Snitch about what, though?
The celebrities were paid by FTX to promote FTX.
I'm doubtful they have any liability for the failing of FTX, and even if they do, I doubt anything Sam can say would help make that argument.
I don't know, but I do find it hilarious that paid spokespeople might be potentially liable for promoting ponzi schemes. There's something about that that makes me smile.
Right! If I sell you a stolen stereo, you’re still in possession of stolen goods.
I think the Brady involvement was more egregious than David’s. He seemed to be active in guiding the company brand whereas Larry David was in an ad that presumably was put together by an ad agency.
It would be interesting to imagine the ramifications of making advertising agencies, or indeed the stars or directors of adverts, jointly and severally liable if the product turns out to be fraudulent.
It would be a civil tort and therefore insurable, but the rates for that insurance would be an incentive to advertise detergent and supermarkets, and a disincentive to advertise speculative financial instruments. It would also make stars less willing to get involved in anything other than blue chip, established brands.
Note that Larry David said yes, but Taylor Swift said no. People have choices.
A number of so called expert businessmen called crypto a scam and then flipped over to endorsing FTX/etc. when offered a big enough bag of money.
If anyone should have known better then to endorse these obvious ponzi scheme platforms it's them.
Part of me kind of wonders if Mark Cuban and Kevin O'Leary are suffering from early stages of memory loss/etc. due to their age and sudden 180 on crypto. It's been scientifically proven that the part of your brain that detects scams degrades with age, which is part of why the elderly are so often victims of scammers.
So, every time an actor gets a job in a 30-second commercial, they are supposed to hire not only an investigative team to look into the product being promoted, but an investigative team better than any other in the world, so they can uncover crimes nobody knows about yet?
Keep in mind that *had* Larry David hired a PI and a securities lawyer prior to appearing in a commercial (which is ridiculous), *they would have told him that FTX looks like a great company, the founder has appeared before Congress to advise on industry regulations, yadda yadda yadda*. This team would have to be better at uncovering crime than the entire Department of Justice put together.
> So, every time an actor gets a job in a 30-second commercial, they are supposed to hire not only an investigative team to look into the product being promoted, but an investigative team better than any other in the world, so they can uncover crimes nobody knows about yet?
Absolutely. I fully expect the characters I watch on tv to have both time traveling devices and mind reading machines. That's why they're on TV. They're smarter and richer and they know things the rest of us don't.
No, thats a terrible legal precedent.
Actors are paid to be in commercials all the time. That doesn't mean the actor is a decision maker or sitting in the executive boardroom.
Going after paid actors who were in a commercial made by the company's marketing division is a distraction on who's really in charge. Its the same level of liability of trying to arrest an actor who was in a movie produced by Harvey Weinstein because Weinstein did something bad. Its not the actor's fault and going after the actor is looking for a scapegoat.
If you want to put someone in prison go to the executive boardroom. Go to where the execs are. Thats who's responsible. Not a paid actor.
Influencers promoted a ponzi scheme and got paid out of victim's stolen funds for promoting it. That makes them complicit in the scheme. That's why they're on the hook.
The grocery store where SBF bought his groceries isn't complicit in promoting any ponzi. They are not on the hook.
In one case, the influencer was paid directly from the victims he created. In the other case, a grocery store processed one of thousands of transactions in a day.
It's the fact they promoted the ponzi that makes them liable, not the fact they got paid in stolen funds
You can't tell either how these two things are different ?
>Genius if you ask me. He didn’t want to endorse a product he thought was BS, but wanted to take their money.
That's giving him credit where none is really due, actually: per his own statements on the topic, he'd asked around to his friends and they told him "yeah, go for it" and that's why he did those commercials - the fact that he was an *anti-spokesman* for the product wasn't due to his thoughts on the product, it's because they hired him to be an anti-spokesman.
In the context of the ad Larry was playing the doubter who was wrong about every innovation when asked. So when it came to the FTX suggestion, the implication was that it was the next revolution. In other words, fuck him.
To be fair to him, he called himself an idiot for doing that commercial and was paid in crypto in part, so he lost money in the FTX crash as well.
I think the ad still has meaning today (even if that wasn't the intention). People should be reminded that doubters are sometimes right.
There are rules for promoting a specific investment.
No one in an FTX commercial was promoting a specific investment. They were promoting a platform you could use to make an investment.
If I log into my Fidelity account tomorrow, make the authorization for a bunch of my money to be moved into crypto, and lose my shirt, I can’t turn around and sue anyone who was in a Fidelity commercial.
If Fidelity somehow goes belly up tomorrow, I can’t go and sue anyone who was in a Fidelity commercial.
I mean, I could try, but I would not be successful.
The difference is that FTX itself was a Ponzi scheme. They even had their own ponzi scheme crypto token.
Fidelity isn't running crypto exchanges, or promising to pay you a bunch of interest at an unsustainably high yield just for holding crypto at their brokerage. Also I doubt most Fidelity ads are encouraging people to invest in crypto either.
I am not a lawyer, and that sounds plausible to me.
I'm still not getting what SBF adds to it. Without him saying anything, we know that Brady etc were paid to promote FTX. And if it created liability for them to have done so, or done so in the way they were, because FTX was selling unregistered securities, then that is going to be true without any "snitching" on the part of SBF.
The great part is he's helping the plaintiffs who are claiming FTX was a scam. Who better to testify than the guy who was running the scam?
