24 Burst results for "Joseph Bankman"

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

05:39 min | 2 d ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

"Welcome to the CoinStories news block. I'm Natalie Brunell, and in the span of just 10 minutes, roughly the same time it takes to mine a new Bitcoin block, I'll provide you with concise, insightful updates on Bitcoin and the global financial landscape so you're well informed on the week's top stories. Everything you need to know, in one place, in one block. Let's go. Let's begin this block with shocking new information coming from the FTX bankruptcy. In a court filing last week, managers of the bankrupt FTX estate sued SPF's parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, who happen to both be renowned legal and ethics scholars and professors at Stanford Law School. The lawsuit alleges that millions of dollars were fraudulently transferred to SPF's parents from FTX Group, and lawyers want to claw those funds back. The filing describes in detail how SPF's parents were more deeply involved with FTX than many people suspected, with SPF's dad routinely calling it a, quote, family business. The filing says Bankman and Fried exploited their access and influence within the FTX enterprise to enrich themselves. It alleges SPF's dad acted as a de facto manager, hand-selecting recipients of charitable contributions, directing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, hiring and firing employees, and overseeing key investments for FTX. In one exchange, he was upset about his $200,000 a year salary and told his son he needed it to be a million a year, even saying, quote, gee, son, I don't know what to say here. This is the first I heard of the 200k a year salary, putting Barbara on this. SPF's father appears to have been richly rewarded for helping to perpetuate the FTX fraud. He flew in private jets, received millions of dollars in cash and real estate, and even appeared in a Super Bowl commercial. He also used his insider status and wealth to influence his circles, including his employer, Stanford University, and various political groups. Stanford has said it will be returning millions of dollars worth of, quote, gifts it received from FTX. Among the most shocking revelations was that it appears Joseph Bankman understood that FTX was nearing insolvency and transferred funds into assets like primary residences so they would be protected in the event of bankruptcy. This included transferring a $16.4 million luxury property in the Bahamas to himself and his wife. Now, SPF's mother, Barbara Fried, was also deeply intertwined with the FTX scheme. She was the beneficiary of cash and properties and appears to have been the mastermind behind the illegal political donations. Barbara Fried was described as SPF's primary political advisor and allegedly pressured FTX insiders to, quote, unlawfully avoid federal campaign finance law. She pushed FTX employees to use straw donors, which are people who illegally use another person's money to make a political donation in their own name. And lawyers say more than $100 million was stolen from FTX customers to make political donations, making FTX the second largest donor organization behind George Soros Fund management. Although SPF's parents have not been formally charged with anything yet, this lawsuit provides shocking evidence of their involvement in the crypto criminal enterprise. Let's turn now to Robert Menendez, the senior Democratic senator from New Jersey who has been indicted on bribery charges. According to the indictment, Bob and his wife accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bribes in cash, gold bars, mortgage payments and a Mercedes Benz convertible. What makes this particular bribery case notable in the crypto community is that Senator Menendez has been a long time outspoken critic of Bitcoin. Specifically, he has voiced concerns about corruption in Bitcoin and its use in illicit activities. In 2017, the senator wrote a letter stating that the, quote, anonymous nature of Bitcoin transactions makes it an ideal choice for criminals. Menendez was also one of the three co-sponsors of the Accountability for Cryptocurrency in El Salvador Act, which sought to, quote, mitigate risks of El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin. When it comes to Bitcoin critics in Congress, it's really best to focus on what they do, not what they say. Senator Menendez's charges are just the latest development that supports a 2021 report from former acting director of the CIA, Michael Morrell, who found that criminal activity that takes place using Bitcoin is negligible compared to what transpires within the traditional financial system. This news only further speaks to the corruption present in our political system today and how criminals still prefer good old cash over Bitcoin for illicit activities. Now, speaking of Congress, the clock is ticking to pass yet another new funding bill to prevent a government shutdown. Congress has until October 1st to pass new funding legislation, but Republicans and Democrats are not even close to making a deal. So how could all of this impact the economy? Well, under a government shutdown, hundreds of thousands of federal employees would be sent home without pay. Also, government services like the court system, national parks and economic data reporting institutions would be suspended. According to The Wall Street Journal, government spending makes up about a quarter of U.S. GDP, so a sudden slowdown in spending can impact the economy significantly. But get this, in the event of a government shutdown, those workers won't be paid. But the Pentagon has announced that Ukraine operations would be exempt from any potential shutdown and will go forth fully funded. And that is making a lot of people very upset out there.

A highlight from News Block: Shocking Lawsuit Against SBF Parents, UAW Strike, Anti-Bitcoin Senator Indicted, Housing Crisis Ahead?

Coin Stories with Natalie Brunell

05:39 min | 2 d ago

A highlight from News Block: Shocking Lawsuit Against SBF Parents, UAW Strike, Anti-Bitcoin Senator Indicted, Housing Crisis Ahead?

"Welcome to the CoinStories news block. I'm Natalie Brunell, and in the span of just 10 minutes, roughly the same time it takes to mine a new Bitcoin block, I'll provide you with concise, insightful updates on Bitcoin and the global financial landscape so you're well informed on the week's top stories. Everything you need to know, in one place, in one block. Let's go. Let's begin this block with shocking new information coming from the FTX bankruptcy. In a court filing last week, managers of the bankrupt FTX estate sued SPF's parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, who happen to both be renowned legal and ethics scholars and professors at Stanford Law School. The lawsuit alleges that millions of dollars were fraudulently transferred to SPF's parents from FTX Group, and lawyers want to claw those funds back. The filing describes in detail how SPF's parents were more deeply involved with FTX than many people suspected, with SPF's dad routinely calling it a, quote, family business. The filing says Bankman and Fried exploited their access and influence within the FTX enterprise to enrich themselves. It alleges SPF's dad acted as a de facto manager, hand -selecting recipients of charitable contributions, directing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, hiring and firing employees, and overseeing key investments for FTX. In one exchange, he was upset about his $200 ,000 a year salary and told his son he needed it to be a million a year, even saying, quote, gee, son, I don't know what to say here. This is the first I heard of the 200k a year salary, putting Barbara on this. SPF's father appears to have been richly rewarded for helping to perpetuate the FTX fraud. He flew in private jets, received millions of dollars in cash and real estate, and even appeared in a Super Bowl commercial. He also used his insider status and wealth to influence his circles, including his employer, Stanford University, and various political groups. Stanford has said it will be returning millions of dollars worth of, quote, gifts it received from FTX. Among the most shocking revelations was that it appears Joseph Bankman understood that FTX was nearing insolvency and transferred funds into assets like primary residences so they would be protected in the event of bankruptcy. This included transferring a $16 .4 million luxury property in the Bahamas to himself and his wife. Now, SPF's mother, Barbara Fried, was also deeply intertwined with the FTX scheme. She was the beneficiary of cash and properties and appears to have been the mastermind behind the illegal political donations. Barbara Fried was described as SPF's primary political advisor and allegedly pressured FTX insiders to, quote, unlawfully avoid federal campaign finance law. She pushed FTX employees to use straw donors, which are people who illegally use another person's money to make a political donation in their own name. And lawyers say more than $100 million was stolen from FTX customers to make political donations, making FTX the second largest donor organization behind George Soros Fund management. Although SPF's parents have not been formally charged with anything yet, this lawsuit provides shocking evidence of their involvement in the crypto criminal enterprise. Let's turn now to Robert Menendez, the senior Democratic senator from New Jersey who has been indicted on bribery charges. According to the indictment, Bob and his wife accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bribes in cash, gold bars, mortgage payments and a Mercedes Benz convertible. What makes this particular bribery case notable in the crypto community is that Senator Menendez has been a long time outspoken critic of Bitcoin. Specifically, he has voiced concerns about corruption in Bitcoin and its use in illicit activities. In 2017, the senator wrote a letter stating that the, quote, anonymous nature of Bitcoin transactions makes it an ideal choice for criminals. Menendez was also one of the three co -sponsors of the Accountability for Cryptocurrency in El Salvador Act, which sought to, quote, mitigate risks of El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin. When it comes to Bitcoin critics in Congress, it's really best to focus on what they do, not what they say. Senator Menendez's charges are just the latest development that supports a 2021 report from former acting director of the CIA, Michael Morrell, who found that criminal activity that takes place using Bitcoin is negligible compared to what transpires within the traditional financial system. This news only further speaks to the corruption present in our political system today and how criminals still prefer good old cash over Bitcoin for illicit activities. Now, speaking of Congress, the clock is ticking to pass yet another new funding bill to prevent a government shutdown. Congress has until October 1st to pass new funding legislation, but Republicans and Democrats are not even close to making a deal. So how could all of this impact the economy? Well, under a government shutdown, hundreds of thousands of federal employees would be sent home without pay. Also, government services like the court system, national parks and economic data reporting institutions would be suspended. According to The Wall Street Journal, government spending makes up about a quarter of U .S. GDP, so a sudden slowdown in spending can impact the economy significantly. But get this, in the event of a government shutdown, those workers won't be paid. But the Pentagon has announced that Ukraine operations would be exempt from any potential shutdown and will go forth fully funded. And that is making a lot of people very upset out there.

Robert Menendez Natalie Brunell Barbara Fried Michael Morrell BOB Joseph Bankman 2017 Barbara $16 .4 Million Last Week Stanford More Than $100 Million Bahamas Ftx Group CIA Stanford University SPF Pentagon ONE Millions Of Dollars
"joseph bankman" Discussed on CoinDesk Podcast Network

CoinDesk Podcast Network

11:34 min | 6 d ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on CoinDesk Podcast Network

"Thanks for listening to Unchained, your no-hype resource for all things crypto, on the CoinDesk podcast network. You can also listen to the episodes on the Unchained feed earlier if you subscribe there. Plus check out all our content on our website, unchainedcrypto.com. These are all fraudulent transfers, potentially while the debtor was insolvent, potentially while it was coming to lift funds, so clearly all that money has to come back. I think that's pretty easy. The question is, like, what's it worth now and who can actually pay it back? With Toku, you get unmatched legal and tax tech support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Make it simple today with Toku. Today's episode is brought to you by Overtime Markets, your premier Web3 sportsbook. The innovative protocol is changing the game one match at a time. Powered by Thales, explore more at OvertimeMarkets.xyz. Arbitrum's leading Layer 2 scaling solution offers you ultra-cheap and lightning-fast transactions, all with security rooted on Ethereum. Visit arbitrum.io today. With the Crypto.com app, you can buy, trade and spend crypto in one place. Download and get $25 with the code LORA. Link in the description. Today's guest is Thomas Brazile, founder of 117 Partners. Welcome, Thomas. Hey, Laura. Good to see you again. This week, FTX sued Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, the parents of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman Fried. Alleging that Bankman was intimately involved in a number of the allegedly fraudulent schemes, such as silencing someone who threatened to expose the alleged FTX fraud, the purchase of property in the Bahamas, Barbara Fried encouraged the use of strong donors as campaign finance laws, or allegedly, and both were accused generally of either knowing or ignoring the red flags that FTX was insolvent. Was this development surprising or expected? Thanks for having me on, Laura. Good to see you, as always. Was it surprising? No, I don't think it was that surprising. I think what was in the lawsuits in bankruptcy referred to as adversary proceeding, but what was seen in the adversary proceeding was probably a bit shocking, the actual details, but I think people knew that they were pretty involved. I think that was some of the heat they were getting post him getting a criminal complaint against him was that, why is he hanging out with his parents? Weren't they involved in a lot of parts of the business and people were saying things like that. I don't think it's that unexpected. People, I think, long knew that there were some real estate transactions where they were gifted or given some certain real estate in the Bahamas, but to see it all laid out in the complaint or I should say in the adversary proceeding was interesting. Which items in particular really struck you? I guess just the involvement in the actual day-to-day stuff. I mean, if you come from a corporate background or were a tax lawyer, which his dad, I guess, was and is, that there wasn't more, I don't know, structure to the organization. I mean, the dichotomy between what people thought pre-petition, what John Ray sort of said post-petition and now some of the revelations coming out about the pre-petition activity. I mean, it's just kind of amazing to think about people that might have been a more corporate background and saying like, if the business was so profitable, why were you cutting corners? To be fair to these guys, like in the light of day, sunlight of bankruptcy court, which as people in bankruptcy say, like my parents would say, the last place you want to be as a criminal is in bankruptcy court because there's so much sunlight and everything. Everything gets scrutinized. To be fair to people, sometimes the stuff gets overly scrutinized and they cherry pick stuff that went on. But it seems pretty damning, some of the stuff and there's, let's see what the responses will be. I mean, it's good for the estate and it's good for creditors because I'm sure they want to see sort of retribution. But in terms of recoveries, I don't think it's going to be incredibly meaningful, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 million dollars. I mean, that's, I don't know, maybe two months of bankruptcy fees. And so, earlier when we were talking about like how some of the things are particularly damning, like if you were to kind of say, FTX will win in court for these reasons, like which were the particular acts that you think probably will put things over the edge? Oh yeah. I think almost all the stuff though, the win on the merits of the fraudulent conveyance. I mean, these are all fraudulent transfers potentially while the debtor was insolvent, potentially while it was coming with funds, so clearly all that money has to come back. I think that's pretty easy. The question is like, what's it worth now and who can actually pay it back? Like if money was given to a charity, can you actually go and get it back? Like meaning, is it there? Has it been spent kind of stuff? And you can only squeeze whatever rocked so hard. So the question will be, what is the real estate in the Bahamas worth? The 10 million bucks or whatever that was gifted to them, where did that money end up going? Can they trace it? So, these things cost money to do and then the question is like, how much of an effort do you want to make? And of course, all that can be stopped by a criminal investigation, which there isn't a complaint, but clearly some of the activity could be considered criminal. And I think, I won't pretend to be a criminal lawyer or a lawyer at all, but when you're bringing lawsuits, I mean, basically these are kind of like preponderance of evidence standards versus like higher standards that you might have for criminal complaints. So, it's easier for John Ray to like stitch together some stuff they know and slap an AP and sue these guys, but it's a little harder from a criminal side. But all of it, just facially, I mean, of course, as my lawyer likes to tell me, like, facts matter Thomas. So, if more discovery happens than they take discovery, we'll see. But on the face of it, I mean, it looks pretty obvious that it's sort of slam dunk. Just the question is what they'll actually be able to recover. Yeah, I think one of the ones that stuck out at me, simply because I could very easily imagine myself in a similar position with my own parents and I could just picture what my mother would say. And it was when they purchased the Bahamas property and everything was just getting billed or allegedly in the complaint to FTX. And the parents didn't even make an attempt to pay to furnish their home themselves. And I could just imagine if something similar was happening with my mother, she would be like, wait, is this okay that we're doing this? Like, you know, she would have so many questions about the money and like what was okay, what was kosher, what was not. Like, I could just practically hear her in my head. But at least, you know, from what the complaint described, it didn't feel at all like the parents had any of those qualms. So that was... Yeah, it wasn't 100% owner of FTX. So it is bizarre that those red flags wouldn't have been, or people wouldn't have been like, hey, I know that you think this is okay, but I don't. Like someone would have said something, maybe they thought it was a drop in the ocean, but if FTX was so wildly profitable and Alameda was so wildly profitable, they didn't need to cut in corners and have them picking up the checks. I mean, it would have been easy for Sam to just be like, no, I'm picking this up personally or something. Well, one thing that I also noticed is that the document hedges its language saying things like, quote, Banquin and Freed either knew or ignored bright red flags revealing that SPF and other insiders were orchestrating the scheme. And again, you know, I saw later again, it was like, they either knew or blatantly ignored. So, yes. Right. That's because the standard for these civil cases is much lower. You know, like if you were trying to criminally try them, you'd have to like really show that they knew because they're going to say they didn't know, they didn't know, right. But the standard for like breach of fiduciary duty or, you know, kind of unjust enrichment, it's a much lower standard. All you have to basically show is a reasonable person should have known, you know. Oh, oh, I see. Yeah. So, that's why they keep saying that. So, you're saying – So, basically, they don't know whether or not they knew, but it doesn't matter for what they're trying to do. Is that what you're saying? I will respectfully say that I'm not a lawyer, but a stress investor and what people usually say is – the standard is usually what a reasonable person should have known, steps a reasonable person should have taken, best practices that a board should have taken. So, like a board of directors, if somebody runs off with money in a company, they don't have to necessarily show that they knew the person stole the money, but did they take any steps a reasonable person would have taken to like verify that the money was there or that the person wasn't absconding with money or whatever. So, it's this reasonable person standard that I think you trigger under Delaware and there are a lot of jurisdictions for breach of fiduciary duty or breach of loyalty, duty of care that you have, mainly in the boardroom, but also I think as a C-suite executive and it sounds like he was sort of melding between the two. So, basically, yeah, they're just trying to meet that standard for their purposes. They don't need to go beyond. And Barbara Fried, you know, also – so, as far as I understand from reading this, you know, Sam Pinkman was definitely involved more in the day-to-day, you know, he was often listed with FTX management. He could make executive decisions on his own at one point saying, oh, I'm just going to make this decision without Sam, like we don't need to involve him, that kind of thing. So, Barbara Fried was not involved at that level. However, it did say that she was a key influence on the campaign donations and I wondered what your takeaway was in that regard in terms of, you know, her involvement there. campaign finance fraud. Yeah, I don't have too much to say other than it's just bizarre that, you know, so many corners were cut in regards to stuff. I don't have a real view on – again, it's like it helps them build a story that they can, you know, just slam dunk, take back any money that was taken out of the estate at any point in the last couple of years by Barbara and the husband. But I don't think that – I don't have a real view on that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And as far as I understand, I don't think they're married, they're domestic partners. Just to clarify, yeah. All right. So, in a moment, we're going to talk about what the consequences could be after, you know, from this document. But first, a quick word from the sponsors who make this show possible. Toku makes managing global token compensation and incentive awards simple. Are you designing your token compensation plan and grant templates with multiple law firms? Are you managing cliffs, vesting and taxable events in a spreadsheet? Are you distributing tokens to your team manually? With Toku, you get unmatched legal and tax tech support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Easy-to-use token grant award templates, vesting tracking via online dashboard, tax withholding integration with payroll, automated distributions, great employee experience. Make it simple with Toku. Learn more at toku.com slash unchained.

