-
terrible excuse for what? i'm not trying to excuse anyone, i'm just saying that 25 years without parole seems harsh.
i'm not trying to excuse SBF and i'm not suggesting that the article is unbiased.
i'm not sure what you mean by "as bad a reason for saying that". I was just observing that the creditors were made whole plus 9% pa interest, so as crimes go it wasn't one where widows and orphans were left high and dry - ask the pensioners of BHS about that.
I don't really understand your point.
ChasnotRobert-
it wasn't one where widows and orphans were left high and dry - ask the pensioners of BHS about that.
The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan managers and their customers will be relieved, but the fact he was risking doing just that is why "effictively a victimless crime" shouldn't excuse so much.
as for the "willing to flip a coin to destroy the world", well that's not what he was on trial for and as he wasn't president of the USA, it's hard to see the relevance.
You know that was a metaphor. The point is the casual approach to exposing other people to risk.
itsbruce
As the article speculates, that's certainly how SBF saw it. Seeing it that way was the biggest part of the problem, if the article is at all accurate bout SBF's way of thinking. And it was only "effectively victimless" through luck, because the crypto market was back up again at the time the liquidation was done, and because FTX and Almeida trading activity having been frozen stopped things from getting even worse. Since a run on crypto was what caught FTX out, the sheer luck of things not having been much worse means that "effectively victimless" is a terrible excuse. I think the key phrases from the article are "numb to risk", "willingness to expose others to risk without their consent" and "willing to flip a coin that might destroy the world".
The sentence is probably unduly harsh, but "victimless crime" is as bad a reason for saying that as "other people are doing this shit and getting away with it".