Bitcoin: Censorship-Resistant Digital P2P Currency

[malchior]

We see where Jeffrey Skilling went wrong back in 2001, he hadn't built up a good network of shills at major media corporations.

Mr. Bankman-Fried said in an interview that he had expanded too fast and failed to see warning signs. But he shared few details about his handling of FTX customers’ funds.

[stessier]

[malchior]

Oh don't mistake that post - it was a dumb, arrogant move on his part to give the interview considering the scale of fraud here. But it's also incredible it turned out as a softball puff piece considering ... the scale of fraud here.

[stimpy]

Got this in my email today.
Am I rich?

[malchior]

Oh a African diaspora BTC scheme! A new wrinkle on an old favorite.

[pr0ner]

Sam Bankman-Fried is fuuuuuuucked.



This kind of makes me wonder which crypto "mastermind" screwed up more this year: SBF or Do Kwon.

[RunningMn9]

Wait, there’s another fraud scheme involving digital tulips?! Who could have foreseen this?!?

[malchior]

Wait, there’s another fraud scheme involving digital tulips?! Who could have foreseen this?!?

Eh. This happened because of a massive oversight failure. FTX acted like a financial institution but had NONE of the appropriate oversight or controls for the scale of assets involved. In other words, this has less to do with the fact that crypto is involved and is more in line with LTMC, Enron, and the lack of controls/oversight/risk management that caused the financial crisis in 2008. Crypto is the Macguffin of the story.

Edit: Actually to clarify a little - that it was crypto is material here but in the sense that it fits the pattern. This is just another asset class in a wave of financial "innovation" products that ended up avoiding proper regulatory and financial industry risk management scrutiny like CDOs or MBSs.

[RunningMn9]

How can nothing be an asset class? We’ve been through this before. Every time it continues to be revealed as one scam or another, the credibility of the pyramid scheme erodes further. I still cannot believe anyone falls for it.

[malchior]

How can nothing be an asset class? We’ve been through this before. Every time it continues to be revealed as one scam or another, the credibility of the pyramid scheme erodes further. I still cannot believe anyone falls for it.

I mean there is quite a body of empirical evidence that some form of crypto will continue to be an asset. Will this market support dozens of coins? Nope. Will it be BTC? Debatable. Will some form of crypto indefinitely exist due to a demand for its characteristics? Almost certainly. Just because you think it's worthless doesn't mean there isn't a robust market for a crypto currency or that it is a "scam". No one is telling you to use it but plenty of folks will for the foreseeable future.

[RunningMn9]

You can’t continue to be something you aren’t. Just because you gave someone money doesn’t mean you bought an asset.

I have no doubt the underlying technology might find a long term use. That doesn’t make “digital coins” any more real, or an asset. I get that the people who have put real money into it want to believe that they purchased an asset, I’m just saying - they didn’t.

It’s a ludicrous Ponzi scheme.

[malchior]

I'll say something I said long ago. You're still arguing against the very concept of money as a construct. Anything can be a currency but not everything can be a good currency. We could debate whether any crypto currency can be a stable or good currency but that's way beyond the bounds of it's worthless and a scam.

I get that the eople who have put real money into it want to believe that they purchased an asset, I’m just saying - they didn’t.

It's clear you believe that. Why you think anyone else should believe that is the mystery to me. I mean arguing it is nothing and a scam? Maybe you're just using hyperbole but it also sounds like an expression of a vein of a particular sort of mathematical anti-Platonism. I don't agree it exists so it doesn't exist. And that's not how anything works.

[RunningMn9]

I'll say something I said long ago. You're still arguing against the very concept of money as a construct. Anything can be a currency but not everything can be a good currency. We could debate whether any crypto currency can be a stable or good currency but that's way beyond the bounds of it's worthless and a scam.

I’m not arguing against the very concept of money as a construct, I’m pointing out that crypto isn’t an asset, or an investment (or a currency). It’s an entirely made up nothing. They’re just digital tulips, and it’s a shame that people are getting scammed by it.