A highlight from UNCHAINED: Why FTX Might Try to Claw Back Funds From Retail Customers

CoinDesk Podcast Network

11:34 min | 6 d ago

A highlight from UNCHAINED: Why FTX Might Try to Claw Back Funds From Retail Customers

"Thanks for listening to Unchained, your no -hype resource for all things crypto, on the CoinDesk podcast network. You can also listen to the episodes on the Unchained feed earlier if you subscribe there. Plus check out all our content on our website, unchainedcrypto .com. These are all fraudulent transfers, potentially while the debtor was insolvent, potentially while it was coming to lift funds, so clearly all that money has to come back. I think that's pretty easy. The question is, like, what's it worth now and who can actually pay it back? With Toku, you get unmatched legal and tax tech support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Make it simple today with Toku. Today's episode is brought to you by Overtime Markets, your premier Web3 sportsbook. The innovative protocol is changing the game one match at a time. Powered by Thales, explore more at OvertimeMarkets .xyz. Arbitrum's leading Layer 2 scaling solution offers you ultra -cheap and lightning -fast transactions, all with security rooted on Ethereum. Visit arbitrum .io today. With the Crypto .com app, you can buy, trade and spend crypto in one place. Download and get $25 with the code LORA. Link in the description. Today's guest is Thomas Brazile, founder of 117 Partners. Welcome, Thomas. Hey, Laura. Good to see you again. This week, FTX sued Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, the parents of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman Fried. Alleging that Bankman was intimately involved in a number of the allegedly fraudulent schemes, such as silencing someone who threatened to expose the alleged FTX fraud, the purchase of property in the Bahamas, Barbara Fried encouraged the use of strong donors as campaign finance laws, or allegedly, and both were accused generally of either knowing or ignoring the red flags that FTX was insolvent. Was this development surprising or expected? Thanks for having me on, Laura. Good to see you, as always. Was it surprising? No, I don't think it was that surprising. I think what was in the lawsuits in bankruptcy referred to as adversary proceeding, but what was seen in the adversary proceeding was probably a bit shocking, the actual details, but I think people knew that they were pretty involved. I think that was some of the heat they were getting post him getting a criminal complaint against him was that, why is he hanging out with his parents? Weren't they involved in a lot of parts of the business and people were saying things like that. I don't think it's that unexpected. People, I think, long knew that there were some real estate transactions where they were gifted or given some certain real estate in the Bahamas, but to see it all laid out in the complaint or I should say in the adversary proceeding was interesting. Which items in particular really struck you? I guess just the involvement in the actual day -to -day stuff. I mean, if you come from a corporate background or were a tax lawyer, which his dad, I guess, was and is, that there wasn't more, I don't know, structure to the organization. I mean, the dichotomy between what people thought pre -petition, what John Ray sort of said post -petition and now some of the revelations coming out about the pre -petition activity. I mean, it's just kind of amazing to think about people that might have been a more corporate background and saying like, if the business was so profitable, why were you cutting corners? To be fair to these guys, like in the light of day, sunlight of bankruptcy court, which as people in bankruptcy say, like my parents would say, the last place you want to be as a criminal is in bankruptcy court because there's so much sunlight and everything. Everything gets scrutinized. To be fair to people, sometimes the stuff gets overly scrutinized and they cherry pick stuff that went on. But it seems pretty damning, some of the stuff and there's, let's see what the responses will be. I mean, it's good for the estate and it's good for creditors because I'm sure they want to see sort of retribution. But in terms of recoveries, I don't think it's going to be incredibly meaningful, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 million dollars. I mean, that's, I don't know, maybe two months of bankruptcy fees. And so, earlier when we were talking about like how some of the things are particularly damning, like if you were to kind of say, FTX will win in court for these reasons, like which were the particular acts that you think probably will put things over the edge? Oh yeah. I think almost all the stuff though, the win on the merits of the fraudulent conveyance. I mean, these are all fraudulent transfers potentially while the debtor was insolvent, potentially while it was coming with funds, so clearly all that money has to come back. I think that's pretty easy. The question is like, what's it worth now and who can actually pay it back? Like if money was given to a charity, can you actually go and get it back? Like meaning, is it there? Has it been spent kind of stuff? And you can only squeeze whatever rocked so hard. So the question will be, what is the real estate in the Bahamas worth? The 10 million bucks or whatever that was gifted to them, where did that money end up going? Can they trace it? So, these things cost money to do and then the question is like, how much of an effort do you want to make? And of course, all that can be stopped by a criminal investigation, which there isn't a complaint, but clearly some of the activity could be considered criminal. And I think, I won't pretend to be a criminal lawyer or a lawyer at all, but when you're bringing lawsuits, I mean, basically these are kind of like preponderance of evidence standards versus like higher standards that you might have for criminal complaints. So, it's easier for John Ray to like stitch together some stuff they know and slap an AP and sue these guys, but it's a little harder from a criminal side. But all of it, just facially, I mean, of course, as my lawyer likes to tell me, like, facts matter Thomas. So, if more discovery happens than they take discovery, we'll see. But on the face of it, I mean, it looks pretty obvious that it's sort of slam dunk. Just the question is what they'll actually be able to recover. Yeah, I think one of the ones that stuck out at me, simply because I could very easily imagine myself in a similar position with my own parents and I could just picture what my mother would say. And it was when they purchased the Bahamas property and everything was just getting billed or allegedly in the complaint to FTX. And the parents didn't even make an attempt to pay to furnish their home themselves. And I could just imagine if something similar was happening with my mother, she would be like, wait, is this okay that we're doing this? Like, you know, she would have so many questions about the money and like what was okay, what was kosher, what was not. Like, I could just practically hear her in my head. But at least, you know, from what the complaint described, it didn't feel at all like the parents had any of those qualms. So that was... Yeah, it wasn't 100 % owner of FTX. So it is bizarre that those red flags wouldn't have been, or people wouldn't have been like, hey, I know that you think this is okay, but I don't. Like someone would have said something, maybe they thought it was a drop in the ocean, but if FTX was so wildly profitable and Alameda was so wildly profitable, they didn't need to cut in corners and have them picking up the checks. I mean, it would have been easy for Sam to just be like, no, I'm picking this up personally or something. Well, one thing that I also noticed is that the document hedges its language saying things like, quote, Banquin and Freed either knew or ignored bright red flags revealing that SPF and other insiders were orchestrating the scheme. And again, you know, I saw later again, it was like, they either knew or blatantly ignored. So, yes. Right. That's because the standard for these civil cases is much lower. You know, like if you were trying to criminally try them, you'd have to like really show that they knew because they're going to say they didn't know, they didn't know, right. But the standard for like breach of fiduciary duty or, you know, kind of unjust enrichment, it's a much lower standard. All you have to basically show is a reasonable person should have known, you know. Oh, oh, I see. Yeah. So, that's why they keep saying that. So, you're saying – So, basically, they don't know whether or not they knew, but it doesn't matter for what they're trying to do. Is that what you're saying? I will respectfully say that I'm not a lawyer, but a stress investor and what people usually say – is the standard is usually what a reasonable person should have known, steps a reasonable person should have taken, best practices that a board should have taken. So, like a board of directors, if somebody runs off with money in a company, they don't have to necessarily show that they knew the person stole the money, but did they take any steps a reasonable person would have taken to like verify that the money was there or that the person wasn't absconding with money or whatever. So, it's this reasonable person standard that I think you trigger under Delaware and there are a lot of jurisdictions for breach of fiduciary duty or breach of loyalty, duty of care that you have, mainly in the boardroom, but also I think as a C -suite executive and it sounds like he was sort of melding between the two. So, basically, yeah, they're just trying to meet that standard for their purposes. They don't need to go beyond. And Barbara Fried, you know, also – so, as far as I understand from reading this, you know, Sam Pinkman was definitely involved more in the day -to -day, you know, he was often listed with FTX management. He could make executive decisions on his own at one point saying, oh, I'm just going to make this decision without Sam, like we don't need to involve him, that kind of thing. So, Barbara Fried was not involved at that level. However, it did say that she was a key influence on the campaign donations and I wondered what your takeaway was in that regard in terms of, you know, her involvement there. campaign finance fraud. Yeah, I don't have too much to say other than it's just bizarre that, you know, so many corners were cut in regards to stuff. I don't have a real view on – again, it's like it helps them build a story that they can, you know, just slam dunk, take back any money that was taken out of the estate at any point in the last couple of years by Barbara and the husband. But I don't think that – I don't have a real view on that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And as far as I understand, I don't think they're married, they're domestic partners. Just to clarify, yeah. All right. So, in a moment, we're going to talk about what the consequences could be after, you know, from this document. But first, a quick word from the sponsors who make this show possible. Toku makes managing global token compensation and incentive awards simple. Are you designing your token compensation plan and grant templates with multiple law firms? Are you managing cliffs, vesting and taxable events in a spreadsheet? Are you distributing tokens to your team manually? With Toku, you get unmatched legal and tax tech support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Easy -to -use token grant award templates, vesting tracking via online dashboard, tax withholding integration with payroll, automated distributions, great employee experience. Make it simple with Toku. Learn more at toku .com slash unchained.

Barbara Laura Sam Pinkman Barbara Fried Thomas Brazile John Ray Joseph Bankman $25 Thomas Bahamas Two Months Bankman 100 % SAM Alameda TWO This Week First Today 10 Million Bucks
"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto Critics' Corner

Crypto Critics' Corner

05:38 min | 6 d ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto Critics' Corner

"And then I talked to his dad later in the day. How much money were they giving you? They were talking about, I've said this before, they were talking about a billion dollars, which seemed, you know, a lot of money, but certainly would be manageable in the context of the size of the business. But later in the evening, that number went from a billion to four and a half billion. And then I said, okay, that was obviously a problem, and it's a bigger problem than they want to admit to. And so I made the decision that evening. I got on my phone, I booked myself a JetBlue flight down to the Bahamas, and I wanted to see for myself what was going on. You know, listen, I put my name and reputation at stake. I introduced Sam to a lot of people. Brett and I, one short year ago, and I believe you were there with us, we had Crypto Bahamas at the Baja Mar Hotel. Brett and I organized a dinner for the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton and a whole host of luminaries. One short year ago, he fast forward, it's sort of still hard to believe that we're where we are right now. And so I needed to see it for myself. And so I went down there and I would say that the war room was despondent. And this was an exchange that should have no duration issues. That means for at least several days before FTX declared bankruptcy, at least according to Scaramucci's version of the story, and the lawsuit also alleges he was down there and part of those talks to get emergency fundraising. He knew FTX was insolvent. I don't know what's going to happen, right? I want to clarify, as usual, that we're not lawyers, we don't pretend to be, we aren't going to suggest that we would have any better idea of what's going to happen with any of this than anyone else. What's being described sounds like fraud. It sounds like a breach of fiduciary duties. It sounds like fraud. It sounds like criminal. And I don't know how that plays out. We're going to get an idea based on how the co-defendants in the FTX Alameda stuff who have already pled, what happens to them? I don't know yet. Nobody knows. I can presume they're going to get a lot less time than SPF. I really believe that. I don't know if it'll be true. We're going to find out. My belief is strongly that they will see a significantly less amount of time in prison if they get prison time at all. Outside of Sam Trabuco, who we still haven't heard from, I think when he does decide to appear, we'll be doing a lot of time in prison. We should add, in the interest of journalistic fairness, that lawyers for Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried issued a statement to several outlets where they say, these allegations are nonsense. That house we lived in and referred to as our house and that was paid by FTX funds was in no way criminal or fraudulent, yada, yada, yada. And then they throw in some stuff about how, uh, John Ray is wasting all this money and this is a distraction. This is meant to inflame people right before our son goes on trial. And so some version of that is their statement. And that's, that's the liberty I'll give it. And we've talked about this before as well. They already put it down in writing. They can say whatever they want now. I don't really fucking care if they deny it. You sent the emails, guys. You sent the emails. You literally put it in writing. The one thing you shouldn't do- Out of context, Cass. Yeah, out of context. My fat ass, dude. We've said it before. I don't know if you're going to do crime like this on this level, if you're going to be doing, you know, moving tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars at a time in the name of, you know, crime. I mean, sorry. Um, not of the, not of the criminal sort, but if you're going to be doing this, don't write it down. It's super simple. Do a phone call. Like, why wouldn't you do a phone call instead? Idiots. You guys are law professors. Are you- What if the lines are tapped? Right. I don't know, man. These guys are law professors. It's hard to believe, but it makes you question everything. And this is, this is the last point I want to make. It makes you question everything. These guys had crazy reputations in Silicon Valley and the education world, right? Upper education world. They, they were well known for their, for their essays and their, their statements about tax law and, and freed particularly about criminals and, you know, treating them correctly and all this stuff. It didn't take that much money for them to completely give up their reputation and do the exact opposite of what they'd been teaching for decades. That's crazy. That's crazy. And it's not just them. And, and, and I hope people realize that. Like, it just makes you question everything so much more because who, who, who are you going to rely on now? People are going to throw away their decades long reputations in academia and everything that they once stood for, for some millions of dollars in some property. I mean, that is, that says something. And, and I don't know if that's an American societal issue. It's a global issue. I don't know, man, but it's troubling to me. There's certainly issues with many of the elites in America. I think both Joseph Bank and Barbara Fried spent a lot of time around people who were richer than them, who they thought they were smarter than, and had at some level a belief that this was finally their chance to be both smart and rich. Warped, warped and sad. And certainly a statement on the, the, the way academia, higher education in America works, especially at these private institutions. It's super sad and super corrupt. And if you want to stop that, if you want to do something about, you know, if you want to do something to stop this kind of gross academia stuff, this fraud, donate to Castcoin guys. It's super simple. Anyway, I think that's going to do it for this episode. Remember, hit the like and subscribe button and all that stuff. I hate it when people say it, but I know I have to. Thanks for listening.

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto Critics' Corner

Crypto Critics' Corner

18:44 min | 6 d ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto Critics' Corner

"Welcome back, everyone. I am Cass Pianci, and I'm joined as usual by my partner in crime, not of the criminal sort, Bennett Tomlin. How are you today? I'm doing well. How are you, Cass? I'm doing good. It's been busy. It's been a very busy week for both of us. But today's episode is going to be about SPF's parents, the Bankmans and the Freeds, and their what appears to be increasingly important role that they each played in the criminal elements of FTX and Alameda Research. They called it a family business. They accepted incredibly large salaries. His father was getting a million dollars after requesting it because he was only getting 250,000 before. Mom pushed and tried to ensure that any money getting sent to the charity arm of the company had two steps of separation, two degrees of separation. And just really shady, weird stuff going on over there with the Bankmans and the Freeds. But those are kind of vague descriptions of what's going on. Bennett, why don't you walk us through some of the seriously criminal elements and what is happening? There is a decent amount of allegations contained in this lawsuit from the FTX debtors in possession against Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried that at a high level alleges that they were involved in specific aspects of the business and were closely connected to various alleged criminal acts and criminal acts people have pled guilty to. Starting with Joseph Bankman, he was involved with Alameda Research as early as 2018, which is when it was founded, and stayed involved throughout the entire time. The first several years, this appears to have been relatively informal. He directed FTX towards their first law firm, suggested their first accounting firm, was involved in consultations for hiring of certain executives and things like that. But none of this was documented in any kind of formal way. Eventually, in January 2021, he decides that there should be some kind of piece of paper that describes his relationship with these entities. And so he creates a document that describes his work for Alameda Research and FTX and FTX US, saying he's doing a variety of pro bono legal work and consulting work for these entities. What's interesting, of course, is that he was the signatory for the FTX entities and for himself on this entity. Really has kind of vibes of that loan agreement between Bitfinex and Tether years ago, where JLVDV and Juan Carlo was signing for both entities. And so that was one moment that really struck me as I was going through that is that he felt the need to, after providing advice for several years, finally in 2021 documents it and says he's providing this pro bono legal advice. This did not stay pro bono for very long. Later in 2021, he would take a leave of absence from Stanford University. And after he took this leave of absence, he allegedly told an FTX US employee, I'm no longer getting paid by Stanford because I'm on leave, so you should have me on salary starting December 1st. In December 2021, this is when he finally entered into a formal employment agreement with FTX US, where his nominal title was Senior Advisor to the FTX Foundation. You said it was $250,000. It was actually $200,000 a year, plus bonuses he was supposed to be getting paid. And this is where we get to the fun part that you made an allusion to before. He went to FTX's head of administration after signing this employment agreement that clearly said $200,000, told this person that he was supposed to be getting $1 million a year starting in December, and then he sends an email over to Sam Bankmanfried, his son, that says, and I quote, Gee, Sam, I don't know what to say here. This is the first I've heard of the $200,000 a year salary putting Barbara on this, meaning he cc'd in Sam Bankmanfried's mother and his domestic partner to help him deal with this contract negotiations that happened after he signed that contract. And it worked. It worked. Within two weeks, Bankman and Fried were gifted $10 million in funds originating from Alameda. Within three months, they ended up getting their $16 million mansion in the Bahamas funded entirely by FTX. And over the period after they got that mansion, they were able to expense something like $90,000 in various other expenses. And before he signed that contract agreement in December 2021, I do want to make clear he was also provided with an option to purchase shares of FTX US and FTX trading in November 2021. Before he was even employed with FTX, he was getting large options of shares. So yeah, I think that kind of is a good initial overview and we can get into some of the details he was also involved in, but they were receiving a lot of this type of monetary compensation. Yeah, well, I want to specifically bring up here some things that really made a red flag go off for me were, for instance, how they were keen to keep the residencies, the properties that they were acquiring with these gifted funds and all this money that they were essentially taking from customers, to be clear on that, that they wanted to ensure that that money in those properties would be shielded from a bankruptcy. And I'm just wondering, like, why, if they're so confident in this business, if they're so confident in their son, if they're so sure this is the future of finance, and I get it, you want to shield your personal property from a bankruptcy, but you just got gifted $10 million. You have to know this isn't exactly personal property, right? Like, you have to know your son is giving this to you. Your son is making money from the company. How is he making all of this money? You haven't really nailed that down yet. And you still are just letting this all transpire. Nobody was asking any questions is kind of what I'm getting to. But the questions they were asking were about, like, ensuring that they were shielded from any problems in the future. Yeah. And we should clarify the timeline a little bit here. There's a 2021 email exchange where FTX's general counsel wants to set up a meeting with their law firm to discuss how assets, including primary residence, can be structured to be bankruptcy remote. And Bankman quickly kind of responds in this email chain the next day and says it would be great, all else equal, if we could have the founders put money into property in the Bahamas and sent them a link to a description of an offshore trust structure in the Bahamas. He then discusses this with a lawyer in the Bahamas, another Stanford law professor, and his brother-in-law, and then ends up saying something we might use when we buy property in the Bahamas. And the reason I'm belaboring this point is because it happens, I think, about a year before they actually end up getting the house. And then, five months before they get the house, there's another thing that happens, and that's that they apply for residency in the Bahamas, permanent residency in the Bahamas. In order for them to get that, there's a $15,000 fee. That's also paid by FTX. And so I think what that kind of shows is this kind of series of planning that went into them eventually getting this mansion. They started discussing how to structure this about a year before, and I don't think they ended up using those trusts, at least not at the time of bankruptcy. They had already gotten their residency months before they got the property, and then they got the property. They wanted to benefit from this. There's no doubt about that. I mean, there is no doubt. I just want to be clear, and we're going to link to the very thorough protest article that goes over all of this, but it is very obvious. I think before we get to the crux of this, I first want to delve into this a little bit more. So Stanford yesterday decided that they were going to return all of the donated funds from this family, which amounted to $5.5 million, which is a lot. I mean, I know that they get a shit, a metric shit ton of cash every year, but the idea that they're getting $5.5 million in a single year from one family, one company, you know, essentially one family. That's how you get your name on a building and stuff like that. So they were donating a ton of money to this educational institution. All I want to say is that I think Stanford is disgusting. I think we see this in a bunch of these higher education, these private institutions, probably equally common in great public universities as well, but the ones that we hear about are like MIT or Harvard or Stanford accepting money from Jeffrey Epstein or accepting money from these guys, and then, oh, okay, you're returning it. Great. Well, you know why you're returning it? Because you got caught. That's why you're returning it. You're not returning it because you thought it was the right thing to do. Now that it's all coming out in these court documents, Stanford's giving the money back. They didn't do it one minute before that happened, though. Isn't that interesting? And I, you know, I think you should get into kind of the details of those donations, which there were many over this period, but like, oh, what a nasty, nasty way for a university to operate. I think the elite private colleges are at a special risk for kind of this because so much of their, like, existing structure is based around taking in cash and converting it to some vague elite authority. Speaking specifically about the donations from FTX to Stanford that appear to have been directed by Joseph Bankman, there was one that came from Paperbird directly to Stanford University. And this one was interesting because there was a lot of discussion about which entity to use. And what Bankman ends up saying is that he thought it should come from Paperbird, which was one of the entities that Sam Bankman-Fried owned that held most of the stock for FTX that investors were buying into. The corporate structure of FTX is a mind fuck. But this shows Bankman was aware of parts of the mind fuck. He says Paperbird can use the deduction. And when he discusses alternatives, he says we can have another entity loan Paperbird money, but that requires some paperwork. Eventually they get it all sorted out. FTX transfers money to Paperbird into a newly set up bank account, which immediately sends that money on to Stanford. There was another four million dollar donation to a Stanford fund for pandemic preparedness that he described as pretty much a no brainer. Bitcoin were transferred from Alameda Research's FTX account eventually. There was another series of donations where it was proposed that they give 1.5 million from the FTX Foundation to Stanford College. However, the initial 500,000 for this came from an Alameda Research bank account, and the second 500,000 came from an FTX US bank account. There was another donation they did for a Stanford blockchain conference so they could sponsor it. That one was only 10k. But again, it kind of points towards how Bankman saw these entities as interchangeable. He said 10k is so little it doesn't really matter. So if we think that having FTX US is easier or safer for some reason, we should just do that. And what's most interesting is you talked about your name on a building. And there was a Stanford University employee who provided comment as part of this lawsuit. And this Stanford University employee apparently says that internally in Stanford, these donations were categorized as directed by the Bankman-Frieds. And like when they specifically got the big $4 million pandemic preparedness donation from Alameda, this person even reached out, should this one be categorized like the rest as from you all? Or is this one somehow different? And so yeah, I think that those donations kind of point towards how they were specifically using these commingled customer and client funds from across all these different entities in this self-promotional activity of giving these donations. Yep, there's more to where this money went, how much was spent, why they were in control of this. But I think the question that everybody wants to ask and is wondering about is how are they not being criminally charged with anything yet? And will they? I think we should hold off on that question for just a moment, because I want to talk about how Joseph Bankman also made sure other people he was related to and friends with got paid while he was in this position, because I think that's kind of fun. They talk about one example where he got a Stanford law student a free trip to the French Grand Prix tickets to the race so they could go and visit that. But I think the more interesting one was a hackathon that they had planned that was run by his sister. Bankman freed Sam's aunt. They hired her at a rate of $14,000 a month to prepare the FTX million-dollar hackathon and crypto summit held at the Miami Heat Arena, which was the one they put their name on briefly. They spent a total of $2.3 million on this event, which was attended by 1,200 people. They were spending crazy amounts. They said she was authorized to spend like without a budget, whatever it was needed to get this event done. There was so much of this kind of like self-enrichment here that we'll get to your question as to how are they not being criminally charged. That's just grift. Yeah, obviously. The other person we need to talk about, of course, is Barbara. Barbara Freed, Sam Bankman Freed's mother. In her specific role, she, as you alluded to at the very beginning of this episode, described herself as her son's partner in crime of the non-criminal sort. And Sam made sure to sing her praises to his team, making known to her that he intended to rely on her direction regarding who to give to, how much to give to, and how it should be disclosed and told them that it would be good for them to follow her advice as well. And what seems really interesting is she seemed to have a great deal of control. The lawsuit even alleges she was able to unilaterally commit funds of Sam Bankman Freed's to her political action committee, Mind the Gap, meaning without Sam's authorization, she was able to take Sam's money donated in Sam's name to her political action committee, which is a great deal of trust. And even inside her own committee, when she had to talk about some of these donations, she would say things like, I don't know exactly what interconnected entity he sent the money from, but the business is real and revenue-generating, which again, I think, points towards kind of the interchangeability of these entities for these folks. What I think really gets interesting is Nishad Singh, who has already pled guilty for conspiracy to defraud the federal election committee, as well as a variety of other conspiracy charges. He was one of the people who appears to have served as effectively a straw-man donor for Sam Bankman Freed, and was advised in this process by Barbara Freed, Sam's mother. At one point when they were discussing donations to her organization Mind the Gap, and she suggested that, now that my connection to Sam is publicly known, because we don't want to create the impression that funding MTG is a family affair, as opposed to a collective effort by many people, including some mystery guy Nishad Singh, which is when she was suggesting that on their end, they would prefer if his name was the one that was donating to Mind the Gap instead of Sam Bankman Freed's. And similarly, she was worried about a lot of their political donations. There's a really telling one, where she's warning him in an email, And again, later, just the last one to really put kind of a cherry on top of her seeming knowledge of some of the criminal acts that Nishad Singh has pled guilty to. She said, And I think this, as well as some of the more specific tax advice that Bankman Freed was giving FTX on their specific finances and stuff like that, point towards potential knowledge of criminal acts. I tweeted out shortly after I read through this lawsuit, or as I was about halfway through reading this lawsuit, if I'm being honest, And as you alluded to previously, that is kind of what this feels like. It feels like these two law professors, who should have known better, had high-level knowledge of things that people have already pled guilty to, and were deeply involved in the business. Bankman specifically was even mentioned on an internal document as a member of the management of FTXUS, along with only a few other names. They had knowledge, they were inside the organization, and they had some amount of presence. One last thing that I think really hammers that home. When we went to consensus, and we talked about this in our episode that we did after that, Anthony Scaramucci was talking about his experiences in the lead-up to and aftermath of the FTX collapse. And one thing he said that seemed to be corroborated in the lawsuit is that Bankman was involved in them attempting to get the emergency funding. And as we said, and we shared the audio clip of Scaramucci saying it, Bankman apparently told Anthony Scaramucci, or intimated to him, that there was an asset liability mismatch at FTX. What happened to me is I was actually speaking in Sarasota, Florida. There was rumblings that day, I think it was November the 6th or something like that, or 7th. The Monday was the 7th. And then I got back to New York and I spoke to Sam's dad about the problem, and it was intimated to me that it was an asset liability mismatch, that they were leading redemptions and there were assets available, but they weren't necessarily liquid, and they needed time to get the liquidity, and they were looking for some rescue plans. And so at that time, I was a good citizen and a partner in the business. In fact, they owned a piece of my business. I was certainly trying to help them on their fundraising round.

