Considering the legal exposure SBF has and the (in my opinion high) likelihood of going to jail for a very long time, I was amazed that the NYT got SBF on the record at all. Every time he opens his mouth he is just giving the DOJ more rope. I'd agree that the Times was soft on him and FTX in general, considering the vast criminality of the organization, but the article is not going to change the inevitable criminal outcome here.
SBF was not a "Biden Campaign Donor" - he donated to various Democratic candidates and PAC's. You also neglect to mention that FTX's Co-CEO (Ryan Salame) donated $23MM to GOP candidates/PAC's and was the 10th largest GOP donor in the Midterms.
As far as the DOJ goes - they are already "looking into SBF" and if you honestly don't believe he will go to jail for a very, very long time then I have some waterfront real estate in Nebraska that I'd like to sell you...
The "money mules" may not realize that what they are doing is illegal. If they are people looking for part-time work and have already done weeks of menial tasks before being asked to transfer funds, they probably just think that it's part of their gig.
It's not your phone company that's making money from your location data so much as the third party apps (Yelp, Weather Channel etc.) that you have installed on your phone for free. In order to use those apps, you often have to consent to them sharing your location data to ad-tech companies to help them serve ads to you if you're in specific areas.
You need to consider the larger context of this story, especially given Deutsche Bank's notorious reputation for allowing money laundering to happen under it's watch. Also, take a look at the story published last week about American Deutsche Bank executives refusing to pass along information to federal regulators regarding suspicious transactions involving the President of the United States and his son-in-law.
I'm sorry, but how else would you write about this story? Is the NY Times just supposed to not cover it? The story is literally the post by Jeff Bezos, which they link to first in their article.
I think people are conditioned to associate "leaks" with "scandals" (especially when it comes to the three letter agencies), when in actuality this "leak" is just a revelation of completely reasonable and expected activities.
Don't I already subsidize them by paying taxes? Large tech companies get subsidized by tax incentives which get offset by the taxes I pay. My taxes also go towards food and housing subsidies for those living below poverty levels.
Doesn't a diamond ring lose value once it is sold, though, in terms of re-sell value? A ring worth one bitcoin is not going to lose value once it is sold (aside from market volatility).
Yes, a diamond ring cannot be resold, since the price of diamonds has been decoupled from the difficulty of getting them. You're not paying that jeweler for the diamond on the ring; you're paying him a special fee for being a De Beers recognized diamond merchant. A bitcoin doesn't have that problem.
However, a ring inscribed with a private key controlling one bitcoin will lose its value immediately, because whoever comes into possession of (or ever sees) the ring will move the bitcoin.
>I have also found that the losing party tends to suffer from the wildest delusions.
I would disagree with you on this statement. The far right is consumed by conspiracy theories (Seth Rich, Pizzagate etc) despite controlling all three branches of the Federal Govt.
