>In fact “gambling with customer funds” was by design.
This is not accurate. The ToS for FTX explicitly said that customer funds would not be used for investment purposes. While it didn't explicitly say it wouldn't be used for lending, it was a broad assumption in the industry that the exchange was solvent and could back user assets on a 1:1 basis.
It is widely believed now that Alameda went deep underwater during the collapse of the Luna ponzi (this one was quite literally structured like a ponzi) and borrowed a large amount from FTX to bail themselves out of it. In the wake of this, FTX had a shortage of hard assets and a fat bag of FTT that the loan was issued against, which is what exposed them acutely to a bank run and/or price decrease in FTT.
Right so they didn’t invest customer assets, they just loaned them to themselves in exchange for their own token so that they could invest the customer assets.
Folks who have been in the industry for 10 years, many very publicly cynical, had assets on FTX. It was viewed by many as the safest CEX in the industry.
I'm a bit more paranoid, so I maintain self-custody 100% of the time unless I'm using an on/off-ramp, but some very bright, very oldschool folks got caught up in this one.
This is not accurate. The ToS for FTX explicitly said that customer funds would not be used for investment purposes. While it didn't explicitly say it wouldn't be used for lending, it was a broad assumption in the industry that the exchange was solvent and could back user assets on a 1:1 basis.
It is widely believed now that Alameda went deep underwater during the collapse of the Luna ponzi (this one was quite literally structured like a ponzi) and borrowed a large amount from FTX to bail themselves out of it. In the wake of this, FTX had a shortage of hard assets and a fat bag of FTT that the loan was issued against, which is what exposed them acutely to a bank run and/or price decrease in FTT.