A highlight from Were SBF's parents in on it? Follow the Money

Crypto Critics' Corner

18:44 min | 6 d ago

A highlight from Were SBF's parents in on it? Follow the Money

"Welcome back, everyone. I am Cass Pianci, and I'm joined as usual by my partner in crime, not of the criminal sort, Bennett Tomlin. How are you today? I'm doing well. How are you, Cass? I'm doing good. It's been busy. It's been a very busy week for both of us. But today's episode is going to be about SPF's parents, the Bankmans and the Freeds, and their what appears to be increasingly important role that they each played in the criminal elements of FTX and Alameda Research. They called it a family business. They accepted incredibly large salaries. His father was getting a million dollars after requesting it because he was only getting 250 ,000 before. Mom pushed and tried to ensure that any money getting sent to the charity arm of the company had two steps of separation, two degrees of separation. And just really shady, weird stuff going on over there with the Bankmans and the Freeds. But those are kind of vague descriptions of what's going on. Bennett, why don't you walk us through some of the seriously criminal elements and what is happening? There is a decent amount of allegations contained in this lawsuit from the FTX debtors in possession against Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried that at a high level alleges that they were involved in specific aspects of the business and were closely connected to various alleged criminal acts and criminal acts people have pled guilty to. Starting with Joseph Bankman, he was involved with Alameda Research as early as 2018, which is when it was founded, and stayed involved throughout the entire time. The first several years, this appears to have been relatively informal. He directed FTX towards their first law firm, suggested their first accounting firm, was involved in consultations for hiring of certain executives and things like that. But none of this was documented in any kind of formal way. Eventually, in January 2021, he decides that there should be some kind of piece of paper that describes his relationship with these entities. And so he creates a document that describes his work for Alameda Research and FTX and FTX US, saying he's doing a variety of pro bono legal work and consulting work for these entities. What's interesting, of course, is that he was the signatory for the FTX entities and for himself on this entity. Really has kind of vibes of that loan agreement between Bitfinex and Tether years ago, where JLVDV and Juan Carlo was signing for both entities. And so that was one moment that really struck me as I was going through that is that he felt the need to, after providing advice for several years, finally in 2021 documents it and says he's providing this pro bono legal advice. This did not stay pro bono for very long. Later in 2021, he would take a leave of absence from Stanford University. And after he took this leave of absence, he allegedly told an FTX US employee, I'm no longer getting paid by Stanford because I'm on leave, so you should have me on salary starting December 1st. In December 2021, this is when he finally entered into a formal employment agreement with FTX US, where his nominal title was Senior Advisor to the FTX Foundation. You said it was $250 ,000. It was actually $200 ,000 a year, plus bonuses he was supposed to be getting paid. And this is where we get to the fun part that you made an allusion to before. He went to FTX's head of administration after signing this employment agreement that clearly said $200 ,000, told this person that he was supposed to be getting $1 million a year starting in December, and then he sends an email over to Sam Bankmanfried, his son, that says, and I quote, Gee, Sam, I don't know what to say here. This is the first I've heard of the $200 ,000 a year salary putting Barbara on this, meaning he cc'd in Sam Bankmanfried's mother and his domestic partner to help him deal with this contract negotiations that happened after he signed that contract. And it worked. It worked. Within two weeks, Bankman and Fried were gifted $10 million in funds originating from Alameda. Within three months, they ended up getting their $16 million mansion in the Bahamas funded entirely by FTX. And over the period after they got that mansion, they were able to expense something like $90 ,000 in various other expenses. And before he signed that contract agreement in December 2021, I do want to make clear he was also provided with an option to purchase shares of FTX US and FTX trading in November 2021. Before he was even employed with FTX, he was getting large options of shares. So yeah, I think that kind of is a good initial overview and we can get into some of the details he was also involved in, but they were receiving a lot of this type of monetary compensation. Yeah, well, I want to specifically bring up here some things that really made a red flag go off for me were, for instance, how they were keen to keep the residencies, the properties that they were acquiring with these gifted funds and all this money that they were essentially taking from customers, to be clear on that, that they wanted to ensure that that money in those properties would be shielded from a bankruptcy. And I'm just wondering, like, why, if they're so confident in this business, if they're so confident in their son, if they're so sure this is the future of finance, and I get it, you want to shield your personal property from a bankruptcy, but you just got gifted $10 million. You have to know this isn't exactly personal property, right? Like, you have to know your son is giving this to you. Your son is making money from the company. How is he making all of this money? You haven't really nailed that down yet. And you still are just letting this all transpire. Nobody was asking any questions is kind of what I'm getting to. But the questions they were asking were about, like, ensuring that they were shielded from any problems in the future. Yeah. And we should clarify the timeline a little bit here. There's a 2021 email exchange where FTX's general counsel wants to set up a meeting with their law firm to discuss how assets, including primary residence, can be structured to be bankruptcy remote. And Bankman quickly kind of responds in this email chain the next day and says it would be great, all else equal, if we could have the founders put money into property in the Bahamas and sent them a link to a description of an offshore trust structure in the Bahamas. He then discusses this with a lawyer in the Bahamas, another Stanford law professor, and his brother -in -law, and then ends up saying something we might use when we buy property in the Bahamas. And the reason I'm belaboring this point is because it happens, I think, about a year before they actually end up getting the house. And then, five months before they get the house, there's another thing that happens, and that's that they apply for residency in the Bahamas, permanent residency in the Bahamas. In order for them to get that, there's a $15 ,000 fee. That's also paid by FTX. And so I think what that kind of shows is this kind of series of planning that went into them eventually getting this mansion. They started discussing how to structure this about a year before, and I don't think they ended up using those trusts, at least not at the time of bankruptcy. They had already gotten their residency months before they got the property, and then they got the property. They wanted to benefit from this. There's no doubt about that. I mean, there is no doubt. I just want to be clear, and we're going to link to the very thorough protest article that goes over all of this, but it is very obvious. I think before we get to the crux of this, I first want to delve into this a little bit more. So Stanford yesterday decided that they were going to return all of the donated funds from this family, which amounted to $5 .5 million, which is a lot. I mean, I know that they get a shit, a metric shit ton of cash every year, but the idea that they're getting $5 .5 million in a single year from one family, one company, you know, essentially one family. That's how you get your name on a building and stuff like that. So they were donating a ton of money to this educational institution. All I want to say is that I think Stanford is disgusting. I think we see this in a bunch of these higher education, these private institutions, probably equally common in great public universities as well, but the ones that we hear about are like MIT or Harvard or Stanford accepting money from Jeffrey Epstein or accepting money from these guys, and then, oh, okay, you're returning it. Great. Well, you know why you're returning it? Because you got caught. That's why you're returning it. You're not returning it because you thought it was the right thing to do. Now that it's all coming out in these court documents, Stanford's giving the money back. They didn't do it one minute before that happened, though. Isn't that interesting? And I, you know, I think you should get into kind of the details of those donations, which there were many over this period, but like, oh, what a nasty, nasty way for a university to operate. I think the elite private colleges are at a special risk for kind of this because so much of their, like, existing structure is based around taking in cash and converting it to some vague elite authority. Speaking specifically about the donations from FTX to Stanford that appear to have been directed by Joseph Bankman, there was one that came from Paperbird directly to Stanford University. And this one was interesting because there was a lot of discussion about which entity to use. And what Bankman ends up saying is that he thought it should come from Paperbird, which was one of the entities that Sam Bankman -Fried owned that held most of the stock for FTX that investors were buying into. The corporate structure of FTX is a mind fuck. But this shows Bankman was aware of parts of the mind fuck. He says Paperbird can use the deduction. And when he discusses alternatives, he says we can have another entity loan Paperbird money, but that requires some paperwork. Eventually they get it all sorted out. FTX transfers money to Paperbird into a newly set up bank account, which immediately sends that money on to Stanford. There was another four million dollar donation to a Stanford fund for pandemic preparedness that he described as pretty much a no brainer. Bitcoin were transferred from Alameda Research's FTX account eventually. There was another series of donations where it was proposed that they give 1 .5 million from the FTX Foundation to Stanford College. However, the initial 500 ,000 for this came from an Alameda Research bank account, and the second 500 ,000 came from an FTX US bank account. There was another donation they did for a Stanford blockchain conference so they could sponsor it. That one was only 10k. But again, it kind of points towards how Bankman saw these entities as interchangeable. He said 10k is so little it doesn't really matter. So if we think that having FTX US is easier or safer for some reason, we should just do that. And what's most interesting is you talked about your name on a building. And there was a Stanford University employee who provided comment as part of this lawsuit. And this Stanford University employee apparently says that internally in Stanford, these donations were categorized as directed by the Bankman -Frieds. And like when they specifically got the big $4 million pandemic preparedness donation from Alameda, this person even reached out, should this one be categorized like the rest as from you all? Or is this one somehow different? And so yeah, I think that those donations kind of point towards how they were specifically using these commingled customer and client funds from across all these different entities in this self -promotional activity of giving these donations. Yep, there's more to where this money went, how much was spent, why they were in control of this. But I think the question that everybody wants to ask and is wondering about is how are they not being criminally charged with anything yet? And will they? I think we should hold off on that question for just a moment, because I want to talk about how Joseph Bankman also made sure other people he was related to and friends with got paid while he was in this position, because I think that's kind of fun. They talk about one example where he got a Stanford law student a free trip to the French Grand Prix tickets to the race so they could go and visit that. But I think the more interesting one was a hackathon that they had planned that was run by his sister. Bankman freed Sam's aunt. They hired her at a rate of $14 ,000 a month to prepare the FTX million -dollar hackathon and crypto summit held at the Miami Heat Arena, which was the one they put their name on briefly. They spent a total of $2 .3 million on this event, which was attended by 1 ,200 people. They were spending crazy amounts. They said she was authorized to spend like without a budget, whatever it was needed to get this event done. There was so much of this kind of like self -enrichment here that we'll get to your question as to how are they not being criminally charged. That's just grift. Yeah, obviously. The other person we need to talk about, of course, is Barbara. Barbara Freed, Sam Bankman Freed's mother. In her specific role, she, as you alluded to at the very beginning of this episode, described herself as her son's partner in crime of the non -criminal sort. And Sam made sure to sing her praises to his team, making known to her that he intended to rely on her direction regarding who to give to, how much to give to, and how it should be disclosed and told them that it would be good for them to follow her advice as well. And what seems really interesting is she seemed to have a great deal of control. The lawsuit even alleges she was able to unilaterally commit funds of Sam Bankman Freed's to her political action committee, Mind the Gap, meaning without Sam's authorization, she was able to take Sam's money donated in Sam's name to her political action committee, which is a great deal of trust. And even inside her own committee, when she had to talk about some of these donations, she would say things like, I don't know exactly what interconnected entity he sent the money from, but the business is real and revenue -generating, which again, I think, points towards kind of the interchangeability of these entities for these folks. What I think really gets interesting is Nishad Singh, who has already pled guilty for conspiracy to defraud the federal election committee, as well as a variety of other conspiracy charges. He was one of the people who appears to have served as effectively a straw -man donor for Sam Bankman Freed, and was advised in this process by Barbara Freed, Sam's mother. At one point when they were discussing donations to her organization Mind the Gap, and she suggested that, now that my connection to Sam is publicly known, because we don't want to create the impression that funding MTG is a family affair, as opposed to a collective effort by many people, including some mystery guy Nishad Singh, which is when she was suggesting that on their end, they would prefer if his name was the one that was donating to Mind the Gap instead of Sam Bankman Freed's. And similarly, she was worried about a lot of their political donations. There's a really telling one, where she's warning him in an email, And again, later, just the last one to really put kind of a cherry on top of her seeming knowledge of some of the criminal acts that Nishad Singh has pled guilty to. She said, And I think this, as well as some of the more specific tax advice that Bankman Freed was giving on FTX their specific finances and stuff like that, point towards potential knowledge of criminal acts. I tweeted out shortly after I read through this lawsuit, or as I was about halfway through reading this lawsuit, if I'm being honest, And as you alluded to previously, that is kind of what this feels like. It feels like these two law professors, who should have known better, had high -level knowledge of things that people have already pled guilty to, and were deeply involved in the business. Bankman specifically was even mentioned on an internal document as a member of the management of FTXUS, along with only a few other names. They had knowledge, they were inside the organization, and they had some amount of presence. One last thing that I think really hammers that home. When we went to consensus, and we talked about this in our episode that we did after that, Anthony Scaramucci was talking about his experiences in the lead -up to and aftermath of the FTX collapse. And one thing he said that seemed to be corroborated in the lawsuit is that Bankman was involved in them attempting to get the emergency funding. And as we said, and we shared the audio clip of Scaramucci saying it, Bankman apparently told Scaramucci, Anthony or intimated to him, that there was an asset liability mismatch at FTX. What happened to me is I was actually speaking in Sarasota, Florida. There was rumblings that day, I think it was November the 6th or something like that, or 7th. The Monday was the 7th. And then I got back to New York and I spoke to Sam's dad about the problem, and it was intimated to me that it was an asset liability mismatch, that they were leading redemptions and there were assets available, but they weren't necessarily liquid, and they needed time to get the liquidity, and they were looking for some rescue plans. And so at that time, I was a good citizen and a partner in the business. In fact, they owned a piece of my business. I was certainly trying to help them on their fundraising round.

Barbara Freed Cass Pianci Anthony Scaramucci Sam Bankmanfried November 2021 December 2021 January 2021 FTX New York Bennett Tomlin Nishad Singh December 1St $90 ,000 Scaramucci Barbara Fried Bitfinex Barbara Cass Bennett Ftxus
"joseph bankman" Discussed on Unchained

Unchained

11:19 min | 6 d ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Unchained

"I mean, these are all fraudulent transfers, potentially while the debtor was insolvent, potentially while it was coming to lift funds, so clearly all that money has to come back. I think that's pretty easy. The question is like, what's it worth now and who can actually pay it back? Hi, everyone. Welcome to Unchained, your no-hype resource for all things crypto. I'm your host, Laura Shin, author of The Cryptopians. I started covering crypto eight years ago and as a senior editor at Forbes was the first mainstream media reporter to cover cryptocurrency full time. This is the September 22nd, 2023 episode of Unchained. Toku makes implementing global token compensation and incentive awards simple. With Toku, you get unmatched legal and tax tech support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Make it simple today with Toku. Today's episode is brought to you by Overtime Markets, your premier Web3 sportsbook. The innovative protocol is changing the game one match at a time. Powered by Thales, explore more at OvertimeMarkets.xyz. Arbitrum's leading Layer 2 scaling solution offers you ultra-cheap and lightning-fast transactions, all with security rooted on Ethereum. Visit arbitrum.io today. With the Crypto.com app, you can buy, trade and spend crypto in one place. Download and get $25 with the code LAURA. Link in the description. Today's guest is Thomas Brazile, founder of 117 Partners. Welcome, Thomas. Hey, Laura. Good to see you again. This week, FTX sued Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, the parents of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman Fried, alleging that Bankman was intimately involved in a number of the allegedly fraudulent schemes such as silencing someone who threatened to expose the alleged FTX fraud, the purchase of property in the Bahamas. Barbara Fried encouraged the use of strong donors as campaign finance laws, or allegedly, and both were accused generally of either knowing or ignoring the red flags that FTX was in solvent. Was this development surprising or expected? Thanks for having me on, Laura. Good to see you, as always. Was it surprising? No, I don't think it was that surprising. I think what was in the lawsuits in bankruptcy referred to as adversary proceeding, but what was seen in the adversary proceeding was probably a bit shocking, the actual details. But I think people knew that they were pretty involved. And I think that was some of the heat they were getting post him getting a criminal complaint against him was that, you know, why is he hanging out with his parents, weren't they involved in a lot of parts of the business, and people were saying things like that. I don't think it's that unexpected. People I think long knew that there were some real estate transactions where they were gifted or given some certain real estate in the Bahamas. But to see it all laid out in the complaint or I should say in the adversary proceeding was interesting, you know. And yeah. Which items in particular really struck you? I guess it's the involvement like in the actual day-to-day stuff. I mean, if you come from a corporate background or were a tax lawyer, which is that I guess was and is, that there wasn't more, I don't know, structure to the organization. I mean, you know, the dichotomy between what people thought pre-petition, what John Ray sort of said post-petition, and now some of the revelations coming out about the pre-petition activity. I mean, it's just kind of amazing to think about people that might have been a more corporate background and saying like, if the business was so profitable, why were you cutting corners? And, you know, to be fair to these guys, like in the, you know, in the light of day, sunlight of bankruptcy court, which as, you know, people in bankruptcy say, like my parents would say, like, the last place you want to be as a criminal is in bankruptcy court because there's so much sunlight and everything, you know, everything is good scrutinized. And to be fair to people, sometimes the stuff gets overly scrutinized and they cherry pick stuff that went on. But it seems pretty damning, some of the stuff and, you know, let's see what the responses will be. I mean, it's good for the estate and it's good for creditors because I'm sure they want to see, you know, sort of retribution. But in terms of recoveries, I don't think it's going to be incredibly meaningful, you know, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 million dollars. I mean, that's, I don't know, maybe two months of bankruptcy fees. And so, you know, earlier when we were talking about like how some of the things are particularly damning, like if you were to kind of say, FTX will win in court, you know, for these reasons, like which were the particular acts that you think probably will put things over the edge? Oh, yeah. I think almost all the stuff though, they'll win on the merits of the fraudulent conveyance. I mean, these are all fraudulent transfers, potentially while the debtor was insolvent, potentially while it was coming with funds, so clearly all that money has to come back. I think that's pretty easy. The question is like, what's it worth now and who can actually pay it back? Like if money was given to a charity, can you actually go and get it back? Like meaning, is it there? Has it been spent kind of stuff? And you know, you can only squeeze a, you know, whatever, rock so hard. So the question will be, you know, what is the real estate in the Bahamas worth? The 10 million bucks or whatever that was gifted to them, where did that money end up going? Can they trace it? So these things cost money to do and then the question is like, how much of an effort do you want to make? And of course, you know, all that can be stopped by a criminal investigation, which there isn't a complaint, but clearly some of the activity could be considered criminal. And I think, you know, I won't pretend to be a criminal lawyer or a lawyer at all, but when you're bringing lawsuits, I mean, basically these are kind of like preponderance of evidence standards versus like, you know, higher standards that you might have for criminal complaints. So it's easier for John Ray to like stitch together some stuff they know and slap an AP and sue these guys. But it's a little harder from the criminal side. But all of it, just on facially, I mean, of course, as my lawyer likes to tell me, like, you know, facts matter, Thomas. So it is more discovery happens than they take discovery. We'll see. But on the face of it, I mean, it looks pretty, pretty obvious that it's sort of slam dunk. Just the question is what they'll actually be able to recover. Yeah. I think one of the ones that stuck out at me simply because I could very easily imagine myself in a similar position with my own parents and I could just picture what my mother would say. And it was when they purchased the Bahamas property and everything was just getting billed or allegedly in the complaint to FTX. And the parents didn't even make an attempt to pay to furnish their home themselves. And I could just imagine something similar was happening with my mother. She would be like, wait, is this OK that we're doing this? Like, you know, she would have so many questions about the money and like what was OK, what was kosher, what was not. Like, I could just practically hear her in my head. But at least, you know, from what the complaint described, it didn't feel at all like the parents had any of those qualms. So that was. Yeah. It wasn't 100 percent owner of FTX. So it is bizarre that those red flags wouldn't have been or people wouldn't have been like, hey, I know that you think this is OK, but I don't like someone would have said something. Maybe they thought it was a drop in the ocean. But if FTX is so wildly profitable, I mean, it was so wildly profitable, they didn't need to cut in corners and have them picking up the checks. I mean, it would have been easy for Sam to just be like, no, I'm picking this up personally or something. Well, one thing that I also notice is that the document hedges its language, saying things like, quote, Banquin and Freed either knew or ignored bright red flags, revealing that SPF and other insiders were orchestrating the scheme. And again, you know, I saw later again, it was like they either knew or blatantly ignored. So right. Yes. That's because the standard for these civil cases is much lower. You know, like if you were trying to criminally try them, you'd have to like really show that they knew because they're going to say they didn't know, they didn't know, right? But the standard for breach of fiduciary duty or unjust enrichment, it's a much lower standard. All you have to basically show is a reasonable person should have known, you know? Oh, oh, I see. Yeah. So that's why I keep saying that. So you're saying, so basically they don't know whether or not they knew, but it doesn't matter for what they're trying to do. Is that what you're saying? I will respectfully say that I'm not a lawyer, but a stress investor. And what people usually say is the standard is usually what a reasonable person should have known, steps a reasonable person should have taken, best practices that a board should have taken. So like a board of director, if somebody runs off with money in a company, they don't have to necessarily show that they knew the person stole the money, but did they take any steps a reasonable person would have taken to like verify that the money was there, that the person wasn't absconding with money or whatever. So it's just this reasonable person standard that I think you trigger under Delaware and under a lot of jurisdictions for breach of fiduciary duty or breach of loyalty, duty of care that you have, mainly in the boardroom, but also I think as a C-suite executive and it sounds like he was sort of melding between the two. So basically, yeah, they're just trying to meet that standard for their purposes. They don't need to go beyond. And Barbara Fried, you know, also, so as far as I understand from reading this, you know, Sam Pinkman was definitely involved more in the day to day. You know, he was often listed with FTX management. He you know, could make executive decisions on his own at one point saying, oh, I'm just going to make this decision without Sam, like we don't need to involve him, that kind of thing. So Barbara Fried was not involved at that level. However, it did say that she was a key influence on the campaign donations. And I wondered what your takeaway was in that regard in terms of, you know, her involvement there. Campaign finance fraud? Yeah. Again, I don't have too much to say other than it's just bizarre that, you know, so many corners were cut in regards to stuff. I don't have a real view on. Again, it's like it helps them build a story that they can, you know, just slam dunk, take back any money that was taken out of the estate at any point in the last couple of years by Barbara and the husband. But I don't think that I don't have a real view on that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And as far as I understand, I don't think they're married. They're domestic partners. Just to clarify. Yeah. All right. So in a moment, we're going to talk about what the consequences could be after, you know, from this document. But first a quick word from the sponsors who make this show possible. Toku makes managing global token compensation and incentive awards simple. Are you designing your token compensation plan and grant templates with multiple law firms? Are you managing cliffs, vesting and taxable events in a spreadsheet? Are you distributing tokens to your team manually? With Toku, you get unmatched legal and tax tech support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Easy to use token grant award templates, vesting tracking via online dashboard, tax withholding integration with payroll, automated distributions, great employee experience. Make it simple with Toku. Learn more at toku.com slash Unchained.