[malchior]

I'll say something I said long ago. You're still arguing against the very concept of money as a construct. Anything can be a currency but not everything can be a good currency. We could debate whether any crypto currency can be a stable or good currency but that's way beyond the bounds of it's worthless and a scam.

I’m not arguing against the very concept of money as a construct

You literally are though. That's the problem. You don't seem to recognize that your base argument is simply not true definitionally. One can buy goods and services with various forms of crypto in wide circulation. It is therefore a currency. End of story. That it might be worthless or someone might be a fool for accepting or using it is a totally different idea. If it is a currency then definitionally it is an asset. Again these are just accepted definitions. That's the basis when I say you're literally arguing against the concept of money.

[LordMortis]

I'll say something I said long ago. You're still arguing against the very concept of money as a construct. Anything can be a currency but not everything can be a good currency. We could debate whether any crypto currency can be a stable or good currency but that's way beyond the bounds of it's worthless and a scam.

I’m not arguing against the very concept of money as a construct

You literally are though. That's the problem. You don't seem to recognize that your base argument is simply not true definitionally. One can buy goods and services with various forms of crypto in wide circulation. It is therefore a currency. End of story. That it might be worthless or someone might be a fool for accepting or using it is a totally different idea. If it is a currency then definitionally it is an asset. Again these are just accepted definitions. That's the basis when I say you're literally arguing against the concept of money.

I think the RM9 has argued before that the value of fiat currency is based on faith in government. Crypo is based on... tulips? Is it a good argument? I dunno but once crypto is backed and regulated like a government backed currency the whole game change and it more or less becomes an exchange method for a government backed money not an alternative to it.

[malchior]

I think the RM9 has argued before that the value of fiat currency is based on faith in government. Crypo is based on... tulips? Is it a good argument? I dunno but once crypto is backed and regulated like a government backed currency the whole game change and it more or less becomes an exchange method for a government backed money not an alternative to it.

The problem is a lack of internal coherence. The tulip mania was a speculative asset bubble! It's illogical to say it is a digital form of an asset based speculative bubble but also maintain they aren't assets. The fiat argument is also completely separate. Though that again would be argumentation about the backing of a class of *assets*. That's all I'm trying to get at.

Just to walk down the fiat path a little. The point that a digital dollar would be tied to the dollar is correct but that debate still relies on it being a currency. I also don't think it'll be a huge game changer for an independent crypto currency. The reason I argue that some form of independent crypto will remain viable (at least a single one for "perpetuity") is because there is high demand for a currency not controlled or tied to any government. Even if it becomes a "black market" currency I think something will survive. It has features that give it value despite it not having a *specific* economy behind it. It instead has *multiple* economies behind it. And crypto allows transactions to occur without centralized control. The fundamental mistake people make is not understanding that crypto is not only a currency but also a decentralized payment service which bootstraps it with inherent value.

[RunningMn9]

I’m not sure why you are having trouble with this. The reference to tulips is a reference to the irrational mania and speculative bubble that surrounded the tulip craze. That tulips were a tangible asset isn’t important to the comparison. Crypto is obviously not a tangible asset. At *best* you could argue that it’s an intangible asset. The problem is that when you give someone money for crypto, you receive nothing in return. You’re playing a game where other people are pretending that you bought something, and they are insane enough to give you money for your nothing. That works so long as there enough people willing to pretend.

I mean, it wasn’t that long ago that we watched the rise and instant fall of NFTs.

We don’t “misunderstand” that it’s not just a currency, we are trying to explain to why it’s not a currency at all. And no, it has no inherent value. It’s all pretend.

[malchior]

I’m not sure why you are having trouble with this.

