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

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by prototoast

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?

So, it's cool when there is an obvious system of payola from the rich for their interests, because, 99% of us basically have zero voice in all of this, because we have no money to lobby with? Right. Sounds fair.

[rallizes]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

So, it's cool when there is an obvious system of payola from the rich for their interests, because, 99% of us basically have zero voice in all of this, because we have no money to lobby with? Right. Sounds fair.

LOL take it up with the Supreme Court

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

So, it's cool when there is an obvious system of payola from the rich for their interests, because, 99% of us basically have zero voice in all of this, because we have no money to lobby with? Right. Sounds fair.

I'm personally not all that fond of the current status quo. My main point was that specifically SBF's lobbying wasn't any less ethical than other lobbying, just because it was subsequently revealed that his business was a fraud.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by rallizes

LOL take it up with the Supreme Court

Yeah, I know, shaking head...

[rallizes]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

So, it's cool when there is an obvious system of payola from the rich for their interests, because, 99% of us basically have zero voice in all of this, because we have no money to lobby with? Right. Sounds fair.

Where does anyone get the idea things are supposed to be fair?

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by rallizes

Where does anyone get the idea things are supposed to be fair?

Hey, I know, but still, at least level the playing field a little. And don't strut around the world saying that we have the right idea, follow us.

[reuben]

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.

This begs the question of whether or not Congress understood/understands crypto well enough to write such legislation. My guess is that the answer is an emphatic "no", and that the same applies here on Paceline (shocker, right?).

Congress would have to come up to speed on the subject, or delegate responsibility to another body such as the SEC or FTC, or at least get advise from a knowledgeable group, in order to pass any sensible legislation.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

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?

I am making a slightly different point. There is no need to money launder. It is a lot like what we saw happen with PPE during the covid rush in the US. A huge amount of money was made available, prices on things went way up above normal, and middle men were able to take large fees.

The people who were the middle men for the Ukrainian purchases made a bundle. It's gross, but not money laundering. It is like what happen with Friends of Bill DeBlasio winning NYC contracts for PPE. Not money laundering, just political corruption. This is local and probably outside of paying money to democrats. Did FTX take a large spread on crypto to fiat conversions? I don't know but I would assume so.

It's not that different than what we saw happen with sanctioned russian bonds. A lot of US institutions were trapped when Treasury sanctioned Russian companies. They could not sell. Then US Treasury gave OFAC guidance that they could sell positions to close, and had until October to execute. The number of brokers willing to conduct this business is limited, and the number of non G-7 firms who could buy this was limited. So the brokers in the middle would tell the US seller the only bid in the bond is 30. The broker would tell the buyer (maybe Saudi, Turkish, Chinese) the price was 50. The broker would take 20 points in a bond that should trade 1/8 .

Same logic, just a big fat spread in a dislocated market and not money laundering. This was how Commodore Vanderbilt made a lot of money during the Civil War. He took his old steamers and charged premiums to ship supplies for the union.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by reuben

This begs the question of whether or not Congress understood/understands crypto well enough to write such legislation. My guess is that the answer is an emphatic "no", and that the same applies here on Paceline (shocker, right?).

Perhaps just as fundamental, I'm not sure there's even a general consensus (in congress, on Paceline, or more broadly across the country) about what the goals of regulating crypto would be. Some folks want regulation to stop regular folks from buying crypto at all, some folks want more protections for regular investors so they buy more. Some just want regulatory burdens in a general sense to protect large incumbents. Some care about regulations to prevent money laundering, others want to prevent explicit fraud.

And some people don't know anything about crypto, but just have a vague sense that the government should do something.

It's only after you can even figure out what the goals are that you can begin trying to figure out how to implement them.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by reuben

This begs the question of whether or not Congress understood/understands crypto well enough to write such legislation. My guess is that the answer is an emphatic "no", and that the same applies here on Paceline (shocker, right?).

Congress would have to come up to speed on the subject, or delegate responsibility to another body such as the SEC or FTC, or at least get advise from a knowledgeable group, in order to pass any sensible legislation.

I think the term is regulatory capture. Before Crypto is regulated, they want to make sure they capture the regulator and can dictate the regulation. Most industries try to do it. It was the whole concept behind brokers being self-regulating and forcing everything to arbitration.

In an odd way, you want Joe Biden to put SBF in charge of regulating crypto much the way FDR put Joe Kennedy in charge of the newly formed SEC in 1934-1935. Joe Kennedy was a notorious stock swindler, and he knew all the scams. So when he hired the right lawyers, they pretty quickly shutdown the swindles- insider trading, get rich quick schemes etc etc. . .

It' was FDR's genius. Hire a fox to guard the hen house. He knows where the other foxes are and how to get them.

[robertbb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Hey, I know, but still, at least level the playing field a little. And don't strut around the world saying that we have the right idea, follow us.

We have a winner.

Don't scream "democracy" from the global rooftops while whispering "oh who said anything about it being fair".

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

I think the term is regulatory capture. Before Crypto is regulated, they want to make sure they capture the regulator and can dictate the regulation. Most industries try to do it. It was the whole concept behind brokers being self-regulating and forcing everything to arbitration.

In an odd way, you want Joe Biden to put SBF in charge of regulating crypto much the way FDR put Joe Kennedy in charge of the newly formed SEC in 1934-1935. Joe Kennedy was a notorious stock swindler, and he knew all the scams. So when he hired the right lawyers, they pretty quickly shutdown the swindles- insider trading, get rich quick schemes etc etc. . .

It' was FDR's genius. Hire a fox to guard the hen house. He knows where the other foxes are and how to get them.

Yeah, but, the way I see it, regulating crypto in any way negates the whole concept of crypto. It's supposed to be, in theory, (dude), some sort of store of value that has no connection to your father's currency. Utopian in nature. But, in reality, prosecution futures. Or, why buy Bitcoin when the issuer of a competitive currency regulates it? It's great use up to this point, from what I see, and it has enough history to say this, is drug trafficking and money laundering. It isn't even a defense against periods when all other assets drop or crash, like gold has been lately. This year is proof of that.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by reuben

This begs the question of whether or not Congress understood/understands crypto well enough to write such legislation.

This arrest did save us from the sad spectacle of Maxine Waters doing her five minutes of idiocy on national television. And, she's sort of in charge of a certain aspect.

[redir]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

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

First of please please please lets not let this thread get killed...

But...

As opposed to the likes of who else? The Koch Brothers? Bernard L. Madoff? Epstein?


Point being hindsight is everything. This is no where near the first time a politician or businessman made a deal with someone in good faith only to realize later the guy is a total crook right?

[redir]

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?

"...has no economy at the moment, it's infrastructure imploding."

Are you serious? It's like you don't even know that their neighboring nuclear armed neighbor invaded them.