A highlight from Why FTX Might Try to Claw Back Funds From Retail Customers- Ep. 547

Unchained

11:19 min | 6 d ago

A highlight from Why FTX Might Try to Claw Back Funds From Retail Customers- Ep. 547

"I mean, these are all fraudulent transfers, potentially while the debtor was insolvent, potentially while it was coming to lift funds, so clearly all that money has to come back. I think that's pretty easy. The question is like, what's it worth now and who can actually pay it back? Hi, everyone. Welcome to Unchained, your no -hype resource for all things crypto. I'm your host, Laura Shin, author of The Cryptopians. I started covering crypto eight years ago and as a senior editor at Forbes was the first mainstream media reporter to cover cryptocurrency full time. This is the September 22nd, 2023 episode of Unchained. Toku makes implementing global token compensation and incentive awards simple. With Toku, you get unmatched legal and tax tech support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Make it simple today with Toku. Today's episode is brought to you by Overtime Markets, your premier Web3 sportsbook. The innovative protocol is changing the game one match at a time. Powered by Thales, explore more at OvertimeMarkets .xyz. Arbitrum's leading Layer 2 scaling solution offers you ultra -cheap and lightning -fast transactions, all with security rooted on Ethereum. Visit arbitrum .io today. With the Crypto .com app, you can buy, trade and spend crypto in one place. Download and get $25 with the code LAURA. Link in the description. Today's guest is Thomas Brazile, founder of 117 Partners. Welcome, Thomas. Hey, Laura. Good to see you again. This week, FTX sued Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, the parents of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman Fried, alleging that Bankman was intimately involved in a number of the allegedly fraudulent schemes such as silencing someone who threatened to expose the alleged FTX fraud, the purchase of property in the Bahamas. Barbara Fried encouraged the use of strong donors as campaign finance laws, or allegedly, and both were accused generally of either knowing or ignoring the red flags that FTX was in solvent. Was this development surprising or expected? Thanks for having me on, Laura. Good to see you, as always. Was it surprising? No, I don't think it was that surprising. I think what was in the lawsuits in bankruptcy referred to as adversary proceeding, but what was seen in the adversary proceeding was probably a bit shocking, the actual details. But I think people knew that they were pretty involved. And I think that was some of the heat they were getting post him getting a criminal complaint against him was that, you know, why is he hanging out with his parents, weren't they involved in a lot of parts of the business, and people were saying things like that. I don't think it's that unexpected. People I think long knew that there were some real estate transactions where they were gifted or given some certain real estate in the Bahamas. But to see it all laid out in the complaint or I should say in the adversary proceeding was interesting, you know. And yeah. Which items in particular really struck you? I guess it's the involvement like in the actual day -to -day stuff. I mean, if you come from a corporate background or were a tax lawyer, which is that I guess was is, and that there wasn't more, I don't know, structure to the organization. I mean, you know, the dichotomy between what people thought pre -petition, what John Ray sort of said post -petition, and now some of the revelations coming out about the pre -petition activity. I mean, it's just kind of amazing to think about people that might have been a more corporate background and saying like, if the business was so profitable, why were you cutting corners? And, you know, to be fair to these guys, like in the, you know, in the light of day, sunlight of bankruptcy court, which as, you know, people in bankruptcy say, like my parents would say, like, the last place you want to be as a criminal is in bankruptcy court because there's so much sunlight and everything, you know, everything is good scrutinized. And to be fair to people, sometimes the stuff gets overly scrutinized and they cherry pick stuff that went on. But it seems pretty damning, some of the stuff and, you know, let's see what the responses will be. I mean, it's good for the estate and it's good for creditors because I'm sure they want to see, you know, sort of retribution. But in terms of recoveries, I don't think it's going to be incredibly meaningful, you know, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 million dollars. I mean, that's, I don't know, maybe two months of bankruptcy fees. And so, you know, earlier when we were talking about like how some of the things are particularly damning, like if you were to kind of say, FTX will win in court, you know, for these reasons, like which were the particular acts that you think probably will put things over the edge? Oh, yeah. I think almost all the stuff though, they'll win on the merits of the fraudulent conveyance. I mean, these are all fraudulent transfers, potentially while the debtor was insolvent, potentially while it was coming with funds, so clearly all that money has to come back. I think that's pretty easy. The question is like, what's it worth now and who can actually pay it back? Like if money was given to a charity, can you actually go and get it back? Like meaning, is it there? Has it been spent kind of stuff? And you know, you can only squeeze a, you know, whatever, rock so hard. So the question will be, you know, what is the real estate in the Bahamas worth? The 10 million bucks or whatever that was gifted to them, where did that money end up going? Can they trace it? So these things cost money to do and then the question is like, how much of an effort do you want to make? And of course, you know, all that can be stopped by a criminal investigation, which there isn't a complaint, but clearly some of the activity could be considered criminal. And I think, you know, I won't pretend to be a criminal lawyer or a lawyer at all, but when you're bringing lawsuits, I mean, basically these are kind of like preponderance of evidence standards versus like, you know, higher standards that you might have for criminal complaints. So it's easier for John Ray to like stitch together some stuff they know and slap an AP and sue these guys. But it's a little harder from the criminal side. But all of it, just on facially, I mean, of course, as my lawyer likes to tell me, like, you know, facts matter, Thomas. So it is more discovery happens than they take discovery. We'll see. But on the face of it, I mean, it looks pretty, pretty obvious that it's sort of slam dunk. Just the question is what they'll actually be able to recover. Yeah. I think one of the ones that stuck out at me simply because I could very easily imagine myself in a similar position with my own parents and I could just picture what my mother would say. And it was when they purchased the Bahamas property and everything was just getting billed or allegedly in the complaint to FTX. And the parents didn't even make an attempt to pay to furnish their home themselves. And I could just imagine something similar was happening with my mother. She would be like, wait, is this OK that we're doing this? Like, you know, she would have so many questions about the money and like what was OK, what was kosher, what was not. Like, I could just practically hear her in my head. But at least, you know, from what the complaint described, it didn't feel at all like the parents had any of those qualms. So that was. Yeah. It wasn't 100 percent owner of FTX. So it is bizarre that those red flags wouldn't have been or people wouldn't have been like, hey, I know that you think this is OK, but I don't like someone would have said something. Maybe they thought it was a drop in the ocean. But if FTX is so wildly profitable, I mean, it was so wildly profitable, they didn't need to cut in corners and have them picking up the checks. I mean, it would have been easy for Sam to just be like, no, I'm picking this up personally or something. Well, one thing that I also notice is that the document hedges its language, saying things like, quote, Banquin and Freed either knew or ignored bright red flags, revealing that SPF and other insiders were orchestrating the scheme. And again, you know, I saw later again, it was like they either knew or blatantly ignored. So right. Yes. That's because the standard for these civil cases is much lower. You know, like if you were trying to criminally try them, you'd have to like really show that they knew because they're going to say they didn't know, they didn't know, right? But the standard for breach of fiduciary duty or unjust enrichment, it's a much lower standard. All you have to basically show is a reasonable person should have known, you know? Oh, oh, I see. Yeah. So that's why I keep saying that. So you're saying, so basically they don't know whether or not they knew, but it doesn't matter for what they're trying to do. Is that what you're saying? I will respectfully say that I'm not a lawyer, but a stress investor. And what people usually say is the standard is usually what a reasonable person should have known, steps a reasonable person should have taken, best practices that a board should have taken. So like a board of director, if somebody runs off with money in a company, they don't have to necessarily show that they knew the person stole the money, but did they take any steps a reasonable person would have taken to like verify that the money was there, that the person wasn't absconding with money or whatever. So it's just this reasonable person standard that I think you trigger under Delaware and under a lot of jurisdictions for breach of fiduciary duty or breach of loyalty, duty of care that you have, mainly in the boardroom, but also I think as a C -suite executive and it sounds like he was sort of melding between the two. So basically, yeah, they're just trying to meet that standard for their purposes. They don't need to go beyond. And Barbara Fried, you know, also, so as far as I understand from reading this, you know, Sam Pinkman was definitely involved more in the day to day. You know, he was often listed with FTX management. He you know, could make executive decisions on his own at one point saying, oh, I'm just going to make this decision without Sam, like we don't need to involve him, that kind of thing. So Barbara Fried was not involved at that level. However, it did say that she was a key influence on the campaign donations. And I wondered what your takeaway was in that regard in terms of, you know, her involvement there. Campaign finance fraud? Yeah. Again, I don't have too much to say other than it's just bizarre that, you know, so many corners were cut in regards to stuff. I don't have a real view on. Again, it's like it helps them build a story that they can, you know, just slam dunk, take back any money that was taken out of the estate at any point in the last couple of years by Barbara and the husband. But I don't think that I don't have a real view on that. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And as far as I understand, I don't think they're married. They're domestic partners. Just to clarify. Yeah. All right. So in a moment, we're going to talk about what the consequences could be after, you know, from this document. But first a quick word from the sponsors who make this show possible. Toku makes managing global token compensation and incentive awards simple. Are you designing your token compensation plan and grant templates with multiple law firms? Are you managing cliffs, vesting and taxable events in a spreadsheet? Are you distributing tokens to your team manually? With Toku, you get unmatched legal and tax tech support to grant and administer your global team's tokens. Easy to use token grant award templates, vesting tracking via online dashboard, tax withholding integration with payroll, automated distributions, great employee experience. Make it simple with Toku. Learn more at toku .com slash Unchained.

Laura Shin Laura Thomas Brazile John Ray Sam Pinkman Barbara Fried Barbara Joseph Bankman $25 Thomas September 22Nd, 2023 SAM Bahamas Two Months Bankman TWO This Week Today Sam Bankman Fried Both
"joseph bankman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

01:59 min | Last week

"joseph bankman" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Like you he's on meds to call 800 230 2777 800 230 2777 or big Lou Thanks flooding forcing a school to go remote for the next couple of days and Sam Bacon freed parents in a bit of legal trouble first the WLS weather channel forecast few showers and thunderstorms this morning probably sunny as we move through the day with a high near 80 mostly cloudy tonight lows falling to around 64 tomorrow passing afternoon showers otherwise mostly cloudy with a high near 78 and then on Friday a chance for showers and thunderstorms early then partly sunny with a high near 78 right now to hair at 72 degrees 72 at Midway and 68 along Chicago's lakefront sponsored by Macy's backstage what will you find at Macy's backstage here's a hint ball finds for $25 and under like sharp lasers cozy sweaters cargo pants jackets and more find the latest trends and new arrivals at a Macy's backstage store near you Thornridge High School in Dalton will have students move to e learning today and tomorrow due to flooding from the weekend according to a message from the 205 district extensive flooding damage the heating and electrical systems causing the school to currently lack both heat see repairs are being made to the H back and electrical systems which the district says should be finished within the next two days until the repairs are complete the school will go to e learning on their Google platform lawyers for collapse cryptocurrency exchange FTX trading are accusing Sam Bankman freeze parents of exploiting their influence over their son and and the company he founded to enrich themselves by millions of dollars a lawsuit against Alan Joseph Bankman and Barbara freed was filed Monday as part of the FTX bankruptcy case

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Daily Crypto Report

Daily Crypto Report

04:45 min | Last week

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Daily Crypto Report

"It's 8 a.m. Eastern, September the 20th, and this is your daily crypto report. Bitcoin is up slightly at $27,117, ETH is down slightly at $1,631, and Binance Coin is up slightly at $216. As a person with a very deep voice, I'm hired all the time for advertising campaigns. But a deep voice doesn't sell B2B. And advertising on the wrong platform doesn't sell B2B either. That's why if you're a B2B marketer, you should use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has the targeting capabilities to help you reach the world's largest professional audience. That's right, over 70 million decision makers all in one place. All the big wigs, then medium wigs, also small wigs who are on the path to becoming big wigs. Okay, that's enough about wigs. LinkedIn ads allows you to focus on getting your B2B message to the right people. So, does that mean you should use ads on LinkedIn instead of hiring me, the man with the deepest voice in the world? Yes, yes it does. Get started today and see why LinkedIn is the place to be, to be. We'll even give you a $100 credit on your next campaign. Go to linkedin.com slash results to claim your credit. That's linkedin.com slash results. Terms and conditions apply. Will Sanford University plans to return the gifts worth millions it received from FTX following allegations that Sam Bankman-Fried's parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried orchestrated the donations. FTX groups sued Bankman and Fried accusing them of misappropriating funds, including 5.5 million donated to Stanford. The university said it had been in talks with FTX's debtors attorneys to return the funds in full, emphasizing that the gifts were primarily for pandemic-related prevention and research. SPF's parents have denied any allegations of misconduct. Well, David Hirsch, the head of the SEC's crypto assets and cyber unit, has indicated that more enforcement actions are likely to be taken against crypto exchanges and DeFi projects that fail to disclose information or register with the agency. Hirsch made these remarks during the Securities Enforcement Forum Central in Chicago. He mentioned that the SEC is already investigating firms engaged in activities similar to those that led to legal action against Coinbase and Binance earlier this year. These developments underscore the SEC's increased moderation of the crypto industry with high-profile cases involving NFT projects and Ripple Labs in recent months. The UK has passed the Online Safety Bill, which applies to the metaverse. The bill requires companies to assess the likelihood of encountering illegal or harmful content, especially for children, and implement measures to mitigate the risks. As the metaverse gains prominence, the legislation aims to ensure online safety in virtual spaces. The bill will become law in the UK upon approval by King Charles. While South Korean taxpayers have reported overseas crypto assets worth $98.5 billion, around 1,400 individuals and companies declared these assets following new regulations that require Korean nationals with over 500 million won in foreign accounts including crypto to report them. These declared overseas crypto holdings make up 70% of their total reported foreign assets. South Korea introduced legislation in June to enhance investor protection and regulatory oversight in the crypto space, allowing authorities to enforce penalties for unfair trading. Starting next year, domestic companies will also have to disclose their crypto holdings under new accounting rules. And finally, North Korean hackers are increasingly using Russian crypto exchanges to launder stolen funds, according to a report by security firm Chainalysis. The report suggests an alliance between North Korea and Russian cyber criminals. They say North Korea hackers moved over 21 million in crypto to a Russian exchange known for facilitating illicit financial flows. The partnership has been ongoing since 2021. Well, that's all for us today. Visit us at dailycryptoreport.io for sources and links. And listen to us, everyone else you podcast under Daily Crypto Report. It's pretty eerie, you know, you're in a place that no human's ever been before. Wherever you get your podcasts, go and find what it is in the world that matches that wildness in yourself.