You are throwing around words and ideas with accepted definitions. I defined why it is considered by many a currency. You blew past the definition to spout the same thing. Heck I'll even do 5 minutes of research to find counterarguments against the definition I used. There are some but the counterarguments are generally speaking the research product of a relative few. And even then the argument against it being a currency is premised on a lack of price stability -- which I guess begs the question what level of instability renders a currency as not a currency! Still the major axis of these arguments against price stability and its status as a currency are by-products of being a speculative asset. Emphasis on asset. I can't find one that says it is nothing. Mostly because it's hard to find anyone else going down that illogical path.

The reference to tulips is a reference to the irrational mania and speculative bubble that surrounded the tulip craze. That tulips were a tangible asset isn’t important to the comparison.

"Speculative bubble". Bubbles involve assets. Words have meanings.

Crypto is obviously not a tangible asset. At *best* you could argue that it’s an intangible asset.

It's not "*best*" - that is the widely accepted definition. That is how the US government views it. It is how courts view it. I'd be surprised to find a single nation or jurisdiction across the world that says they aren't an asset.

The problem is that when you give someone money for crypto, you receive nothing in return.

Maybe you receive something worthless but you don't receive nothing. Unless for some reason you don't receive a chunk of data that mathematically is provably unique and nearly impossible to replicate.

I mean, it wasn’t that long ago that we watched the rise and instant fall of NFTs.

This a non sequitur.

We don’t “misunderstand” that it’s not just a currency, we are trying to explain to why it’s not a currency at all.

Who is the we here?

[FishPants]

Even if it becomes a "black market" currency I think something will survive. It has features that give it value despite it not having a *specific* economy behind it.

You know the only reason crypto exists is because of the black market roots it was spawned from? Why do you think it existed in the first place long before it became mainstream to invest in it? It was used as a method to move money without government oversight, and was used in the criminal world for human trafficking, drugs, extortion and weapons (or any other illegal trade that you can think of). This is why I've never participated in any kind of crypto trading - it's a bunch of hype spread over top of criminal money movement and laundering. No thanks, that's across my ethical boundary - and people that asked why I didn't have any money in crypto (like my sister in law who is a complete techno-loser, and couldn't boot a PC on her own, but became an "expert" reading books on technical analysis of crypto valuations....), and I explained the roots and the horseshit involved - every single one stopped listening and continued trading.

I hope this gets super regulated, so the scum bags of the world are forced to go back to cash based methods that are more and more difficult to use in our digital world. I don't want to see my sister in law get her savings aced (too late), but I do want to see the cartels and gangs have their lives made more difficult without giving it some air of legitimacy as a "currency".

EDIT: Adding this as an example; read it and understand what you are "investing in".

[Scuzz]

It is only a currency substitute to those people who would accept it as such. That limits both its usefulness and its value as an asset. The fewer people who see it as an asset the less worth it has as a currency.

It also has no history, as precious metals or gems do. You also can’t make more gold, sure you can mine it but it doesn’t change that it is gold, and the market does absorb it. With crypto you literally have people inventing more out of whole cloth and then taking ownership of it.

It’s like people trying to print their own money.

[Smoove_B]

I hope this gets super regulated, so the scum bags of the world are forced to go back to cash based methods that are more and more difficult to use in our digital world. I don't want to see my sister in law get her savings aced (too late), but I do want to see the cartels and gangs have their lives made more difficult without giving it some air of legitimacy as a "currency".

I know someone that gave a bitcoin investor $500k cash in exchange for receiving a guaranteed $23K check each month for two years...somehow. This seemed like a great idea, so this person did it and after (I think) two months, the investor stopped sending them checks and whoops, all the bitcoin stuff is gone - no more money.

Anyway, they had to declare bankruptcy because of it. Clearly someone out there has this $500K, but it's not the knucklehead person I know. But I'm totally sure other people know better and wouldn't in any way totally fall for a scam like this person did.

[malchior]

Even if it becomes a "black market" currency I think something will survive. It has features that give it value despite it not having a *specific* economy behind it.

You know the only reason crypto exists is because of the black market roots it was spawned from? Why do you think it existed in the first place long before it became mainstream to invest in it? It was used as a method to move money without government oversight, and was used in the criminal world for human trafficking, drugs, extortion and weapons (or any other illegal trade that you can think of).

