site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31624 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Wang and Ellison had orchestrated this whole thing, and SBF is simply a patsy.

Timing works out wrong. He set up Alameda himself first, talked Ellison away from Jane Street, and it looks like Wang and Singh were the other co-founders with him. Sam Trabucco was Alameda CEO first, then co-CEO with Ellison, then furled his sails and left and so she took over as sole CEO. (The Sequoia article continues to toast, butter and put jam on the bread for the background of all this):

About six months after SBF dropped out, Jane Street sent Ellison on a recruiting trip to California, so she decided to call on her old friend. They’d been office buddies at Jane, but they’d also occasionally socialized outside of work, too, being fellow EA acolytes.

[Bankman-Fried tells her the story of what he's been doing, mainly making a fortune off the 'kimchi premium']

As a Japanese citizen, he was able to open an account with the one (obscure, rural) Japanese bank that was willing, for a fee, to process the transactions that SBF—newly incorporated as Alameda Research—wanted to make.

...With a goosed-up capital account, the money started piling up so fast that SBF placed what he refers to as “a market order for employees” to tend to the Rube Goldberg operation that kept the capital spinning. There were constant blowups with banks, which are wary of anything crypto. Crypto was so new that regulators in South Korea and elsewhere were constantly changing their mind about regulations — then making those changes retroactive. It was a swirling mess. Pulled into the vortex was Nishad Singh, a friend of SBF’s brother Gabe, and a fellow EA member. ...After just one conversation with SBF, Singh decided to leave Facebook to take on the more meaningful work of building FTX. Caroline Ellison came, too, quitting Jane Street and moving to California only weeks after SBF described the operation to her over tea.

There's also Ryan Salame, who was making donations to the Republicans as Bankman-Fried and Singh were making donations to the Democrats (and for much the same reasons; butter 'em up to look favourably on FTX when it came to regulations and crypto structuring).

I don't know about Trabucco's reasons for leaving, he got out long before any revelations of something rotten in the state of Denmark so it's hard to know if he knew it was dodgy and left before he could be implicated, but Salame seems to have done some whistle-blowing:

The two new suspects’ guilty pleas provided some clarity as to the mindset of Bankman-Fried’s inner circle, which comprised not only Ellison and Wang, but also former FTX Director of Engineering Nishad Singh, former co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets Ryan Salame, and former co-CEO of Alameda Research Sam Trabucco. Court filings recently revealed that Salame blew the whistle on FTX’s activity to Bahamian regulators.

Regrettably, the Commission was informed today by Mr. Ryan Salame (“Mr. Salame”) who is the Chairman of FTX Digital that clients’ assets which may have been held with FTX Digital were transferred to Alameda Research (“Alameda”). Alameda and FTX Digital are related companies, specifically, Mr. Samuel Bankman-Fried is a founder of both FTX Digital and Alameda.

The Commission understood Mr. Salame as advising that the transfer of clients’ assets in this manner was contrary to the normal corporate governance and operations of FTX Digital. Put simply, that such transfers were not allowed and therefore may constitute misappropriation, theft, fraud or some other crime.

Mr. Salame further advised the Commission that there were only three (3) persons who had the necessary codes (or passwords) to transfer clients’ assets to Alameda in this manner, that is, the founders of FTX Digital who are: (i) Mr. Samuel Bankman-Fried; (ii) Mr. Nishad Singh and (iii) Mr. Zixiao (Gary) Wang.

Plus, the way it was all structured (John Jay's 'four silos' in the bankruptcy filing), Bankman-Fried was majority owner of the entities and was getting a billion dollar personal loan from Alameda (the others got smaller but still substantial loans):

To my knowledge, Mr. Bankman-Fried owns (a) directly, approximately 53% of the equity in Debtor West Realm Shires Inc.; (b) indirectly, approximately 75% of the equity in Debtor FTX Trading Ltd.; (c) directly, approximately 90% of the equity in Debtor Alameda Research LLC; and (d) directly, approximately 67% of the equity in Clifton Bay Investments LLC.

Related Party Loans Receivable of $4.1 billion at Alameda Research (consolidated) consisted primarily of a loan by Euclid Way Ltd. to Paper Bird Inc. (a Debtor) of $2.3 billion and three loans by Alameda Research Ltd.: one to Mr. Bankman-Fried, of $1 billion; one to Mr. Singh, of $543 million; and one to Ryan Salame, of $55 million.

So he isn't a simple patsy who was manipulated by a scheming math weasel as the fall guy.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats