Bitcoin, yessss…
Coffeezilla calling a spade a spade.
Also, allegedly Bloomberg could have had the scoop months ago but passed for reasons. I guess it’s hard to criticise this too hard without knowing exactly what was laid out for them, but thre ‘reasons’ just came down to money/advertising (from the crypto space).
I think it’s more subtle than that, in that the people reporting on crypto are often invested (emotionally and sometimes financially) in the ecosystem. If you think the whole thing is a fraud then after a little while of shouting at clouds that the emperor has no clothes you are going to want to go and do something productive with your life. So the Bloomberg crypto desk is going to be staffed with people who want crypto to succeed.
Amy Castor on the Celsius examiner’s interim report.
Levine also covered it in his Monday newsletter.
“Nevertheless, it’s jam-packed with the sort of hilarity and horrors that you find when anyone looks inside how any crypto firm actually works.”
How was this ever a thing?
Dumb people + money + Internet
" All crypto firms are Quadriga. It’s just that some haven’t exploded yet ."
Seems accurate.
FTX-Twitter crossover event?
More satisfying swearing at “Financial Guru YouTubers shilling for FTX and jumped to shilling for Blockfi” one of which apparently is a …magician (Andrew Jikh)
Amazing how crypto is in the news for the wrong reasons pretty much every week:
Fortune favors the bold!
Well, there’s the problem. You always double-click and drag.
Press shift 5 times to enable sticky keys.
There’s a section in here that reminded me of something I always found annoying, accountants routinely provide audits that legitimize these schemes and never get prosecuted for it.
“There were audited financial statements that showed the two companies were separate.”
Not to defend auditors/audits, especially with the Wirecard trial just starting, but that statement is not really supported by the SEC complaint, which only states
And more generally, I wouldn’t expect audited financial statements to tell me whether or not two companies were “separate”, that’s not what audits are about. No company’s audited financial statement is going to tell you about another company which happens to be owned by the same person, absent some other reason to mention it (which, to be clear, there were plenty of reasons in this case). Now, I would expect (or, more realistically, hope) for them to highlight related party transactions.
Just telling you what it reminded me of. Which is every securities fraud case I handled featured accountants and lawyers who helped facilitate it.
Among FTX/Alameda’s many investments:
Bwhahahaha.
You know if SNL did a skit making fun of it like this we’d accuse it of being too on the nose.