I'm very aware. My firm is constantly negotiating ransoms with these fuckers for clients. I'm not defending it at all but more talking one of the stronger cases why some form of crypto will persist.

I hope this gets super regulated, so the scum bags of the world are forced to go back to cash based methods that are more and more difficult to use in our digital world. I don't want to see my sister in law get her savings aced (too late), but I do want to see the cartels and gangs have their lives made more difficult without giving it some air of legitimacy as a "currency".

I would love it but it is practically impossible to ban. As to legitimizing it? I guess but most illegal transactions are conducted worldwide in physical US dollars. The currency isn't necessarily the problem though crypto does theoretically make it "safer"/easier.

[malchior]

I hope this gets super regulated, so the scum bags of the world are forced to go back to cash based methods that are more and more difficult to use in our digital world. I don't want to see my sister in law get her savings aced (too late), but I do want to see the cartels and gangs have their lives made more difficult without giving it some air of legitimacy as a "currency".

I know someone that gave a bitcoin investor $500k cash in exchange for receiving a guaranteed $23K check each month for two years...somehow. This seemed like a great idea, so this person did it and after (I think) two months, the investor stopped sending them checks and whoops, all the bitcoin stuff is gone - no more money.

Anyway, they had to declare bankruptcy because of it. Clearly someone out there has this $500K, but it's not the knucklehead person I know. But I'm totally sure other people know better and wouldn't in any way totally fall for a scam like this person did.

That just sounds like regular fraud or a bad investment to me. Not necessarily anything tied to crypto.

FWIW it was pretty dumb too. Knucklehead is right. If the loss of one investment can cause a bankruptcy, then they obviously couldn't afford to dump that kind of money into a single investment, especially something speculative. Worse it demonstrates really poor financial awareness. A 10% return over a two year period?! You can invest in lots of options (e.g. commercial paper for one) and get that return with a ton less risk.

[FishPants]

I'm very aware. My firm is constantly negotiating ransoms with these fuckers for clients. I'm not defending it at all but more talking one of the stronger cases why some form of crypto will persist.

Who is paying the ransom anymore? Half the time you don't even get a working decryption key, almost 90% of the time there's other crap they've dropped to squeeze you again (RATS, keyloggers you name it). Plus it's becoming illegal to pay in a lot of places - including the US; you need an OFAC clearance through the bureau to process the payment - by the time that happens the attacker has already dumped your shit on a pastebin.

I would love it but it is practically impossible to ban. As to legitimizing it? I guess but most illegal transactions are conducted worldwide in physical US dollars. The currency isn't necessarily the problem though crypto does theoretically make it "safer"/easier.

It's not legitimate in my view, never has been - all people have done is buy into rampant speculation and offering massive amounts of liquidity for the criminal d-bags to launder/move cash. If this was banned at the "retail" level, sure it would go back to being a background "thing" but at least the liquidity problem returns (and with that large jumps in volatility on value that makes it harder still for criminals to exchange at precise dollar amounts).

[Smoove_B]

That just sounds like regular fraud or a bad investment to me. Not necessarily anything tied to crypto.

Yeah, I'm intentionally muddling the story a bit in case the internet has eyes. This wasn't a random investor or a stranger - it was a contact that the friend of a friend new and they were a total "crypto bro", someone that was doing it for years and allegedly making money. But I guess in order to get to the next level of pretend, he needed to get a much larger buy-in so he hit up a bunch of people with guarantees on return...until it didn't. I'm pretty sure it's tied to this.

[malchior]

I'm very aware. My firm is constantly negotiating ransoms with these fuckers for clients. I'm not defending it at all but more talking one of the stronger cases why some form of crypto will persist.