"joseph bankman" Discussed on The Crypto Overnighter

The Crypto Overnighter

09:09 min | Last week

"joseph bankman" Discussed on The Crypto Overnighter

"Dispatch, this is Mindy at ME Flow. You know, you don't have to put off fixing plumbing problems in your home anymore. I mean, you could just ignore that clogged drain. Or visit MEFlow.com to take care of your plumbing problems. ME Flow, License 271-001-2450. Dispatch, this is Mindy at ME Flow. Coming to terms with a dying AC unit is tough. I know, because I've been there. I tried to get my old unit to last just one more summer, and boy did I pay the price. Longest summer of my life. So trust me, if you need to replace your AC, just call ME Flow. My team is on time, total pros, and can take care of any type of AC replacement. Visit MEFlow.com to schedule your free estimate. ME Flow. One call, one company. Well, I gotta get back to it. Dispatch, this is Mindy. Go ahead. Good evening, and welcome to the Crypto Overnighter. I'm Nickademus, and I will be your host as we take a look at the latest cryptocurrency news and analysis. So sit back, relax, and let's get started. And remember, none of this is financial advice. And it's 10pm Pacific on Tuesday, September 19th, 2023. Welcome back to the Crypto Overnighter, where we have no sponsors, no hidden agendas, and no BS. But we do have the news, so let's talk about that. Tonight, we're diving into Hong Kong's JPEG scandal, which has rocked the crypto world and prompted regulatory crackdowns. Across the pond, the UK is sharpening its legal tools to seize crypto assets. But at what cost to financial freedom? In a surprising twist, FTX is suing the parents of its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, for alleged misappropriation of funds. Meanwhile, the New York Department of Financial Services is tightening its grip on crypto firms with new guidelines. Down in Thailand, a new tax policy could discourage crypto trading by residents, and over in Malta, the blockchain island is aligning itself with new European crypto regulations. Since around the beginning of the year, we started bringing stories about Hong Kong's re-emergence into the world of crypto. We watched China turn a blind eye as Hong Kong politicians and officials appeared to soften their stance against crypto. We've watched as policies have been announced and licenses granted. Sadly, it seems Hong Kong's brand new crypto landscape is in turmoil thanks to the JPEG scandal. The Hong Kong police have arrested eight individuals in connection with the alleged fraud. The police received 1,641 complaints involving assets around HK $1.19 billion. The authorities also seized cash, jewelry, computers, and phones worth about HK $8 million. Additionally, HK $15 million in relevant bank accounts were frozen, along with properties worth about HK $44 million. Hong Kong lawmaker Duncan Chu stated that the city is running its second round of consultation for stablecoin issuance guidelines. He hopes that regulatory guidelines for stablecoin issuers will be released by the middle of next year. This comes as Hong Kong aims to develop itself into a Web3 hub. In June, Hong Kong officially started its crypto licensing regime, allowing licensed exchanges to offer crypto trading services. The JPEG scandal is a glaring example of why regulation is both a necessity and a double-edged sword in the world of crypto. Hong Kong, unlike its hulking big brother China, has been more welcoming to crypto firms. Yet, the JPEG case shows that this openness can be exploited, and the government's response? Tighten the news. Hong Kong's chief executive announced increased efforts to inform investors to only use platforms with Securities and Futures Commission licenses. The JPEG case exposed the vulnerabilities in Hong Kong's crypto market, and it's clear that the government is now in damage control mode. The question is, will this lead to overregulation, thereby stifling innovation, or will it strike a balance, ensuring both growth and security? Either way, it's a critical moment for crypto in Hong Kong, and by extension for the global crypto community. Now before we move on, remember if you find this content valuable, hit that follow button and turn on notifications. Now from Hong Kong's regulatory puzzle, we hop over to the UK. The British are writing new laws that could redefine your notion of financial freedom. Is this an evolution or a step back? Let's find out. The UK is ramping up its efforts to combat crypto-related crimes. A new bill, known as the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, is set to be enacted later this year. This legislation aims to empower local authorities with the ability to freeze and seize crypto assets tied to criminal activities more efficiently. The bill removes the need for an arrest or conviction before assets can be frozen. This is a significant change from the current laws. The bill also introduces new civil forfeiture powers. These allow assets to be seized even if a person is not convicted of a criminal offense. This is particularly useful in cases where the subject of the investigation is unlikely to face justice in the UK. The UK plans to spend $124 million to fight economic crimes, a 50% increase compared to 2020. The bill has moved to its final stages in parliament and is awaiting final approval. Okay, where do I begin? The UK's new bill is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it's a powerful tool for law enforcement. It can prevent criminals from moving their assets offshore before they're seized. But on the flip side, this could be a slippery slope towards more centralized control over crypto assets. The bill's broad powers could potentially be misused, leading to unjust seizures. Moreover, the UK's aggressive stance might push crypto activities to jurisdictions with lax regulations. This could make it even more challenging for global authorities to track illicit activities. The bill also raises questions about financial privacy. How much power should a government have to freeze and seize assets without a conviction? The UK's move is a clear signal that governments are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies. While the bill aims to fight economic crimes, it also sets a precedent that could be followed by other countries. This could lead to a global tightening of regulations around cryptocurrencies, which are something we should all be wary of. How you think seizing crypto assets without a conviction is shocking? Hold your horses. FTX is suing the parents of its founder. You heard that right. It's a family feud worth millions, and it raises some dark questions about ethics in the crypto world. Don't go anywhere. So that's gotta be a rough day. The day the company you founded sues the very people who gave you life. But that's what's happening as FTX is suing the parents of its founder, Sam Bankman Fried. The lawsuit aims to recover millions in quote, fraudulently transferred and misappropriated funds. Both parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, are accused of exploiting their influence within FTX to enrich themselves. The lawsuit alleges that the parents received millions from FTX for personal benefit and their chosen causes. For instance, they received over $18.9 million for a property in the Bahamas known as Blue Water. The parents are also accused of siphoning off money for lavish expenses like $1200 per night hotel stays. The filing further claims that Joseph Bankman had a unique understanding of FTX's complex corporate structure, which he used to facilitate a $10 million cash gift to himself and Fried. Barbara Fried was the point person for SPF's political contribution strategy and co-founded a political action committee that received tens of millions of dollars from FTX. The lawsuit also says that the parents were involved in FTX's business cradle to grave. Joseph Bankman is described as a de facto officer of FTX group with broad authority to make decisions. Barbara Fried was actively involved in FTX's political donations. The lawsuit against SPF's parents shines a glaring spotlight on the darker aspects of the crypto world. The case raises questions about the ethical boundaries within businesses in the crypto space. The parents, both law professors, should have known better. Their academic credentials add a veneer of legitimacy, making the allegations even more shocking. The involvement of Stanford law professors in such a scandal reminds us that even those in towers can be lured by the siren call of easy crypto riches. The lawsuit paints the picture of a family that used their intellectual prowess, not for the betterment of society, but for personal gain. It's easy to get caught up in the promise of decentralization and financial freedom, but this lawsuit shows that the same old vices, greed, corruption, and exploitation, can infiltrate even the most modern of financial systems. It's as I said at the time, the crime had nothing to do with crypto and everything to do with greed. Intrigued by the drama at FTX? Make sure to like this episode and share it. But now, let's switch gears. If you thought family drama was complex, try navigating New York's new crypto guidelines. The NYDFS is tightening the leash on crypto firms. Is it protection or overreach? We're diving in.

A highlight from 674:JPEX Meltdown, FTXs Family Feud, and Global Regulatory Squeeze

The Crypto Overnighter

09:09 min | Last week

A highlight from 674:JPEX Meltdown, FTXs Family Feud, and Global Regulatory Squeeze

"Dispatch, this is Mindy at ME Flow. You know, you don't have to put off fixing plumbing problems in your home anymore. I mean, you could just ignore that clogged drain. Or visit MEFlow .com to take care of your plumbing problems. ME Flow, License 271 -001 -2450. Dispatch, this is Mindy at ME Flow. Coming to terms with a dying AC unit is tough. I know, because I've been there. I tried to get my old unit to last just one more summer, and boy did I pay the price. Longest summer of my life. So trust me, if you need to replace your AC, just call ME Flow. My team is on time, total pros, and can take care of any type of AC replacement. Visit MEFlow .com to schedule your free estimate. ME Flow. One call, one company. Well, I gotta get back to it. Dispatch, this is Mindy. Go ahead. Good evening, and welcome to the Crypto Overnighter. I'm Nickademus, and I will be your host as we take a look at the latest cryptocurrency news and analysis. So sit back, relax, and let's get started. And remember, none of this is financial advice. And it's 10pm Pacific on Tuesday, September 19th, 2023. Welcome back to the Crypto Overnighter, where we have no sponsors, no hidden agendas, and no BS. But we do have the news, so let's talk about that. Tonight, we're diving into Hong Kong's JPEG scandal, which has rocked the crypto world and prompted regulatory crackdowns. Across the pond, the UK is sharpening its legal tools to seize crypto assets. But at what cost to financial freedom? In a surprising twist, FTX is suing the parents of its founder, Sam Bankman -Fried, for alleged misappropriation of funds. Meanwhile, the New York Department of Financial Services is tightening its grip on crypto firms with new guidelines. Down in Thailand, a new tax policy could discourage crypto trading by residents, and over in Malta, the blockchain island is aligning itself with new European crypto regulations. Since around the beginning of the year, we started bringing stories about Hong Kong's re -emergence into the world of crypto. We watched China turn a blind eye as Hong Kong politicians and officials appeared to soften their stance against crypto. We've watched as policies have been announced and licenses granted. Sadly, it seems Hong Kong's brand new crypto landscape is in turmoil thanks to the JPEG scandal. The Hong Kong police have arrested eight individuals in connection with the alleged fraud. The police received 1 ,641 complaints involving assets around HK $1 .19 billion. The authorities also seized cash, jewelry, computers, and phones worth about HK $8 million. Additionally, HK $15 million in relevant bank accounts were frozen, along with properties worth about HK $44 million. Hong Kong lawmaker Duncan Chu stated that the city is running its second round of consultation for stablecoin issuance guidelines. He hopes that regulatory guidelines for stablecoin issuers will be released by the middle of next year. This comes as Hong Kong aims to develop itself into a Web3 hub. In June, Hong Kong officially started its crypto licensing regime, allowing licensed exchanges to offer crypto trading services. The JPEG scandal is a glaring example of why regulation is both a necessity and a double -edged sword in the world of crypto. Hong Kong, unlike its hulking big brother China, has been more welcoming to crypto firms. Yet, the JPEG case shows that this openness can be exploited, and the government's response? Tighten the news. Hong Kong's chief executive announced increased efforts to inform investors to only use platforms with Securities and Futures Commission licenses. The JPEG case exposed the vulnerabilities in Hong Kong's crypto market, and it's clear that the government is now in damage control mode. The question is, will this lead to overregulation, thereby stifling innovation, or will it strike a balance, ensuring both growth and security? Either way, it's a critical moment for crypto in Hong Kong, and by extension for the global crypto community. Now before we move on, remember if you find this content valuable, hit that follow button and turn on notifications. Now from Hong Kong's regulatory puzzle, we hop over to the UK. The British are writing new laws that could redefine your notion of financial freedom. Is this an evolution or a step back? Let's find out. The UK is ramping up its efforts to combat crypto -related crimes. A new bill, known as the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, is set to be enacted later this year. This legislation aims to empower local authorities with the ability to freeze and seize crypto assets tied to criminal activities more efficiently. The bill removes the need for an arrest or conviction before assets can be frozen. This is a significant change from the current laws. The bill also introduces new civil forfeiture powers. These allow assets to be seized even if a person is not convicted of a criminal offense. This is particularly useful in cases where the subject of the investigation is unlikely to face justice in the UK. The UK plans to spend $124 million to fight economic crimes, a 50 % increase compared to 2020. The bill has moved to its final stages in parliament and is awaiting final approval. Okay, where do I begin? The UK's new bill is a double -edged sword. On the one hand, it's a powerful tool for law enforcement. It can prevent criminals from moving their assets offshore before they're seized. But on the flip side, this could be a slippery slope towards more centralized control over crypto assets. The bill's broad powers could potentially be misused, leading to unjust seizures. Moreover, the UK's aggressive stance might push crypto activities to jurisdictions with lax regulations. This could make it even more challenging for global authorities to track illicit activities. The bill also raises questions about financial privacy. How much power should a government have to freeze and seize assets without a conviction? The UK's move is a clear signal that governments are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies. While the bill aims to fight economic crimes, it also sets a precedent that could be followed by other countries. This could lead to a global tightening of regulations around cryptocurrencies, which are something we should all be wary of. How you think seizing crypto assets without a conviction is shocking? Hold your horses. FTX is suing the parents of its founder. You heard that right. It's a family feud worth millions, and it raises some dark questions about ethics in the crypto world. Don't go anywhere. So that's gotta be a rough day. The day the company you founded sues the very people who gave you life. But that's what's happening as FTX is suing the parents of its founder, Sam Bankman Fried. The lawsuit aims to recover millions in quote, fraudulently transferred and misappropriated funds. Both parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, are accused of exploiting their influence within FTX to enrich themselves. The lawsuit alleges that the parents received millions from FTX for personal benefit and their chosen causes. For instance, they received over $18 .9 million for a property in the Bahamas known as Blue Water. The parents are also accused of siphoning off money for lavish expenses like $1200 per night hotel stays. The filing further claims that Joseph Bankman had a unique understanding of FTX's complex corporate structure, which he used to facilitate a $10 million cash gift to himself and Fried. Barbara Fried was the point person for SPF's political contribution strategy and co -founded a political action committee that received tens of millions of dollars from FTX. The lawsuit also says that the parents were involved in FTX's business cradle to grave. Joseph Bankman is described as a de facto officer of FTX group with broad authority to make decisions. Barbara Fried was actively involved in FTX's political donations. The lawsuit against SPF's parents shines a glaring spotlight on the darker aspects of the crypto world. The case raises questions about the ethical boundaries within businesses in the crypto space. The parents, both law professors, should have known better. Their academic credentials add a veneer of legitimacy, making the allegations even more shocking. The involvement of Stanford law professors in such a scandal reminds us that even those in towers can be lured by the siren call of easy crypto riches. The lawsuit paints the picture of a family that used their intellectual prowess, not for the betterment of society, but for personal gain. It's easy to get caught up in the promise of decentralization and financial freedom, but this lawsuit shows that the same old vices, greed, corruption, and exploitation, can infiltrate even the most modern of financial systems. It's as I said at the time, the crime had nothing to do with crypto and everything to do with greed. Intrigued by the drama at FTX? Make sure to like this episode and share it. But now, let's switch gears. If you thought family drama was complex, try navigating New York's new crypto guidelines. The NYDFS is tightening the leash on crypto firms. Is it protection or overreach? We're diving in.

SPF Duncan Chu Barbara Fried $1200 Joseph Bankman Sam Bankman -Fried $10 Million Eight Individuals FTX 1 ,641 Complaints New York Department Of Financi $124 Million 2020 Malta June Thailand Fried Bahamas Sam Bankman Fried One Company
"joseph bankman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:16 min | Last week

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Has typically this year again in a copy market waned relatively quickly. That is Bloomberg's Bailey Lipschultz. By the way, Instacart shares were priced at $30 the company raised $660 million although the stock ended today up just 12%. The lawyers overseeing the bankrupt crypto exchange FTX are suing the parents of Sam Bankman -Fried. He of course the co -founder and former CEO of FTX. The lawyers are claiming the parents Alan Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried used their access and influence with FTX to fraudulently enrich themselves by millions of dollars. That's Bloomberg's Dave Litka. You can look at the example of the Bernie Madoff situation where for years it went back to seek money that investors as this fund had held on for years. It's the basic bottom line is that you can't hold on to money that you obtained illegally through a fraud. That is Bloomberg's Dave Litka. The says OECD the global economy is for set a slowdown and the group's chief economist Claire Lombardelli says it's hard to tell how far monetary tightening needs to go to tame inflation. Here's Lombardelli speaking earlier to Bloomberg. We are that seeing monetary policy is working. It is working its way through economies and we are beginning to see the tide turning on inflation. Your headline inflation is coming down in some countries also core inflation. I mean you're right that lot there's a of uncertainty around monetary policy at the moment quite how powerful it is quite how long those lags will be as you might expect given a very long period of very low rates and very low inflation. That is Claire Lombardelli the chief economist at the OECD. We check markets throughout the day here on Bloomberg. In China the loan prime rates were held steady the one year at 345 a five -year at 4 point two percent. Right now in Hong Kong the hang sang down three tenths of one percent. The CSI 300 is weaker by three tenths of one percent. In Tokyo we've got the Nikkei down three tenths of one percent and in Seoul the KOSPI off two tenths of one percent. Global news powered by more than 2700 journalist and analyst this is Bloomberg. Now's the time to have the bull at your back with Merrill. Learn more at Merrill Lynch dot com slash bullish investing involves risk Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated registered broker dealer registered investment advisor member SIPC. I'm Ed Baxter and I'm into these telegrini. Welcome to Bloomberg Wealth with David Rubenstein part of our Best of Bloomberg series. In this episode we hear from Karen Carniol -Tambor co -CIO at Bridgewater. Yeah and these Bloomberg Wealth interviews that David does that they are all so interesting you really get to take a walk inside some makers really. minds Yeah that's right and also you get some insight into how people like Carniol -Tambor got to where they are. And also what work environments are like at different financial firms. Now of course one of the best known hedge funds in the world is Bridgewater. Yeah it sure is and Carniol -Tambor has been there for a while. Also she'll talk about do you need an MBA to be a top dog at a hedge fund. And a she bunch also has of things to say about investing, about the Federal Reserve of course

