charged with crimes.

Unless the members of congress have some information about a donor's criminal activity that is unknown to law enforcement, I don't think it's fair to judge those members more harshly just because the donor was later revealed to be a criminal.

I think it's fair to judge those politicians if you didn't like the laws they were trying to pass, and it's fair to judge politicians who you think are, in general, too influenced by donors. But 6 months ago, I don't think even FTX's biggest critics would have guessed that their entire accounting system was one step above being scribbled on a napkin, with $8 billion on a line labeled “hidden, poorly internally labled ‘fiat@’ account”.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Proof of what, specifically. I went through a lot.

“Now you are told these two entities have a relationship.”

Who told you this? SBF? Zelensky? Your Cousin Vinny?

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by prototoast

It is broadly true that members of congress may push for legislation that is favorable to their donors, or block legislation that is unfavorable to their donors. This is true whether or not those donors are later charged with crimes.

Unless the members of congress have some information about a donor's criminal activity that is unknown to law enforcement, I don't think it's fair to judge those members more harshly just because the donor was later revealed to be a criminal.

I think it's fair to judge those politicians if you didn't like the laws they were trying to pass, and it's fair to judge politicians who you think are, in general, too influenced by donors. But 6 months ago, I don't think even FTX's biggest critics would have guessed that their entire accounting system was one step above being scribbled on a napkin, with $8 billion on a line labeled “hidden, poorly internally labled ‘fiat@’ account”.

Ever watch feed time in a stockyard? It's pretty much the same thing in Congress. After all, from what I have read, the major day to day activity of ANY politician, especially at that level, is fund raising.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by prototoast

It is broadly true that members of congress may push for legislation that is favorable to their donors, or block legislation that is unfavorable to their donors. This is true whether or not those donors are later charged with crimes.

Unless the members of congress have some information about a donor's criminal activity that is unknown to law enforcement, I don't think it's fair to judge those members more harshly just because the donor was later revealed to be a criminal.

I think it's fair to judge those politicians if you didn't like the laws they were trying to pass, and it's fair to judge politicians who you think are, in general, too influenced by donors. But 6 months ago, I don't think even FTX's biggest critics would have guessed that their entire accounting system was one step above being scribbled on a napkin, with $8 billion on a line labeled “hidden, poorly internally labled ‘fiat@’ account”.

Fair enough and well stated. But, again, it’s my understanding that SBF was actively working with members of Congress to write friendlier crypto regulation. If I’m mistaken, I’ll stand corrected.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

“Now you are told these two entities have a relationship.”

Who told you this? SBF? Zelensky? Your Cousin Vinny?

Oh, yeah, that one is a little sketchy, I have to admit, but, there was talk of a "charity" that SBF set up to "help" Ukraine, so, maybe, probably, phone calls were made, introductions and shaking of hands, you know? Remember Iran/Contra? I mean, the CIA has it's ways, you know. And, when somebody comes along with a warehouse full of funny money with very lax controls looking over it all, well, excuse me for giving all that a side eye.

Even if you scoff at all that, and, sure, without proof, you can, let's not forget the cash "assistance" disguised as "humanitarian aid". I mean, c'mon, by this point, "humanitarian aid" is just another term for slush fund, if the last fifty years are any kind of history.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/aid-uk...ned-six-charts

[72gmc]

Same game it ever was, but there are billions in play now.

If a law comes into existence that is about not writing laws for donors, I hope it's named after Orrin Hatch.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Fair enough and well stated. But, again, it’s my understanding that SBF was actively working with members of Congress to write friendlier crypto regulation. If I’m mistaken, I’ll stand corrected.

Lots of people actively lobby congress to have favorable legislation passed, some are more successful than other. I haven't seen any evidence that SBF's particular lobbying was anything outside the norm. What is outside the norm is that his business was subsequently revealed to be a big scam/fraud/ponzi/slush fund, but that particular detail wasn't known to members of congress at the time.

Lobbying is a tricky thing. The line between improper selling of influence and proper constituent outreach is not well defined, and current laws and practices make just about everything short of explicit tit-for-tat bribery legal for the member of congress. Other things, like donating through straw men, would be illegal for the donor but not for the member of congress, unless the member of congress were a co-conspirator.

In general, when the laws affect everyone, it can be impossible for members of congress to educate themselves or develop legislation without help from anyone who doesn't have their own agenda. I work a lot on issues of tax policy, and since every U.S. citizen or resident who earns income is subject to federal income tax (either because they owe tax, or they don't because they benefit from credits/deductions/etc.), every single person who helps develop individual income tax policy is also directly affected by that legislation.

My personal view is that it's more productive to judge the legislation on its own merits rather than try to judge the process by which it came about. Personally, I would prefer stronger ethics rules for members of congress, but right now, it's a lot like baseball in the 90s--juicing is legal, everybody's doing it, and does it really make sense that Jeff Bagwell is in the Hall of Fame and Barry Bonds is not?