Who is paying the ransom anymore? Half the time you don't even get a working decryption key, almost 90% of the time there's other crap they've dropped to squeeze you again (RATS, keyloggers you name it). Plus it's becoming illegal to pay in a lot of places - including the US

People pay all the time still in the US and it is definitely not illegal. People do get their keys. I'd say we as a firm see several a month. We don't recommend they pay but their counsels and their insurance brokers often make the call to do so. This is a huge problem and I hate it. These "gangs" are billion dollar businesses run in the shadows and I don't think people realize how bad the situation is.

you need an OFAC clearance through the bureau to process the payment - by the time that happens the attacker has already dumped your shit on a pastebin.

I'm not a lawyer but this is incorrect in my understanding. The US government definitely discourages paying and there are some legal issues to consider (e.g. you may expose the firm to legal risk around prohibitions/violations of sanctions regimes for instance) but the firms we support definitely have not sought OFAC approval.

Edit: I do recall one situation where there was a discussion about US treasury legal exposure but don't remember all the parameters. I think that was particular though because it was a regulated financial institution.

It's not legitimate in my view, never has been - all people have done is buy into rampant speculation and offering massive amounts of liquidity for the criminal d-bags to launder/move cash. If this was banned at the "retail" level, sure it would go back to being a background "thing" but at least the liquidity problem returns (and with that large jumps in volatility on value that makes it harder still for criminals to exchange at precise dollar amounts).

This is probably true for the most part. Draining liquidity would help.

[LawBeefaroni]

Even if it becomes a "black market" currency I think something will survive. It has features that give it value despite it not having a *specific* economy behind it.

You know the only reason crypto exists is because of the black market roots it was spawned from? Why do you think it existed in the first place long before it became mainstream to invest in it? It was used as a method to move money without government oversight, and was used in the criminal world for human trafficking, drugs, extortion and weapons (or any other illegal trade that you can think of). This is why I've never participated in any kind of crypto trading - it's a bunch of hype spread over top of criminal money movement and laundering. No thanks, that's across my ethical boundary - and people that asked why I didn't have any money in crypto (like my sister in law who is a complete techno-loser, and couldn't boot a PC on her own, but became an "expert" reading books on technical analysis of crypto valuations....), and I explained the roots and the horseshit involved - every single one stopped listening and continued trading.

Crypto was used it launder millions. BFD. Banks launder trillions.

If you take the moral high ground with BTC, you can't do business with HBSC, JPM, WFC, etc. You probably ought to avoid PayPal, Venmo, and Zelle too.

[LawBeefaroni]

That just sounds like regular fraud or a bad investment to me. Not necessarily anything tied to crypto.

Yeah, I'm intentionally muddling the story a bit in case the internet has eyes. This wasn't a random investor or a stranger - it was a contact that the friend of a friend new and they were a total "crypto bro", someone that was doing it for years and allegedly making money. But I guess in order to get to the next level of pretend, he needed to get a much larger buy-in so he hit up a bunch of people with guarantees on return...until it didn't. I'm pretty sure it's tied to this.

If someone runs a ponzi scheme selling prepaid debit cards for cash, do we ban prepaid debit cards or cash?

Did we ban publicly traded companies after Enron or hedge funds after Madoff? FTX was a scam. Shit coins are scams.

BTC may be worthless but it's not a scam.

[RunningMn9]

BTC itself isn’t a scam. But the rest of this is pointless. Believers gonna believe. Unbelievers gonna unbelieve.

[malchior]

That just sounds like regular fraud or a bad investment to me. Not necessarily anything tied to crypto.

Yeah, I'm intentionally muddling the story a bit in case the internet has eyes. This wasn't a random investor or a stranger - it was a contact that the friend of a friend new and they were a total "crypto bro", someone that was doing it for years and allegedly making money. But I guess in order to get to the next level of pretend, he needed to get a much larger buy-in so he hit up a bunch of people with guarantees on return...until it didn't. I'm pretty sure it's tied to this.

If someone runs a ponzi scheme selling prepaid debit cards for cash, do we ban prepaid debit cards or cash?