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News

Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News

26:38 min | Last week

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News

"In today's show, we'll be discussing Bitcoin Bollinger Bands hitting a key zone as Bitcoin price fights for $27,000. In breaking news just in, Bitcoin hash rate hits a new all-time high. Let's go. And quoting Stacey Herbert, Bitcoin is pumping on the news of President Bukele's speech to the UN tonight. Can't wait. We'll also be discussing Bitcoin Adoption Fund launched by Japan's $500 billion Nomura Bank. That's right. The Bitcoin Adoption Fund will have long-only exposure to Bitcoin and be available to institutional investors. We'll also be sharing Sam Bankman, Fried's father, dragged his mother into an FTX US salary dispute. You can't make this stuff up, folks. Also in today's show, Bitcoin gearing up for a post-having parabola, according to crypto analysts. I'll be sharing his very bullish all-time high target. We'll also be discussing crypto asset market cap should explode 5 to 10x during the next bull cycle, according to investor Raoul Pal. I'll also be sharing Peter Thiel's $4 million Bitcoin price prediction, and we'll also be taking a look at the overall crypto market. All this plus so much more in today's show. Yo, what's good crypto fam? This is first and foremost, a video show. So if you want the full premium experience with video, visit my YouTube channel at cryptonewsalerts.net. Again, that's cryptonewsalerts.net. Welcome everyone just joining us. This is pod episode number 1406. I'm your host JV. And today is September 19th, 2023. We have lots to cover as usual. Massive shout out to everyone today in the live chat. Please let me know where you're tuning in from. And at the end of the show, I'm going to be reading everyone's comments out loud. Let's kick off today's show with our market watch as we do each and every day, the entire crypto market back in the green with Bitcoin back above $27,100 and checking out coinmarketcap.com, the current crypto market cap on the climb at $1.08 trillion with roughly $27 billion in volume for the past 24 hours, Bitcoin dominance at 49.2% and the Ether dominance at 18.4%. And checking out the top 100 crypto gainers of the past 24 hours, we have TonCoin leading the pack up 5%, trading at $2.57, followed by GMX up about 5%, trading just under 36 bucks, followed by Conflux up 4%, trading at $0.12. And checking out the top 100 crypto gainers of the past week, virtually 95 out of the top 100 cryptos are in the green. Some of the top gainers include GMX, GRT, as well as CRV and NEO. And checking out the crypto greed and fear index, we're currently rated at 46 in fear, same as 37 in fear. So there you have it. How many of you are pretty stoked for this most recent pump? And how many of you agree with Stacey Herbert that this pump is due to Bukele's speech scheduled for this evening? Let me know, fam. And now let's dive into today's Bitcoin technical analysis. Check out the charts and what's popping with the king crypto. Bitcoin could see fresh upside volatility as the price action and the strength revisits a key level according to a classic metric. In a new post, John Bollinger, creator of the Bollinger Bands volatility indicator, says Bitcoin was positioned for a breakout decision. That's right. After hitting new September highs the day prior, Bitcoin has been challenging resistance levels out of reach since mid-August, according to data from Cointelegraph and TradingView. Now for Bollinger, the signs for Bitcoin are encouraging. Bollinger Bands use a standard deviation around the simple moving average to determine both the likely price ranges and volatility. And as Michael Saylor once said, volatility equals life force. Now, currently Bitcoin is putting in daily candles that touch the upper band. And when this happens, it can signal an imminent reversal back to the center band, or conversely, an inbound fit of upside volatility. Now narrow Bollinger Bands seen on Bitcoin recently lend weight to hopes that the latter scenario will now play out, quitting him here. And then there is the first tag of the upper Bollinger Band. After the new set of controlling bars were established at the lower band, he commented alongside this chart, the question is now, can we walk up to the upper band or is it too early to answer? What are your thoughts, chat? Let me know in the comments below. Now Bollinger characterizes the current mood among seasoned Bitcoin traders and analysts on the short-term timeframes. Despite the strength seen this week, caution abounds as various trend lines previously acting as support remain above the spot price. Now discussing the situation, we had on-chain monitoring resource, material indicators share the following. We have heavy technical resistance overhead at the key moving averages and support at the lower low. It is quite possible that we round trip the range. And with any luck, we'll see a legit test of the RS levels that will give us some clarity on where Bitcoin goes from here before the end of the week. And they also shared here in update number two, as noted earlier, it appears the Bitcoin bulls are gaining some momentum, but things are not always as they seem and goes on to share that sometime after last night's candle and close open, we've seen a new trend precognition signal develop on the daily chart and it seems to be bullish. I mean, we are breaking out. We are above 27,000. So let's freaking go. And also more strong foundation on the technicals. You can see Bitcoin hits yet another all-time high, which virtually means the network has never been this strong and this secure. Now I'm pretty stoked to tune into President Bukele's speech to the UN this evening. What do you think he has to share besides? I told you so. Let me know, fam. And again, welcome to everyone just joining us for the live show. Lots to continue to cover. So let's continue breaking it down. Next, let's discuss this adoption fund, which is a pretty big deal coming out of Japan. Let's go check this out. Japan's largest investment bank, Numura's digital asset subsidiary, Laser Digital Asset Management, launched the Bitcoin adoption fund specifically for the institutional investors. Bring it. The official announcement noted the Bitcoin-based fund will be the first in a range of digital adoption investment solutions that the firm plans to introduce. Now Numura is a Japanese financial giant with over $500 billion worth of assets, which basically that's half a trillion, baby, offers brokerage services to leading institutional investors. The Bitcoin fund launched by its digital asset arm will now offer investors direct exposure to BTC. The Laser Digital Bitcoin Adoption Fund offers long key exposure to Bitcoin. The financial giant has chosen Kamanu as its regulated custody partner. The Bitcoin fund is a portion of Laser Digital Fund's segregated portfolio company that has been registered as a mutual fund in accordance with the Cayman Islands regulatory authority. Now, Laser Digital Asset Management head Sebastian said the Bitcoin is one of the enablers of this long-lasting transformational change and long-term exposure to Bitcoin offers a solution for the investors to capture this macro trend. Now, the Bitcoin adoption fund might be the first of its kind launched by Numura and the digital asset arm, but the Japanese investment banking giant has been investing in the digital asset ecosystem for quite some time already. In fact, September of last year, the firm launched its digital asset venture capital arm to stay at the forefront of digital innovation. And also won Dubai's virtual asset regulatory authority license to operate in the country. The long-only Bitcoin adoption fund for investors in Japan comes amid a growing discussion around Bitcoin-based investment products from regulated and mainstream financial giants. The United States SEC approved two Bitcoin ETFs, even though there is a delayed decision specifically on the spot. Bitcoin ETFs. What's up with that, Mr. Gensler? Just saying. And apart from the US, Canada and focused investment products over the past couple of years. So there you have it, mass adoption, let's freaking go, especially on the institutional level. How many of you are in Japan? I know we have some in our audience out there. Let me know. And have you ever heard of this company before? Any plans in investing through them? Let me know how you guys feel. And now let's break down the latest. It gets more surprising and shocking every day with what all is going on with Bankman-Fried and FTX. Now his parents are involved. His parents are being sued by FTX. And it's just a nightmare of a mess, to say the least. So let's break down this latest story regarding SBF. Now, Joseph Bankman, the father of the former FTX CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, complained to his son about the salary he was receiving during his employment at FTX US, turning the issue into a family matter. In a September 18 filing with the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, FTX debtors filed a complaint against Bankman and Barbara Fried, alleging that SBF's parents misappropriated millions of dollars through their involvement in the exchange's business. And according to the court documents, Bankman's contract with FTX US should have provided a $200,000 annual salary following a leave of absence from the Stanford Law School in December 2021. However, Bankman seemed to express ignorance about the terms of the contract, claiming to both FTX US and his son that he was expecting a $1 million annual salary. What about all that property in the Bahamas, fam? What about all that? Hundreds of millions worth of properties? Just wanted to throw that out there. The complaint states that Bankman was putting Barbara on this, suggesting that SBF's mother may have been able to persuade her son to follow through with the salary change. Things get even more interesting. So according to the complaint, Bankman's influence paid off, with SBF later providing his parents $10 million from Alameda Research. Can you talk about commingling? A 16.4 million property in the Bahamas, funded by FTX Trading, the ability to expense roughly $90,000 to FTX Trading on the island nation in the Bahamas, and options to purchase company stock. Now, when reached out to the legal team representing Bankman and Fried, but did not receive a response at the time, unfortunately, the legal action brought by the debtors was the latest in the bankruptcy case involving FTX and many of its subsidiaries filed in November of last year. Bankman Fried also faces 12 criminal charges to be spread across two trials, starting in October of 2023, which is right around the corner, fam, and March of 2024, right before the halving, scheduled for April of next year. And since the federal judge revoked his bail in August, Bankman Fried has been largely confined to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Where's Brooklyn at? Before the start of his October trial, then on September 19th, a three-judge panel heard an appeal from SPF's legal team requesting the former FTX CEO to be released from jail in order to prepare for the trial, citing the lack of internet access and first amendment issues. All I got to say is this, I mean, how many people realistically have access to the internet in jail? Why should he? Million dollar question right there. But what are your thoughts, fam? How do you think this is likely to play out? And do you think that Bankman Fried's parents are just as guilty as SPF himself with the commingling and the fraud of going up north of $30 billion, making it the biggest scam in history that we're aware of? Hence why we call him Mini Madoff, because he made off with billions of dollars worth of investors' money, and Gary Gensler and the SEC was protecting him behind closed doors. So it's going to be very interesting to see how all this is likely to play out. Now let's discuss post halving. We all know there is a halving scheduled roughly six months out. We all know post halving, the price action is most likely going to reach a new all-time high and enter price discovery mode. Well, this analyst shares a very intriguing target. So let's break this down, shall we? And welcome to y'all just joining us. Say hello in that live chat. Let me know where you're tuning in from. I stream live here seven days a week from Puerto Rico. Synonymous analyst Rhett Capital tells his followers on X that Bitcoin can rally above $80,000 per coin in the months following next month's event. For the halving, send it. Let's go. The Bitcoin halving cuts the Bitcoin miners' rewards in half, as we all know, expected to take place in April of next year. And while Rhett Capital is a long-term bull on Bitcoin, he notes that it is possible for Bitcoin to continue its downtrend before the halving, putting him here. Hang in there and make the most of any deeper downside in this pre halving period. You won't see the post halving parabola in the outlines here in this chart. It shows you in the yellow, the pre halving period, then in the pink, the post halving resistance, and then in the green, you can see the post halving parabola when we hit those new all-time highs. Now, Rhett notes that Bitcoin may repeat its 2019 bear market cycle when it traded within a triangle pattern before breaking out and starting off the bull market, as he shares here, if Bitcoin continues to form lower highs, could Bitcoin fill the CME, which is the Chicago Mercantile Exchange gap, at $20,000 later this year or in early 2024? So it makes a good point. There is currently a gap sitting at that $20,000 psychological level. And he continues, if so, the possible path could be consolidation to the apex of the black triangle before finally breaking out to close the halving. And you can see that triangle right here in this chart. Now, looking at the chart, he seemed to suggest that Bitcoin will confirm the triangle breakout in April of 2024, followed by a rally towards his long-term target. Now, let me know your thoughts, chat. How many of you agree that Bitcoin is likely to break out to a new all-time high, entering price discovery mode in 2024, the year of the halving? Let me know. And what are some of your targets? I'd also like to point out that the Stock the Flow model and Plan B, creator of that model, he suggests a $100 to $1 million price range for the King Crypto post halving. We also have some very other bullish predictions, which I cover on a daily basis here on the channel. But I'd love to know your personal prediction. I think we reached the cycle peak personally sometime in 2025, but I think 2024, we enter that price discovery mode. But I'd love to know your thoughts and your opinions in the comments right down below. And now let's break down our next story of the day and discuss the latest from the macro guru, Raoul Pal, who is suggesting that the Bitcoin market cap and crypto market cap as a whole does something between 5 and 10x for this upcoming bull cycle. Now, you do the math. We have a crypto market cap right now. I'm going to ballpark it at a trillion. We have a Bitcoin market cap. I'm going to ballpark it at a half a trillion, which is 500 billion. So hypothetically, if we were to 10x Bitcoin in and of itself, we're talking about a 5 trillion dollar Bitcoin market cap, which would be half the current market cap of gold. Now, with the entire crypto market cap, we can potentially hit 10 trillion. Now, also note, back in November of 2021, when we hit that all time high of 69,000 in November of last year, the total crypto market cap was just north of that 3 trillion dollar market cap. So he's so let's break this down and shout out to Raoul Pal. Here we go. Former Goldman Sachs executive Raoul Pal says the next bull cycle can bring an explosion in the market cap of all of the digital assets. That's right. In a new interview with Altcoin Daily, the macro expert says he expects a huge increase in the adoption of digital assets, and that can cause the total market cap of crypto to skyrocket as much as 900% from its current value during the next bull market. Quoting the analysts here, obviously, I think we'll go well through new all time highs. I think the whole ecosystem of crypto will go from 425 million users where we're at today. And I think at the end of this cycle, there'll be a billion users by that kind of use cases in which we have talked about. And let's not forget, we have got central bank digital currencies that are known as CBDCs and stable coins. There is a lot going on still. So if this entire space is going to grow 2.5 X in the number of users, well, the market cap of the entire space is five or 10 X. Send it. Let's go. Pal also says he is closely watching development of layer two Altcoin projects for new use cases, which could boost the value of their individual market cap, quitting him again. And then let's see how people value layer twos in this. We don't really know how layer twos accrue much value. Do we have to have a massive amount of transactions in which case then you need stuff like Ticketmaster with millions and millions and millions of transactions to drive value to those chains because they batched them and batched them down to Ethereum. So there you have it. And to watch this interview, he did Raul Pal, the macro guru with Altcoin Daily entitled best cryptocurrency investing strategy into 2024. Check the show notes, blow the video in the description and let me know your thoughts on his personal prediction. Do you feel post having that the market cap for the entire crypto market can likely 10 X from the current valuation along with Bitcoin surging 10 X to roughly a five trillion market cap? And hypothetically, if the macro guru is correct, where do you think that would likely take the Bitcoin price? Well, let's run some hypothetical math. Bitcoin was the 10 X from the current price action of 27,000. Well, that's $270,000 per coin. Take that. And as we all know, Bitcoin rises like that, the entire crypto market cap would go along for the ride, including the altcoin. So please let me know in the chat, fam, which altcoins, if any, are you most bullish on in the crypto market? And what are your thoughts surrounding Raul Pal being so bullish on Solana? A few months back, I read in an interview he shared that 80% or more of his portfolio was specifically in an altcoin called Solana. So I'd love to know your thoughts. Obviously, he has a high risk tolerance as I look at that particular cryptocurrency to be very risky, especially with all that went in with the venture capitalists and SPF and FTX exchange pumping that particular all. So I'd love to know how you feel regarding all of that. And with that being shared, fam, now let's discuss Peter Thiel and his $4 million price prediction, as well as rumor has it, and I'll be covering this as well, that he dumps most of his Bitcoin position at the top of the market practically 30 days before the crash. So let's break this down because Peter Thiel was actually one of the keynote speakers at the Miami Conference for Bitcoin. And here's what he had to share as I transcribed his speech, and then we'll discuss him reportedly making $1.8 billion cashing out on his eight-year bet around the time he was touting these all-time high predictions. So here we go. He says, the enemy's list is a list of people who I think are stopping Bitcoin. He says there is a lot of them. They tend to have nameless, faceless bureaucratic perspectives, which of course is one of the ways they hide. He goes on to share, we are going to try to expose them and realize that this is sort of what we have to fight for Bitcoin to go up, 10x or 100x from here. Now, just FYI, to give you some perspective, at the time he made this prediction on stage at the Bitcoin Miami Conference, Bitcoin was trading at roughly $43,000 per coin. So you run the math. 43,000 times 100x is over $4 million per Bitcoin. So you know that? Let's continue with what he had to share. The central banks are going bankrupt. We are at the end of the fiat money regime. How many of you agree with that statement? I agree there 100%. The first person on the list is Berkshire Hathaway CEO, Warren Buffett. Thiel put up a picture of Buffett with two of his most famous quotes about Bitcoin. One was rat poison and the other, I don't own any and I never will. I also like to point out now since then, Warren Buffett has much indirect exposure to Bitcoin through Bitcoin mining stock companies and etc. So go figure. If you can't beat them, join them, right? And he goes on. He opined, I think the direct in it. Yeah, and I say also Charlie Munger goes along with him. Now, feel further noted that Buffett has a bias and makes him long on fiat money system and money managers who follow the Berkshire Hathaway executives advice will pretend it's complicated to invest into Bitcoin. I think we call that FUD. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Now expect nothing less from one of the wealthiest people in the fiat money matrix Ponzi scheme. You know what I mean? So just saying. The next person on the list of Bitcoin's enemies is the one and only JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, or as Max Kaiser calls him, Jamie the tapeworm. They'll put diamonds picture up with the following quote. I don't call them crypto currencies. I call them crypto tokens because currencies have rules of law behind them, central banks and tax with authorities. Now you guys already know how I feel personally about JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon. So I won't go any deeper there. But anyways, we know he's an enemy of Bitcoin and always has been. The next picture he put up was of the BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink, with the following quote. I see huge opportunities in a digitized crypto blockchain related currency, and that's where I think it is going to go. Now just FYI, Larry Fink is the CEO of the largest asset management firm in the entire world, which owns a large share in virtually all the companies in the S &P 500, and that is BlackRock. They currently have over $10 trillion in assets under management. And for a long time, he was spreading FUD regarding Bitcoin. But guess what? Like I mentioned earlier, if you can't beat them, join them because they just most recently, a few months ago, they submitted their application for a spot Bitcoin ETF, which ultimately means they're going to be introducing this to the institutions which have trillions upon trillions of dollars as there's currently north of $700 trillion in total addressable market, and they want their piece of the Bitcoin pie. So he goes on to share, the PayPal co-founder added that Fink's quote is somewhat representative of the whole genre of Bitcoin attacks that need further context, stating that pro-blockchain is an anti-Bitcoin term, very typically. Feel then brought up the environmental, social, and governance, ESG standards, elaborating the following, the label they have come up with, and perhaps the real enemy is ESG. I think that ESG is just a hate factory. Also like to throw out there, Elon Musk, he stopped taking Bitcoin payments for Tesla, and he says it's because of the FUD regarding this ESG, and we all know it's not more than FUD, and it's already been proven that Bitcoin is more than 50% clean energy. So the million dollar question, when will the world's supposedly wealthiest man, Elon Musk, when will he start accepting Bitcoin payments again for Tesla? Isn't that a great question, and wouldn't you love to know the answer to that? Maybe you should ask Elon and tag him on X and see what he says. Anyways, feel stressed. You can always ask the question, what's the difference between ESG and the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party? Well, when you think ESG, you should be thinking of CCP per H. Now, he also goes on to share, it is the finance gentocracy that runs the country through whatever silly virtue signaling or hate factory to them, just like ESG, the billionaire concluded. This is what I would call and what you have to think of as a revolutionary youth movement, and we have to just go out from this conference and take over the world. So there you have it, fam. What are your thoughts surrounding Peter Thiel's prediction that we are likely to 100X, and along with his enemies list, as it seems, a lot of the enemies have come around and now have direct exposure to BTC, but it doesn't stop there because around that time he was making this $4 million Bitcoin price prediction. He allegedly dumped most of his position cashing out and with over a billion dollars in profits for his fund. So let's also break this down as this is also very relevant. How many of you were able to watch the speech he gave at that Bitcoin conference? It was epic, to say the least. I recall it now. So here we go. Check it out. Peter Thiel's venture capital firm reportedly made $1.8 billion closing out its crypto positions around the time when he was an early Bitcoin bull, still predicting the token's price to surge by 100X. And again, from 43,000 price action, 100X means over 4 million. Founders Fund had cashed out almost all of its bets on digital assets by March of 2022, according to the Financial Times report that cited people familiar with the matter. But Thiel was still backing Bitcoin, obviously, when he spoke at the crypto conference in Miami the following month. He went on to share where at the end of the fiat money regime, he said, adding that the token's price could increase 100 fold from its level at the time, which was reported at $44,000 per coin. That prediction was proven false and as rising interest rates and failures, the high profile firms like Celsius Network, Three Arrows Capital, FTX, Terra Luna dragged the crypto sector into the prolonged bearish winter. Now Bitcoin plummeted by over 60% in 2022 and was trading at under 17,000 by the end of the year. And I believe the bottom currently for the cycle is 15,700. How many of you feel that that bottom is in? Let me know, chat. Founders Fund first started pouring money into crypto all the way back in 2014, when Bitcoin was only trading at roughly $750 per coin. So by the time Bitcoin reached its all time high in November of 2021, it had surged 8,500% from that particular level. Not too shabby for a seven year run, wouldn't you say? Now Thiel has a long track record as one of Silicon Valley's most prominent tech investors. He took early stakes in startups, which include Facebook, Elon Musk's SpaceX, and ride hailing app Lyft, and even co-founded PayPal back in 1998. Thiel is also a high profile supporter of the Republican Party and continued to voice his support for Donald Trump since the former president left office in January of 2021. The fund held around two thirds of his portfolio in Bitcoin at one time, but now not has significant exposure to crypto according to FT's sources. So there you have it. Fam, what are your thoughts surrounding his prediction and him cashing out at around that time he was making those all time high predictions of 100X? Let me know, fam. And don't forget to check out cryptonewsalerts.net for the full premium experience with video and to participate in the live Q &A. And I look forward to seeing you on tomorrow's episode. HODL.