Did we ban publicly traded companies after Enron or hedge funds after Madoff? FTX was a scam. Shit coins are scams.

BTC may be worthless but it's not a scam.

Yup the "sure thing" or hot ticket is a timeless scheme for scams or shit investments. Assuming those numbers are anywhere near real I still can't get over someone throwing in $500K to get a ~5% annualized return on "crypto" when it was hot. That's worse than BBB bond yields.

[Smoove_B]

Yup the "sure thing" or hot ticket is a timeless scheme for scams or shit investments. Assuming those numbers are anywhere near real I still can't get over someone throwing in $500K to get a ~5% annualized return on "crypto" when it was hot. That's worse than BBB bond yields.

What if I told you having $500K cash magically appear on your taxes was going to cause problems? So what do you do with it if you want to make money (and you don't figure out how to have your wife suddenly own a car wash)?

It's almost like...these activities attract certain types of people.

[FishPants]

I'm not a lawyer but this is incorrect in my understanding. The US government definitely discourages paying and there are some legal issues to consider (e.g. you may expose the firm to legal risk around prohibitions/violations of sanctions regimes for instance) but the firms we support definitely have not sought OFAC approval.

Edit: I do recall one situation where there was a discussion about US treasury legal exposure but don't remember all the parameters. I think that was particular though because it was a regulated financial institution.

The OFAC sanctions list is real, and people are putting themselves in the line of fire further by paying.. I met with the feds on this side of the border recently, and they indicated now over half of the payments they see happening result in zero or only partial decryption. I'm surprised that you have that many people willing to ignore the penalties for breaking sanction; I guess enforcement isn't likely considering the volume?

[malchior]

I'm not a lawyer but this is incorrect in my understanding. The US government definitely discourages paying and there are some legal issues to consider (e.g. you may expose the firm to legal risk around prohibitions/violations of sanctions regimes for instance) but the firms we support definitely have not sought OFAC approval.

Edit: I do recall one situation where there was a discussion about US treasury legal exposure but don't remember all the parameters. I think that was particular though because it was a regulated financial institution.

The OFAC sanctions list is real, and people are putting themselves in the line of fire further by paying.. I met with the feds on this side of the border recently, and they indicated now over half of the payments they see happening result in zero or only partial decryption. I'm surprised that you have that many people willing to ignore the penalties for breaking sanction; I guess enforcement isn't likely considering the volume?

I'm not saying the sanctions list isn't real. I'm saying as far as I know it doesn't really impact pay or not pay decision making I've seen in any big way. You rarely get enough attribution in any case to tie an incident to any organization on a sanctions list. Like I said not a lawyer so don't know if that is just a risk or an actual defense. I do know it isn't something that has really caused counsel to recommend against payment - and we're involved in cases where the outside counsel are from some of the biggest law firms in the United States. Usually the decisions against paying almost always rely more on practical considerations such as sufficient recovery capability, reputational damage is low, critical data wasn't stolen, etc.

As to the Feds claims? They are bluffing IMO or leaning heavily on the "partial decryption" phrasing because having a system or two that doesn't decrypt isn't that unusual for various reasons. In the end, they are trying to scare firms into not paying the ransoms. Which is a legitimate tactic in my book but the reality in the trenches is very different than what they are saying. And zero decryption? I haven't seen one of those personally yet. Ever. Though we do have a decent amount of negotiations fall apart and sometimes the reason is a test decryption doesn't work and subsequently no payment is made. It could be the case that the more "advanced" incident response firms navigate clients away from those situations.

That said, like I said we do not advise paying but we've seen real pragmatism here especially when there is question about the firm surviving the incident.

[Max Peck]

In cryptocurrency adjacent news:

Celebrity Promoters Sued Over Bored Ape NFT Endorsements

Jimmy Fallon, Gwyneth Paltrow and Justin Bieber have been sued in a proposed class action accusing them and a host of other celebrities who promoted Bored Ape Yacht Club non-fungible tokens of fraud.