A highlight from 1406: Bitcoin Will Hit $4 Million, Rising 100x - Peter Thiel

Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News

26:38 min | Last week

A highlight from 1406: Bitcoin Will Hit $4 Million, Rising 100x - Peter Thiel

"In today's show, we'll be discussing Bitcoin Bollinger Bands hitting a key zone as Bitcoin price fights for $27 ,000. In breaking news just in, Bitcoin hash rate hits a new all -time high. Let's go. And quoting Stacey Herbert, Bitcoin is pumping on the news of President Bukele's speech to the UN tonight. Can't wait. We'll also be discussing Bitcoin Adoption Fund launched by Japan's $500 billion Nomura Bank. That's right. The Bitcoin Adoption Fund will have long -only exposure to Bitcoin and be available to institutional investors. We'll also be sharing Sam Bankman, Fried's father, dragged his mother into an FTX US salary dispute. You can't make this stuff up, folks. Also in today's show, Bitcoin gearing up for a post -having parabola, according to crypto analysts. I'll be sharing his very bullish all -time high target. We'll also be discussing crypto asset market cap should explode 5 to 10x during the next bull cycle, according to investor Raoul Pal. I'll also be sharing Peter Thiel's $4 million Bitcoin price prediction, and we'll also be taking a look at the overall crypto market. All this plus so much more in today's show. Yo, what's good crypto fam? This is first and foremost, a video show. So if you want the full premium experience with video, visit my YouTube channel at cryptonewsalerts .net. Again, that's cryptonewsalerts .net. Welcome everyone just joining us. This is pod episode number 1406. I'm your host JV. And today is September 19th, 2023. We have lots to cover as usual. Massive shout out to everyone today in the live chat. Please let me know where you're tuning in from. And at the end of the show, I'm going to be reading everyone's comments out loud. Let's kick off today's show with our market watch as we do each and every day, the entire crypto market back in the green with Bitcoin back above $27 ,100 and checking out coinmarketcap .com, the current crypto market cap on the climb at $1 .08 trillion with roughly $27 billion in volume for the past 24 hours, Bitcoin dominance at 49 .2 % and the Ether dominance at 18 .4%. And checking out the top 100 crypto gainers of the past 24 hours, we have TonCoin leading the pack up 5%, trading at $2 .57, followed by GMX up about 5%, trading just under 36 bucks, followed by Conflux up 4%, trading at $0 .12. And checking out the top 100 crypto gainers of the past week, virtually 95 out of the top 100 cryptos are in the green. Some of the top gainers include GMX, GRT, as well as CRV and NEO. And checking out the crypto greed and fear index, we're currently rated at 46 in fear, same as 37 in fear. So there you have it. How many of you are pretty stoked for this most recent pump? And how many of you agree with Stacey Herbert that this pump is due to Bukele's speech scheduled for this evening? Let me know, fam. And now let's dive into today's Bitcoin technical analysis. Check out the charts and what's popping with the king crypto. Bitcoin could see fresh upside volatility as the price action and the strength revisits a key level according to a classic metric. In a new post, John Bollinger, creator of the Bollinger Bands volatility indicator, says Bitcoin was positioned for a breakout decision. That's right. After hitting new September highs the day prior, Bitcoin has been challenging resistance levels out of reach since mid -August, according to data from Cointelegraph and TradingView. Now for Bollinger, the signs for Bitcoin are encouraging. Bollinger Bands use a standard deviation around the simple moving average to determine both the likely price ranges and volatility. And as Michael Saylor once said, volatility equals life force. Now, currently Bitcoin is putting in daily candles that touch the upper band. And when this happens, it can signal an imminent reversal back to the center band, or conversely, an inbound fit of upside volatility. Now narrow Bollinger Bands seen on Bitcoin recently lend weight to hopes that the latter scenario will now play out, quitting him here. And then there is the first tag of the upper Bollinger Band. After the new set of controlling bars were established at the lower band, he commented alongside this chart, the question is now, can we walk up to the upper band or is it too early to answer? What are your thoughts, chat? Let me know in the comments below. Now Bollinger characterizes the current mood among seasoned Bitcoin traders and analysts on the short -term timeframes. Despite the strength seen this week, caution abounds as various trend lines previously acting as support remain above the spot price. Now discussing the situation, we had on -chain monitoring resource, material indicators share the following. We have heavy technical resistance overhead at the key moving averages and support at the lower low. It is quite possible that we round trip the range. And with any luck, we'll see a legit test of the RS levels that will give us some clarity on where Bitcoin goes from here before the end of the week. And they also shared here in update number two, as noted earlier, it appears the Bitcoin bulls are gaining some momentum, but things are not always as they seem and goes on to share that sometime after last night's candle and close open, we've seen a new trend precognition signal develop on the daily chart and it seems to be bullish. I mean, we are breaking out. We are above 27 ,000. So let's freaking go. And also more strong foundation on the technicals. You can see Bitcoin hits yet another all -time high, which virtually means the network has never been this strong and this secure. Now I'm pretty stoked to tune into President Bukele's speech to the UN this evening. What do you think he has to share besides? I told you so. Let me know, fam. And again, welcome to everyone just joining us for the live show. Lots to continue to cover. So let's continue breaking it down. Next, let's discuss this adoption fund, which is a pretty big deal coming out of Japan. Let's go check this out. Japan's largest investment bank, Numura's digital asset subsidiary, Laser Digital Asset Management, launched the Bitcoin adoption fund specifically for the institutional investors. Bring it. The official announcement noted the Bitcoin -based fund will be the first in a range of digital adoption investment solutions that the firm plans to introduce. Now Numura is a Japanese financial giant with over $500 billion worth of assets, which basically that's half a trillion, baby, offers brokerage services to leading institutional investors. The Bitcoin fund launched by its digital asset arm will now offer investors direct exposure to BTC. The Laser Digital Bitcoin Adoption Fund offers long key exposure to Bitcoin. The financial giant has chosen Kamanu as its regulated custody partner. The Bitcoin fund is a portion of Laser Digital Fund's segregated portfolio company that has been registered as a mutual fund in accordance with the Cayman Islands regulatory authority. Now, Laser Digital Asset Management head Sebastian said the Bitcoin is one of the enablers of this long -lasting transformational change and long -term exposure to Bitcoin offers a solution for the investors to capture this macro trend. Now, the Bitcoin adoption fund might be the first of its kind launched by Numura and the digital asset arm, but the Japanese investment banking giant has been investing in the digital asset ecosystem for quite some time already. In fact, September of last year, the firm launched its digital asset venture capital arm to stay at the forefront of digital innovation. And also won Dubai's virtual asset regulatory authority license to operate in the country. The long -only Bitcoin adoption fund for investors in Japan comes amid a growing discussion around Bitcoin -based investment products from regulated and mainstream financial giants. The United States SEC approved two Bitcoin ETFs, even though there is a delayed decision specifically on the spot. Bitcoin ETFs. What's up with that, Mr. Gensler? Just saying. And apart from the US, Canada and focused investment products over the past couple of years. So there you have it, mass adoption, let's freaking go, especially on the institutional level. How many of you are in Japan? I know we have some in our audience out there. Let me know. And have you ever heard of this company before? Any plans in investing through them? Let me know how you guys feel. And now let's break down the latest. It gets more surprising and shocking every day with what all is going on with Bankman -Fried and FTX. Now his parents are involved. His parents are being sued by FTX. And it's just a nightmare of a mess, to say the least. So let's break down this latest story regarding SBF. Now, Joseph Bankman, the father of the former FTX CEO, Sam Bankman -Fried, complained to his son about the salary he was receiving during his employment at FTX US, turning the issue into a family matter. In a September 18 filing with the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, FTX debtors filed a complaint against Bankman and Barbara Fried, alleging that SBF's parents misappropriated millions of dollars through their involvement in the exchange's business. And according to the court documents, Bankman's contract with FTX US should have provided a $200 ,000 annual salary following a leave of absence from the Stanford Law School in December 2021. However, Bankman seemed to express ignorance about the terms of the contract, claiming to both FTX US and his son that he was expecting a $1 million annual salary. What about all that property in the Bahamas, fam? What about all that? Hundreds of millions worth of properties? Just wanted to throw that out there. The complaint states that Bankman was putting Barbara on this, suggesting that SBF's mother may have been able to persuade her son to follow through with the salary change. Things get even more interesting. So according to the complaint, Bankman's influence paid off, with SBF later providing his parents $10 million from Alameda Research. Can you talk about commingling? A 16 .4 million property in the Bahamas, funded by FTX Trading, the ability to expense roughly $90 ,000 to FTX Trading on the island nation in the Bahamas, and options to purchase company stock. Now, when reached out to the legal team representing Bankman and Fried, but did not receive a response at the time, unfortunately, the legal action brought by the debtors was the latest in the bankruptcy case involving FTX and many of its subsidiaries filed in November of last year. Bankman Fried also faces 12 criminal charges to be spread across two trials, starting in October of 2023, which is right around the corner, fam, and March of 2024, right before the halving, scheduled for April of next year. And since the federal judge revoked his bail in August, Bankman Fried has been largely confined to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Where's Brooklyn at? Before the start of his October trial, then on September 19th, a three -judge panel heard an appeal from SPF's legal team requesting the former FTX CEO to be released from jail in order to prepare for the trial, citing the lack of internet access and first amendment issues. All I got to say is this, I mean, how many people realistically have access to the internet in jail? Why should he? Million dollar question right there. But what are your thoughts, fam? How do you think this is likely to play out? And do you think that Bankman Fried's parents are just as guilty as SPF himself with the commingling and the fraud of going up north of $30 billion, making it the biggest scam in history that we're aware of? Hence why we call him Mini Madoff, because he made off with billions of dollars worth of investors' money, and Gary Gensler and the SEC was protecting him behind closed doors. So it's going to be very interesting to see how all this is likely to play out. Now let's discuss post halving. We all know there is a halving scheduled roughly six months out. We all know post halving, the price action is most likely going to reach a new all -time high and enter price discovery mode. Well, this analyst shares a very intriguing target. So let's break this down, shall we? And welcome to y 'all just joining us. Say hello in that live chat. Let me know where you're tuning in from. I stream live here seven days a week from Puerto Rico. Synonymous analyst Rhett Capital tells his followers on X that Bitcoin can rally above $80 per ,000 coin in the months following next month's event. For the halving, send it. Let's go. The Bitcoin halving cuts the Bitcoin miners' rewards in half, as we all know, expected to take place in April of next year. And while Rhett Capital is a long -term bull on Bitcoin, he notes that it is possible for Bitcoin to continue its downtrend before the halving, putting him here. Hang in there and make the most of any deeper downside in this pre halving period. You won't see the post halving parabola in the outlines here in this chart. It shows you in the yellow, the pre halving period, then in the pink, the post halving resistance, and then in the green, you can see the post halving parabola when we hit those new all -time highs. Now, Rhett notes that Bitcoin may repeat its 2019 bear market cycle when it traded within a triangle pattern before breaking out and starting off the bull market, as he shares here, if Bitcoin continues to form lower highs, could Bitcoin fill the CME, which is the Chicago Mercantile Exchange gap, at $20 ,000 later this year or in early 2024? So it makes a good point. There is currently a gap sitting at that $20 ,000 psychological level. And he continues, if so, the possible path could be consolidation to the apex of the black triangle before finally breaking out to close the halving. And you can see that triangle right here in this chart. Now, looking at the chart, he seemed to suggest that Bitcoin will confirm the triangle breakout in April of 2024, followed by a rally towards his long -term target. Now, let me know your thoughts, chat. How many of you agree that Bitcoin is likely to break out to a new all -time high, entering price discovery mode in 2024, the year of the halving? Let me know. And what are some of your targets? I'd also like to point out that the Stock the Flow model and Plan B, creator of that model, he suggests a $100 to $1 million range price for the King Crypto post halving. We also have some very other bullish predictions, which I cover on a daily basis here on the channel. But I'd love to know your personal prediction. I think we reached the cycle peak personally sometime in 2025, but I think 2024, we enter that price discovery mode. But I'd love to know your thoughts and your opinions in the comments right down below. And now let's break down our next story of the day and discuss the latest from the macro guru, Raoul Pal, who is suggesting that the Bitcoin market cap and crypto market cap as a whole does something between 5 and 10x for this upcoming bull cycle. Now, you do the math. We have a crypto market cap right now. I'm going to ballpark it at a trillion. We have a Bitcoin market cap. I'm going to ballpark it at a half a trillion, which is 500 billion. So hypothetically, if we were to 10x Bitcoin in and of itself, we're talking about a 5 trillion dollar Bitcoin market cap, which would be half the current market cap of gold. Now, with the entire crypto market cap, we can potentially hit 10 trillion. Now, also note, back in November of 2021, when we hit that all time high of 69 ,000 in November of last year, the total crypto market cap was just north of that 3 trillion dollar market cap. So he's so let's break this down and shout out to Raoul Pal. Here we go. Former Goldman Sachs executive Raoul Pal says the next bull cycle can bring an explosion in the market cap of all of the digital assets. That's right. In a new interview with Altcoin Daily, the macro expert says he expects a huge increase in the adoption of digital assets, and that can cause the total market cap of crypto to skyrocket as much as 900 % from its current value during the next bull market. Quoting the analysts here, obviously, I think we'll go well through new all time highs. I think the whole ecosystem of crypto will go from 425 million users where we're at today. And I think at the end of this cycle, there'll be a billion users by that kind of use cases in which we have talked about. And let's not forget, we have got central bank digital currencies that are known as CBDCs and stable coins. There is a lot going on still. So if this entire space is going to grow 2 .5 X in the number of users, well, the market cap of the entire space is five or 10 X. Send it. Let's go. Pal also says he is closely watching development of layer two Altcoin projects for new use cases, which could boost the value of their individual market cap, quitting him again. And then let's see how people value layer twos in this. We don't really know how layer twos accrue much value. Do we have to have a massive amount of transactions in which case then you need stuff like Ticketmaster with millions and millions and millions of transactions to drive value to those chains because they batched them and batched them down to Ethereum. So there you have it. And to watch this interview, he did Raul Pal, the macro guru with Altcoin Daily entitled best cryptocurrency investing strategy into 2024. Check the show notes, blow the video in the description and let me know your thoughts on his personal prediction. Do you feel post having that the market cap for the entire crypto market can likely 10 X from the current valuation along with Bitcoin surging 10 X to roughly a five trillion market cap? And hypothetically, if the macro guru is correct, where do you think that would likely take the Bitcoin price? Well, let's run some hypothetical math. Bitcoin was the 10 X from the current price action of 27 ,000. Well, that's $270 ,000 per coin. Take that. And as we all know, Bitcoin rises like that, the entire crypto market cap would go along for the ride, including the altcoin. So please let me know in the chat, fam, which altcoins, if any, are you most bullish on in the crypto market? And what are your thoughts surrounding Raul Pal being so bullish on Solana? A few months back, I read in an interview he shared that 80 % or more of his portfolio was specifically in an altcoin called Solana. So I'd love to know your thoughts. Obviously, he has a high risk tolerance as I look at that particular cryptocurrency to be very risky, especially with all that went in with the venture capitalists and SPF and FTX exchange pumping that particular all. So I'd love to know how you feel regarding all of that. And with that being shared, fam, now let's discuss Peter Thiel and his $4 million price prediction, as well as rumor has it, and I'll be covering this as well, that he dumps most of his Bitcoin position at the top of the market practically 30 days before the crash. So let's break this down because Peter Thiel was actually one of the keynote speakers at the Miami Conference for Bitcoin. And here's what he had to share as I transcribed his speech, and then we'll discuss him reportedly making $1 .8 billion cashing out on his eight -year bet around the time he was touting these all -time high predictions. So here we go. He says, the enemy's list is a list of people who I think are stopping Bitcoin. He says there is a lot of them. They tend to have nameless, faceless bureaucratic perspectives, which of course is one of the ways they hide. He goes on to share, we are going to try to expose them and realize that this is sort of what we have to fight for Bitcoin to go up, 10x or 100x from here. Now, just FYI, to give you some perspective, at the time he made this prediction on stage at the Bitcoin Miami Conference, Bitcoin was trading at roughly $43 ,000 per coin. So you run the math. 43 ,000 times 100x is over $4 million per Bitcoin. So you know that? Let's continue with what he had to share. The central banks are going bankrupt. We are at the end of the fiat money regime. How many of you agree with that statement? I agree there 100%. The first person on the list is Berkshire Hathaway CEO, Warren Buffett. Thiel put up a picture of Buffett with two of his most famous quotes about Bitcoin. One was rat poison and the other, I don't own any and I never will. I also like to point out now since then, Warren Buffett has much indirect exposure to Bitcoin through Bitcoin mining stock companies and etc. So go figure. If you can't beat them, join them, right? And he goes on. He opined, I think the direct in it. Yeah, and I say also Charlie Munger goes along with him. Now, feel further noted that Buffett has a bias and makes him long on fiat money system and money managers who follow the Berkshire Hathaway executives advice will pretend it's complicated to invest into Bitcoin. I think we call that FUD. Fear, uncertainty and doubt. Now expect nothing less from one of the wealthiest people in the fiat money matrix Ponzi scheme. You know what I mean? So just saying. The next person on the list of Bitcoin's enemies is the one and only JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, or as Max Kaiser calls him, Jamie the tapeworm. They'll put diamonds picture up with the following quote. I don't call them crypto currencies. I call them crypto tokens because currencies have rules of law behind them, central banks and tax with authorities. Now you guys already know how I feel personally about JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon. So I won't go any deeper there. But anyways, we know he's an enemy of Bitcoin and always has been. The next picture he put up was of the BlackRock CEO, Larry Fink, with the following quote. I see huge opportunities in a digitized crypto blockchain related currency, and that's where I think it is going to go. Now just FYI, Larry Fink is the CEO of the largest asset management firm in the entire world, which owns a large share in virtually all the companies in the S &P 500, and that is BlackRock. They currently have over $10 trillion in assets under management. And for a long time, he was spreading FUD regarding Bitcoin. But guess what? Like I mentioned earlier, if you can't beat them, join them because they just most recently, a few months ago, they submitted their application for a spot Bitcoin ETF, which ultimately means they're going to be introducing this to the institutions which have trillions upon trillions of dollars as there's currently north of $700 trillion in total addressable market, and they want their piece of the Bitcoin pie. So he goes on to share, the PayPal co -founder added that Fink's quote is somewhat representative of the whole genre of Bitcoin attacks that need further context, stating that pro -blockchain is an anti -Bitcoin term, very typically. Feel then brought up the environmental, social, and governance, ESG standards, elaborating the following, the label they have come up with, and perhaps the real enemy is ESG. I think that ESG is just a hate factory. Also like to throw out there, Elon Musk, he stopped taking Bitcoin payments for Tesla, and he says it's because of the FUD regarding this ESG, and we all know it's not more than FUD, and it's already been proven that Bitcoin is more than 50 % clean energy. So the million dollar question, when will the world's supposedly wealthiest man, Elon Musk, when will he start accepting Bitcoin payments again for Tesla? Isn't that a great question, and wouldn't you love to know the answer to that? Maybe you should ask Elon and tag him on X and see what he says. Anyways, feel stressed. You can always ask the question, what's the difference between ESG and the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party? Well, when you think ESG, you should be thinking of CCP per H. Now, he also goes on to share, it is the finance gentocracy that runs the country through whatever silly virtue signaling or hate factory to them, just like ESG, the billionaire concluded. This is what I would call and what you have to think of as a revolutionary youth movement, and we have to just go out from this conference and take over the world. So there you have it, fam. What are your thoughts surrounding Peter Thiel's prediction that we are likely to 100X, and along with his enemies list, as it seems, a lot of the enemies have come around and now have direct exposure to BTC, but it doesn't stop there because around that time he was making this $4 million Bitcoin price prediction. He allegedly dumped most of his position cashing out and with over a billion dollars in profits for his fund. So let's also break this down as this is also very relevant. How many of you were able to watch the speech he gave at that Bitcoin conference? It was epic, to say the least. I recall it now. So here we go. Check it out. Peter Thiel's venture capital firm reportedly made $1 .8 billion closing out its crypto positions around the time when he was an early Bitcoin bull, still predicting the token's price to surge by 100X. And again, from 43 ,000 price action, 100X means over 4 million. Founders Fund had cashed out almost all of its bets on digital assets by March of 2022, according to the Financial Times report that cited people familiar with the matter. But Thiel was still backing Bitcoin, obviously, when he spoke at the crypto conference in Miami the following month. He went on to share where at the end of the fiat money regime, he said, adding that the token's price could increase 100 fold from its level at the time, which was reported at $44 ,000 per coin. That prediction was proven false and as rising interest rates and failures, the high profile firms like Celsius Network, Three Arrows Capital, FTX, Terra Luna dragged the crypto sector into the prolonged bearish winter. Now Bitcoin plummeted by over 60 % in 2022 and was trading at under 17 ,000 by the end of the year. And I believe the bottom currently for the cycle is 15 ,700. How many of you feel that that bottom is in? Let me know, chat. Founders Fund first started pouring money into crypto all the way back in 2014, when Bitcoin was only trading at roughly $750 per coin. So by the time Bitcoin reached its all time high in November of 2021, it had surged 8 ,500 % from that particular level. Not too shabby for a seven year run, wouldn't you say? Now Thiel has a long track record as one of Silicon Valley's most prominent tech investors. He took early stakes in startups, which include Facebook, Elon Musk's SpaceX, and ride hailing app Lyft, and even co -founded PayPal back in 1998. Thiel is also a high profile supporter of the Republican Party and continued to voice his support for Donald Trump since the former president left office in January of 2021. The fund held around two thirds of his portfolio in Bitcoin at one time, but now not has significant exposure to crypto according to FT's sources. So there you have it. Fam, what are your thoughts surrounding his prediction and him cashing out at around that time he was making those all time high predictions of 100X? Let me know, fam. And don't forget to check out cryptonewsalerts .net for the full premium experience with video and to participate in the live Q &A. And I look forward to seeing you on tomorrow's episode. HODL.

Joseph Bankman Michael Saylor September 19Th Stacey Herbert Elon Gary Gensler Raoul Pal Sam Bankman January Of 2021 March Of 2022 1998 Max Kaiser $100 John Bollinger Jamie Dimon August October Of 2023 Gensler Larry Fink December 2021
"joseph bankman" Discussed on Daily Crypto Report

Daily Crypto Report

04:12 min | Last week

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Daily Crypto Report

"It's 8 a.m. Eastern, September the 19th, and this is your daily crypto report. Bitcoin is up slightly at $27,236. ETH is up slightly at $1,647 and Binance Coin is up slightly at $218. As a person with a very deep voice, I'm hired all the time for advertising campaigns. But a deep voice doesn't sell B2B. And advertising on the wrong platform doesn't sell B2B either. That's why if you're a B2B marketer, you should use LinkedIn ads. LinkedIn has the targeting capabilities to help you reach the world's largest professional audience. That's right, over 70 million decision makers all in one place. All the big wigs, then medium wigs. Also small wigs who are on the path to becoming big wigs. Okay, that's enough about wigs. LinkedIn ads allows you to focus on getting your B2B message to the right people. So, does that mean you should use ads on LinkedIn instead of hiring me, the man with the deepest voice in the world? Yes, yes it does. Get started today and see why LinkedIn is the place to be, to be. We'll even give you a $100 credit on your next campaign. Go to LinkedIn.com slash results to claim your credit. That's LinkedIn.com slash results. Terms and conditions apply. Well, FTX has filed a lawsuit against Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, the parent of its founder, Sam Bankman Fried, seeking to recover millions of dollars in fraudulently transferred and misappropriated funds. The court filing alleges that Bankman and Fried, who are Stanford Law School professors, enrich themselves by exploiting their influence within FTX, even as the company faced insolvency. The lawsuit claims that they siphoned millions of dollars from FTX for personal gain and pet causes. It also highlights their purchases, including luxury property in the Bahamas, funded by FTX. SBF's parents have not responded to requests for comment. Well, Citigroup has launched a tokenization service for institutional clients, leveraging blockchain technology and smart contracts. These smart contracts function similarly to bank guarantees and letters of credit, simplifying cash management and trade finance processes. Citigroup conducted a pilot program in collaboration with shipping company Maersk and a canal authority to streamline traditionally lengthy and paperwork intensive procedures. The service, known as Cititoken Services, aims to provide a 24x7 cross-border payment solution, liquidity, and automated trade finance solutions to institutional clients. Citigroup previously projected that the tokenization of additional securities could become a $4 trillion to $5 trillion market by 2030, in a report earlier this year. Binance's staked Ether token, Beth, saw a significant increase in deposits this month, boosting its total locked value to $731 million, a more than fourfold increase. The surge followed two substantial transactions, one with $165 million and another with $243 million. Beth allows stakers to earn yields while retaining their assets for use in the decentralized finance markets. Notably, the four largest Beth holders are Binance-controlled wallets. Despite Beth's smaller TVL compared to platforms like Lido and Coinbase, these regular inflows suggest confidence in Binance amid regulatory uncertainty. Will Gravity, a crypto and seed funding, reach a $39 million post-money valuation? The pre-seed round was completed in October of 2022, but disclosed only now. Gravity's hybrid exchange combines centralized exchange efficiency with decentralized exchange self-custody features. The platform uses off-chain order matching and on-chain settlements, with plans to launch crypto perpetuals and options trading in January, followed by spot trading in April. With the new funding, Gravity will expand its licensing efforts globally with a focus on the Middle East and Europe, and intends to hire for various roles to grow its team. And finally, Oak Grove Ventures, a new $60 million fund, has been launched by alumni from notable crypto and fintech companies. The Singapore-based fund will concentrate on early-stage investments in Web3, artificial intelligence, and biotech. Previously functioning as a family office, the fund has a successful track record in supporting more than 30 projects in the past. Well, that's all for us today. Visit us at dailycryptoreport.io for sources and links, and listen to us everywhere else you podcast under Daily Crypto Report.

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto Camel Podcast

Crypto Camel Podcast

06:01 min | Last week

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto Camel Podcast

"Support for CryptoCamel is provided by you, the listener. We couldn't make this show come to life without your support. So make sure to subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcast. We love our community to chat about what upcoming cryptos are next to go to the moon and what hidden gems are going to be the next big thing. Hey, hey, welcome to another episode of CryptoCamel. This is your host, Jon Safran. On today's episode, we're going to discuss what's happening with Genesis, FTX, and some regulatory mandates that are coming from China and a new bill that's coming from the UK government. So to kick this off, we're going to talk about Genesis and how they're going to stop offering crypto trading services. So Genesis has announced that it will no longer offer crypto trading services, and these include digital assets spot and derivative services. The development comes after it reached a credit agreement with the DGC or digital currency group. And the agreement allows a 70 to 90% credit recovery. Genesis had to take the call to halt its crypto services after suffering massively from last year's collapse of FTX and the three arrows capital. So last year's crypto winter was horrible for the entire crypto industry, and its effect can even be seen in recent times. BTC is currently trading around $26,600, which is down from its all-time high of $65,000. The company has interacted with the media to clarify that the decision is voluntary and has been taken for business-related reasons. Genesis no longer offers crypto trading services, and Genesis additionally said in the media statement that they have been terminated from the DGCI. And the DGC has earlier announced that it was narrowing down its efforts to reach an agreement with Genesis in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The idea was to resolve the claims as soon as possible. Meanwhile, interest in the blockchain technology is growing across the world, with governments and financial institutions looking to explore the technology. And the objective is to facilitate cross-border transactions securely and at a lower cost. Ripple had claimed that the technology had the capability of saving at least $10 billion in cross-border transactions. However, that can only happen by the end of 2030. And also, financial institutions and customers are estimated to experience faster execution of a transaction. So Genesis and DGC, they claim that DGC owed $500 million along with $4,500 BTC. And the court documents have revealed that the actual amount may be somewhere around $600 million. And it dates back to September 7, 2023, when Genesis alleges that DCG borrowed $500 million across four loans from Genesis. And this happened in 2022 and was in addition to borrowing $18,697 BTC in 2019. So Genesis filed for bankruptcy in January this year, claiming that DCG and DCGGI were wrongfully in possession of property that actually belonged to the bankruptcy state of Genesis Global Capital. Loans have matured and are payable as of May 2023. However, DCG wants to convert them to open loans. And Genesis never confirmed agreeing to this and continues to seek repayment. On September 15, 2023, Genesis said that it is now shutting down its crypto trading services after reaching a conclusion with DCG. It's an ambiguous reason and has been given for a series of ceasing the services and stating that the voluntary reason has been taken for business reasons. Now, the community and media platforms wait for more specific reason. However, customers continue to wait for instructions about what they should do if they have deposited their funds and are in the middle of executing a trade or have executed the trade. Now, on to news with FTX and the FTX bankruptcy state is suing Sam Bankman-Fried's parents, Joseph and Barbara, to try to claw back some misappropriated funds. And the filing redacted in part asked the court to award the FTX estate damages the return of any property given or payment made to the parents. And the bankrupt crypto exchange has sued founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried's parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, to recover millions of dollars in fraudulently transferred and misappropriated funds. Now, the company said this in their filing on Monday. And the filing, which was redacted in part, asks the court to award the FTX estate damages the return of any property given or payments made to the parents by FTX in the past and punitive damages resulting from conscious, willful and malicious conduct.

A highlight from Genesis, FTX and UK Crime Regulations

Crypto Camel Podcast

06:01 min | Last week

A highlight from Genesis, FTX and UK Crime Regulations

"Support for CryptoCamel is provided by you, the listener. We couldn't make this show come to life without your support. So make sure to subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcast. We love our community to chat about what upcoming cryptos are next to go to the moon and what hidden gems are going to be the next big thing. Hey, hey, welcome to another episode of CryptoCamel. This is your host, Jon Safran. On today's episode, we're going to discuss what's happening with Genesis, FTX, and some regulatory mandates that are coming from China and a new bill that's coming from the UK government. So to kick this off, we're going to talk about Genesis and how they're going to stop offering crypto trading services. So Genesis has announced that it will no longer offer crypto trading services, and these include digital assets spot and derivative services. The development comes after it reached a credit agreement with the DGC or digital currency group. And the agreement allows a 70 to 90 % credit recovery. Genesis had to take the call to halt its crypto services after suffering massively from last year's collapse of FTX and the three arrows capital. So last year's crypto winter was horrible for the entire crypto industry, and its effect can even be seen in recent times. BTC currently is trading around $26 ,600, which is down from its all -time high of $65 ,000. The company has interacted with the media to clarify that the decision is voluntary and has been taken for business -related reasons. Genesis no longer offers crypto trading services, and Genesis additionally said in the media statement that they have been terminated from the DGCI. And the DGC has earlier announced that it was narrowing down its efforts to reach an agreement with Genesis in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The idea was to resolve the claims as soon as possible. Meanwhile, interest in the blockchain technology is growing across the world, with governments and financial institutions looking to explore the technology. And the objective is to facilitate cross -border transactions securely and at a lower cost. Ripple had claimed that the technology had the capability of saving at least $10 billion in cross -border transactions. However, that can only happen by the end of 2030. And also, financial institutions and customers are estimated to experience faster execution of a transaction. So Genesis and DGC, they claim that DGC owed $500 million along with $4 ,500 BTC. And the court documents have revealed that the actual amount may be somewhere around $600 million. And it dates back to September 7, 2023, when Genesis alleges that DCG borrowed $500 million across four loans from Genesis. And this happened in 2022 and was in addition to borrowing $18 ,697 BTC in 2019. So Genesis filed for bankruptcy in January this year, claiming that DCG and DCGGI were wrongfully in possession of property that actually belonged to the bankruptcy state of Genesis Global Capital. Loans have matured and are payable as of May 2023. However, DCG wants to convert them to open loans. And Genesis never confirmed agreeing to this and continues to seek repayment. On September 15, 2023, Genesis said that it is now shutting down its crypto trading services after reaching a conclusion with DCG. It's an ambiguous reason and has been given for a series of ceasing the services and stating that the voluntary reason has been taken for business reasons. Now, the community and media platforms wait for more specific reason. However, customers continue to wait for instructions about what they should do if they have deposited their funds and are in the middle of executing a trade or have executed the trade. Now, on to news with FTX and the FTX bankruptcy state is suing Sam Bankman -Fried's parents, Joseph and Barbara, to try to claw back some misappropriated funds. And the filing redacted in part asked the court to award the FTX estate damages the return of any property given or payment made to the parents. And the bankrupt crypto exchange has sued founder and former CEO Sam Bankman -Fried's parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, to recover millions of dollars in fraudulently transferred and misappropriated funds. Now, the company said this in their filing on Monday. And the filing, which was redacted in part, asks the court to award the FTX estate damages the return of any property given or payments made to the parents by FTX in the past and punitive damages resulting from conscious, willful and malicious conduct.

Jon Safran September 7, 2023 September 15, 2023 May 2023 Dcggi 70 Joseph 2019 Barbara Monday DGC Dgci DCG Genesis Last Year Barbara Fried Genesis Global Capital Joseph Bankman January This Year $65 ,000
"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto Critics' Corner

Crypto Critics' Corner

05:36 min | 5 months ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto Critics' Corner

"Staffing. So if you need just a basic summary of scaramucci's investment strategy and how good he is with other people's money, I think that kind of just gets you through the basics. But yeah, go into the details of why the fun part? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So apparently I'm like November 6th or November 7th. A few days before they were like really getting ready to declare bankruptcy, apparently, our friend Anthony scaramucci, the mooch. Got a call from Joseph bankman, Sam bankman fried's father, in which Sam bankman freed's father, Joseph bankman, a Stanford law professor, convinced scaramucci that there was currently an asset liability mismatch was the word that scaramucci used at FTX somewhere around a $1 billion is what he initially got the impression of. And so scaramucci decided to take this information from Sam bankman fried's father and fly down to The Bahamas to hang out in the war room with Gary Wang Sam bankman fried in a shot sing. Carolyn Ellison and the rest of the friends to help them with their fundraising for their emergency liquidity money. What happened to me is I was actually speaking in Sarasota, Florida. There was rumblings that day. I think it was November the 6th or something like that. Or 7th, the Monday was a 7. And then I got back to New York and I spoke to Sam's dad about the problem and it was intimated to me that it was a liability mismatch that they were leading redemptions and there were assets available, but they weren't necessarily liquid. And they needed time to get the liquidity and they were looking for some rescue things. And so at that time I was a good citizen and a partner in the business. In fact, they'll be able to own a piece of my business. I was certainly trying to help them on their fundraising round. And then I talked to that later in the day.

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Bankless

Bankless

07:22 min | 5 months ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Bankless

"The court allows the sale to go through, then binance pulls out. That's the full story. If you're a Voyager creditor and you had funds tied up in Voyager, very sad, just getting dunked in the tank again and again and again. Feels bad to have put money in any kind of quote unquote crypto bank these days. Yeah. And it's because of Gary. It's because of Gary. 100%, right? Right? Gary, everything that represents. He's become the main character for operation choke points. So, yes, I agree. It's operation checkpoint. It's Gary gensler and Friends. Speaking of Friends, does SPF have any friends left, David? I guess his parents are still friendly because he's living back at home with mom and dad. And now there's some scrutiny on SBS parents what's going on? Yeah, so a judge has approved restrictions for SPF's parents. So SPFs and mom and dad are now getting strict cell phone monitoring while he is under house arrest because the AR fearful that SPF will just say, hey mom, can I use your phone? So a consultant who's one tweet, mom. Just one post. A consultant will review keystroke logs in screenshots of Joseph bankman and Barbara Franklin's Barbara fried cell phones, at least three times per week, monitoring software are on the bankman freed's parents phones. And they photograph the user every 5 minutes to make sure it's not Sam. So the phone takes a picture every 5 minutes. And if Sam bankman frees faces there, they get in trouble. Dude, that's hilarious. How mad would you be? If this was like the situation here. The weird thing about this though is we don't know if they're innocent part that they're innocent parties at all. There seems to be a lot of evidence that they may have actually been tied up in this whole criminal enterprise. I think dick Carter and friends call the crime family or something. Crime syndicate. And so you don't know how deeply they're involved, but it's hilarious to think SPF back at home, can't use mom and dad's cell phone even. Completely walked out of that. That's so funny. I have so many jokes I can make. And we just need to move on or else I'll make them. Let's protocol. What are they doing? Optimistic layer three solution. So lens deploying a layer three to process transactions at hyperscale, they say, and designed to support the next generation of web three social users. This is called a roll app, an app chain as a roll up as a wire. Roll hat. Yeah. Yeah, you've heard that before, right? No, that's the first time I've heard that. That term. Well, I sadly can't take credit for that one. To you, I will. Layer three roll app. I'm assuming this is deployed on polygon. Because that's where lens is. So cool. Banzai is what they're calling it because of the whole plant metaphor. That's very cool. Dev connect Istanbul, Ryan. This is not necessarily for the banquet station, although they're welcome to listen to this announcement about dev connect Istanbul 2023. This is actually for me to you to tell you that I'm going to be in Istanbul in the 13th to the 19th of November for dev connect. I just wants to come, I'll be there too. Dev connect is different than DEFCON, right, David. Yes. So think of it like a binary star system and one's bigger than the other. And this is the little star. But they rotate and so it goes. Dev connect to DEFCON, DEFCON connect, every 9 months. Oh man. Is the traveling all over the world, David? Are you ever at home anymore? God, it has been a while. It has been a while. Tell us about this. So you are excited about a Solana project. I saw a lot of project, yeah. It's an NFT project, so maybe people would have suspected that's the way they get yet, they hook you into the Solana community, mad labs. Mad lads, what is it? I mean, I don't know. It's an NFT project. They look really cool. They're volume was the number one most traded volume, at least in the last 7 days, so they are just eking up above board apes in mutant apes. And so this is why this is news. Because they are dominating the 7 day volume, at least on NFT sales. They had some mint drama, but their past that. I think they look pretty cool. I like the art. I like the art. I do not own one because I don't know how to use them on it. Wait, what did you say? What did you say? I own some soul tokens that I bought at like $9 or something. But it's super easy. Just grab a phantom wallet, just connect, I've done stuff on Solana. I have a podcast NFT on Solana. I'll probably go buy one of these on salon. And I'll be the first to go. You heard it. You heard it here. Tweeted out when you do. I mean, look at these. They're pretty cool looking. So 2020s mobster themed. It's like a comic book noir theme, I think. I'd say a noir movie type. Yeah, I think they're pretty cool. I think you're pretty cool. Yeah, I get this. I've had with this. Yeah, you like it. Nominate and soul. If you buy it. I don't know about that one. Okay. Anyways, moving on. You want to take this one? Well, David, we can't just talk about U.S. regulatory system. We got to talk about what's going on in Europe, Mika. We did an entire episode on this legislation. It looks like it is going through. After more than two and a half years of consultation, heated debates, last minute amendments, and very close votes in the committee, the EU's parliament today passed the new EU crypto framework with an impressive majority, 517 MEPs for and 38 votes against this is the most comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto. That's ever been passed by any major government body. We did an entire episode on this and the conclusion from our crypto EU Mika experts was this was about a B minus in terms of its quality and its goodness for crypto. So it could have been a lot worse. We could have had a failing grade in F or a D or something like that. Average would have been C, they rated it as B minus. And I think mostly agree with that, it leaves much to be desired, but it provides some clarity. For instance, your up David doesn't have the problem of is ether a security or a commodity or not. There's no Gary gensler of Europe. Blocking all of these things. It's quite clearly detailed as to what the nature of ether, the asset is. It's a commodity. An EU legislation. A few comments from the panel that we talked to. The U.S. is getting its pants beat. By a global regulation as a comment. We're getting our pants beat by a B minus. Nice. Yeah, it's a B minus ahead, but there's still room for the EU to fail here. There's some other regulation that might be upcoming AML LR, the data act is one of them, there's some more. So before anyone in the U.S. says, we're moving to Europe and throws that party. I think we've got to get through this heavier regulation and see where we come out on the other side. So there's still room to fail the semester. This was just one test. But B minus on the first test, it's better than the United States. That's

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Unchained

Unchained

05:39 min | 7 months ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Unchained

"But that's really on steroids right now where we're seeing many of the DeFi protocols and operations issuing tokens moving to Dow structures where they set up a decentralized autonomous organization to really decentralize governance and control over the token network or protocol or what have you. And the gensler administration is very skeptical of these. I think they view a lot of these douses alter egos. And so it really is forcing this battle of regulation versus decentralization, where there's this real drive to decentralize every aspect. There are a number of protocols that have very limited governance and are very much decentralized because there's very few features to change. They've just deployed their protocols. And the gensler administration has now turned its sites as well to the intermediaries, to the exchanges, to the custodians, to the platforms, the marketplaces, all of that. And so we're seeing a shift away from these issuers to focusing on governance and protocols, where there's no meaningful decentralization or governance, as well as these intermediaries, where there's a lot of risk because the assets are being held or custody by some intermediary, and there might not be the protections to prevent something like FTX happening again. So some of this is well placed in light of FTX, but there's not an urge under this administration to go issue rules. It was really refreshing to see the custody rule proposal. So that's the first real media rule proposal we've had. There are many reasons to criticize it. It's got a 60 day comment period. It's being rushed through pretty quickly with an 18 month window for compliance. But we're at least seeing some rule making. So I think I have to give a little check mark the SEC on doing this through a rule. But by and large, it's through enforcement. And by and large, they're focused on the intermediaries, custodians, and the centralized points of failure in the crypto ecosystem. Yeah, which I mean, it does seem almost like, you know, what's that saying, you know, criticism only makes you stronger or whatever. If it's forcing the industry to decentralize, which is idealistically what the industry claims it wants to do, then in that sense, perhaps it will all be, it will all be for the good of crypto. Anyway, we'll have to see what happens, but this has been so illuminating. I so appreciate that you came on the show. Thanks for coming on unchained. Thanks for having me. Don't forget, next up is the weekly news recap. Stick around for this week in crypto. After this short break. Thanks for tuning in to this week's news recap. Sam thinkman freed's bail may be revoked, co signers are revealed. At a hearing for the criminal case against Sam bankman freed on Thursday, judge Lewis Kaplan threatened to revoke the FTX cofounder's bail, if his access to electronic devices was not surveilling curtailed. The hearing was scheduled after STF was caught using a virtual private network or VPN, though he claimed to have used it while under house arrest to view the Super Bowl using an international sports subscription he had purchased while living in The Bahamas. During the hearing Thursday, his lawyer, Mark Cohen, said, referring to SPF's parents home, there isn't a television in the house. Earlier in the week, judge Kaplan ordered the disclosure of the names of two mystery co signers of SPS $250 million bail bond after bankman freed's legal team failed to apply to the appeals court. Stanford University affiliated Larry Kramer and Andreas peppy were revealed as the bond signers. Kramer, a former dean of Stanford law school, told coin desk that he signed the bond in a personal capacity after bankman fried's parents both Stanford professors supported his family through a cancer battle. Pep key is a senior research scientist in the computer science department. Still, Sam got at least one piece of good news this week, as the civil lawsuits by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the commodity futures trading commission were placed on hold by U.S. district judge Kevin Castel. Judge Castel approved the motion to stay the lawsuits at the request of the Department of Justice, which is handling the criminal case against him. The DoJ argued that delaying these lawsuits was appropriate due to the substantial overlap between them and the criminal case. FTX bankruptcy judge rejects request for an independent examiner. The FTX bankruptcy case also saw lots of movement this week, judge John Dorsey rejected a motion to appoint an independent examiner, claiming that it would be too costly with multiple investigations already underway. According to a court hearing on Wednesday, FTX transferred $7.7 billion worth of assets from its bahamian estate to its U.S. entities before filing for bankruptcy in Delaware. It's unclear to which entity the assets belong. In addition, the bankruptcy court served subpoenas to FTX insiders SPF, his father Joseph bankman, mother Barbara fried, former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, former FTX CTO Gary Wang, and former co CEO of FTX digital markets, nishan Singh. They are all required to produce various documents related to the now defunct crypto exchange its activities. The subpoenas demand information on any payments, digital assets, real estate, Fiat currency, or other assets received from any of the entities in the FTX group, or from any executive or employee of any entity in the FTX group. On Wednesday, The New York Times reported that the new management of the exchange is in talks with the founders of hedge fund, medulla capital, to recover the $400 million invested by SPF. The founders are negotiating to return the

gensler administration FTX Sam thinkman Sam bankman judge Lewis Kaplan judge Kaplan bankman Andreas peppy bankman fried computer science department Stanford University Mark Cohen commodity futures trading comm STF Kevin Castel Judge Castel SEC Larry Kramer DoJ
"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News

Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News

03:17 min | 8 months ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on Crypto News Alerts | Daily Bitcoin (BTC) & Cryptocurrency News

"The federal judge has allowed the identities of the guarantees who signed on the securities for former FTX SPF 250 million bond to be made public, following a request from several news outlets, court documents released February 15th, show that the two previously unidentified individuals are Andreas pop peck and senior research scientist at Stanford University, Larry Kramer, a former dean of Stanford law school, interesting, right? The two signed on a series of bankman freed's bail January 25th for 200,500 $1000, respectively that Joseph bankman and Barbara fried SBS parents were the other two parties who signed off on their son's bond in December of 2022, following his arrangement, the two were law professors at Stanford prior to their son's arrest with bankman seemingly becoming more of a target and the FTX bankruptcy case company debtors issued subpoenas on him his son and other insiders February 14th, happy Valentine's Day. And according to a February 15th report from Business Insider, Kramer said he has been friends with bankman and freed since the 1990s and his 500,000 contribution was based on that relationship. It is unclear at the time of publication what connection he may have to bankman fried or his parents, meanwhile, bankman freed's bail conditions restricted him to home arrest at his parents California home, but he has been permitted to leave for court appearances and other allowances, judge Lewis coplin, has amended the SPF bail conditions to include restrictions on accessing certain messaging apps using virtual private networks, VPS, and contacting current and former FTX and Alameda, research employees, 8 major news outlets, petition the judge on January 12th and a letter requesting the court to disclose these names the two individuals that provided mister bankman freed with financial backing, the judge initially granted the petition, but said the release of the guarantees are identified until February 7th to allow time for the SPF legal team to appear. Now, what are your thoughts surrounding this? Let me know in the comments below as SBS criminal trial is scheduled to begin in October while FTX bankruptcy cases ongoing. FTX cofounder Gary Wang and former Alameda research CEO, Caroline Ellison, have already pleaded guilty to certain charges on a reportedly cooperating with authorities, nothing with this SPF case really makes sense because if you think about it, $250 million bail, and these people only paid 500,200 thousand. Was that collectively 700 and something $1000? Where's the rest of the money? Did he even have to come up with the 10% or did they just give him a little slap on the wrist and say, pay what you can? It just makes you wonder, how do you think this is likely to play out for the criminal bank min free? Do you think he will get away with this or it's only a matter of time before he is in prison? Let me know your honest thoughts in the comments right down below, which leads us to our next story of the day, let's discuss Charlie Munger, the official cock blocker for the king crypto. Yeah, he just recently came out with some more nonsense. Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman Charlie Munger continued his insults against crypto and its supporters on Wednesday and during a live stream interview with CNBC at the daily journal's annual shareholder meetings, referencing his recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, stating that crypto should be banned, the 99 year old executive insisted there is no rational argument against his position of banning crypto.

bankman Joseph bankman Barbara fried FTX Stanford Business Insider SBS Larry Kramer judge Lewis coplin Stanford law school mister bankman peck Andreas Gary Wang Alameda research Caroline Ellison Kramer
"joseph bankman" Discussed on The Decrypt Daily: Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency  News Podcast

The Decrypt Daily: Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News Podcast

01:54 min | 8 months ago

"joseph bankman" Discussed on The Decrypt Daily: Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency News Podcast

"So, they're talking, we have a new Congress here, are they going to get to some conclusions? Are they going to propose some legislation? No. Let me take that back. Many of our legislation has been proposed. Lots of conversations have happened. However, Congress is still failed. Just to do something. Let's see if they do something. This time. And finally, our boys at FTX, the top brass, and some parents. We're all hit with fresh subpoenas. Right out of the oven. Sam bacon, Caroline Ellison, Gary Wong, Nisha Singh, and Joseph bankman and Barbara freed samba freed's parents were all subpoenaed to answer some key questions remaining concerning numerous aspects of the debtor's finances and transactions. The FTX legal team wants to see documents related to any payments and other transfers of any value to any political organizations, politicians, political action committees, political parties, and other affiliated individuals. The court also asks Sam Brantley free's father to produce information about contemplated potential or actual purchases of real estate in The Bahamas. Singh has been specifically tasked to produce documents related to FTX groups, risk management, automated liquidation systems, processes, and policies. And Caroline Ellison and Sammy and frieda has specifically been asked to provide information about all communications sent or received from personal email accounts or instant messaging platforms concerning FTX group or assets of the FTX group or Alameda. So they're digging a little further, they're going to get a little more detailed and we're going to be right here waiting to see what they say. Thank you as always for listening to this episode of GM. Go to Apple podcasts like subscribe share. Leave us a comment and I'll see you tomorrow and until then. Happy, hotly. Everyone.

Caroline Ellison FTX Sam bacon Gary Wong Nisha Singh Joseph bankman Congress Sam Brantley samba Barbara FTX group The Bahamas frieda Singh Sammy Alameda GM Apple