The suit claims the celebrities misled their followers into buying BAYC NFTs, among other unregistered securities issued by Yuga Labs, to pump up their value, causing buyers to purchase “losing investments at drastically inflated prices.”

“The truth is that the Company’s entire business model relies on using insidious marketing and promotional activities from A-list celebrities that are highly compensated (without disclosing such), to increase demand of the Yuga securities by convincing potential retail investors that the price of these digital assets would appreciate,” reads the complaint filed on Thursday in California federal court.

The suit also names Madonna, Kevin Hart, Stephen Curry, Snoop Dogg, Serena Williams, Post Malone, The Weeknd, Fallons’ production company Electric Hot Dog, Inc. and Universal Television, among others. It claims most of them were recruited by talent manager Guy Oseary, who spearheaded a scheme with Yuga Labs to discreetly pay them for their endorsements through crypto firm Moonpay. Oseary’s venture capital firm Sound Ventures was an early investor in Moonpay, according to the complaint.

Oseary is allegedly linked to several of the celebrity promoters, including Bieber, Paltrow and Hart, through their early investments in Moonpay. By increasing demand for BAYC NFTs and Yuga Labs’ Apecoin crypto tokens, the suit alleges they also increased demand for Moonpay.

“Oseary, the MoonPay Defendants, and the Promotor Defendants each shared the strong motive to use their influence to artificially create demand for the Yuga securities, which in turn would increase use of MoonPay’s crypto payment service to handle this new demand,” the complaint reads. “At the same time, Oseary could also use MoonPay to obscure how he paid off his celebrity cohorts for their direct or off-label promotions of the Yuga Financial Products.”

[gilraen]

It's the new "pump-and-dump" scheme. New commodity, same grift.

[pr0ner]

The people who bought Bored Apes deserve to lose their money.

[Max Peck]

I don't know much about high-end criming, but I'm pretty sure that you don't want to be the last in line when it comes to cutting a deal with the feds.

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s top associates plead guilty to US charges

Two of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s closest associates have pleaded guilty to fraud and agreed to co-operate with US authorities investigating the collapse of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan said on Wednesday.

Damian Williams, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced the guilty pleas and criminal charges against Caroline Ellison, former chief executive of FTX trading affiliate Alameda Research, and Zixiao “Gary” Wang, a co-founder of FTX, in a short video statement. His office had brought eight charges against Bankman-Fried last week.

The announcement from Williams came just after a plane carrying Bankman-Fried took off from the Bahamas, where he waived his right to challenge extradition to the US. He landed in New York late on Wednesday, local media reported, and is due to appear in a Manhattan court as soon as Thursday, where his bail request will be considered.

The trio of longtime friends were among the key members of a tight circle of associates who ran Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire, which included the FTX cryptocurrency exchanges and Alameda Research, the private trading firm. All three had lived together with other senior executives in a luxury apartment in Nassau’s Albany complex.

Ellison pleaded guilty to seven counts, including wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud and money laundering, which carry a maximum sentence of 110 years in prison, while Wang pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, with a maximum 50-year sentence, according to signed agreements seen by the Financial Times.

[Victoria Raverna]

SBF is free now? How can the judge let someone that stole billion dollars to go free for 250 million dollars bail?

[LawBeefaroni]

SBF is free now? How can the judge let someone that stole billion dollars to go free for 250 million dollars bail?

He can't access the stolen billions (which were actually worth less than $1B with the collapse of FTX). His net worth is now reportedly under $100K. He probably had to surrender his passport(s) as well

Besides, he comes from a nice, respectable, wealthy, academic lawyer family who put up their house to cover bail. What could go wrong?

[LawBeefaroni]

Word now is that Stanford is listed as the primary owner of the house being used as collateral for SBF's bail. Stanford, of course, is where his parents are law professors.

Guessing it's some kind of employee credit union mortgage or other employee benefit but haven't seen any more detail. Either way, it appears that Stanford is guaranteeing SBF.