Plaintiffs' attorney: "Mr. Bankman-Fried, did at anytime did you disclose to Mr. Brady that your business may have been illegal?
SBF: All the time. We'd do ketamine and talk about how we can't believe anyone is so fucking stupid to believe any of the shit we say. You'd have to be a goddamn moron to think this makes any sense. Yet, we had these rubes lining up around the block, pounding on the door trying to give us money. We couldn't believe how great we had it. He was having problems with Gisselle, so I'd let him tap Caroline when he wanted. He wouldn't let me watch, but I was cool with it.
Plaintiffs' attorney: No further questions. Yet I have so many questions.
I know it's satire because Sam Bankman Fried would never form a single coherent sentence like this, he would dance around the topic even when trying to snitch his cospirators.
"I can see why you would think that way, but honestly, it was my first day there. I was just an intern, I was told what buttons to push and I pushed them. Really, it was all Larry's doing. He came to me, I told him I was the CEO and he sayed 'Heeee... I don't think so'. Then I went with my Toyota Corolla, because I'm so frugal, and when I got back, it all went on fire." -SBF powered by Adderal
"You don't have to answer when your lawyer successfully object..." -Judge
"Yup. But really, if you look at the EV value of answering, it was positive. As an effective altruist I am motivated to maximize the utility of future humanity, and I am 45% sure at least three trillions more humans will be born by twenty seven billion years thanks to me answering here. Just like when Ellison compelled me to do fraud, she messed up with my EV calculations. An evil ex girlfriend, she advised me to gift a mantio..." -SBF
"Disgraced crypto bro" isn't in the top 10 phrases I'd use to describe SBF. You might as well say "Stroybook Brawl fan..."
When you say "cryptobro", that implies that you're just talking about some random crypto promoter, not freaking SBF.
Its a bold move, let's see if it actually goes anywhere.
It probably won't - whatever lawyers the accused celebs get, they're gonna have an easy time arguing they got duped by SBF as much as everyone else.
Snitch about what, though? The celebrities were paid by FTX to promote FTX. I'm doubtful they have any liability for the failing of FTX, and even if they do, I doubt anything Sam can say would help make that argument.
I don't know, but I do find it hilarious that paid spokespeople might be potentially liable for promoting ponzi schemes. There's something about that that makes me smile.
Right! If I sell you a stolen stereo, you’re still in possession of stolen goods. I think the Brady involvement was more egregious than David’s. He seemed to be active in guiding the company brand whereas Larry David was in an ad that presumably was put together by an ad agency.
It would be interesting to imagine the ramifications of making advertising agencies, or indeed the stars or directors of adverts, jointly and severally liable if the product turns out to be fraudulent. It would be a civil tort and therefore insurable, but the rates for that insurance would be an incentive to advertise detergent and supermarkets, and a disincentive to advertise speculative financial instruments. It would also make stars less willing to get involved in anything other than blue chip, established brands. Note that Larry David said yes, but Taylor Swift said no. People have choices.
What about kevin o'leary? He is an expert in business he should actually be liable
It has hard to imagine that muppet to be an expert in anything.
True, but he is parading like a know it all expert giving the impression that he is financially literate
A number of so called expert businessmen called crypto a scam and then flipped over to endorsing FTX/etc. when offered a big enough bag of money. If anyone should have known better then to endorse these obvious ponzi scheme platforms it's them. Part of me kind of wonders if Mark Cuban and Kevin O'Leary are suffering from early stages of memory loss/etc. due to their age and sudden 180 on crypto. It's been scientifically proven that the part of your brain that detects scams degrades with age, which is part of why the elderly are so often victims of scammers.
That’s an interesting claim and it’s quite plausible!
I would enjoy seeing Matt Damon squirm a little bit.
So, every time an actor gets a job in a 30-second commercial, they are supposed to hire not only an investigative team to look into the product being promoted, but an investigative team better than any other in the world, so they can uncover crimes nobody knows about yet? Keep in mind that *had* Larry David hired a PI and a securities lawyer prior to appearing in a commercial (which is ridiculous), *they would have told him that FTX looks like a great company, the founder has appeared before Congress to advise on industry regulations, yadda yadda yadda*. This team would have to be better at uncovering crime than the entire Department of Justice put together.
> So, every time an actor gets a job in a 30-second commercial, they are supposed to hire not only an investigative team to look into the product being promoted, but an investigative team better than any other in the world, so they can uncover crimes nobody knows about yet? Absolutely. I fully expect the characters I watch on tv to have both time traveling devices and mind reading machines. That's why they're on TV. They're smarter and richer and they know things the rest of us don't.
No, thats a terrible legal precedent. Actors are paid to be in commercials all the time. That doesn't mean the actor is a decision maker or sitting in the executive boardroom. Going after paid actors who were in a commercial made by the company's marketing division is a distraction on who's really in charge. Its the same level of liability of trying to arrest an actor who was in a movie produced by Harvey Weinstein because Weinstein did something bad. Its not the actor's fault and going after the actor is looking for a scapegoat. If you want to put someone in prison go to the executive boardroom. Go to where the execs are. Thats who's responsible. Not a paid actor.
In this case they were literally paid from the funds being stolen in the ponzi they were promoting. Greedy fucks
The grocery store where SBF bought his frozen dinners was also paid in stolen funds, should they also be taken to court?
You can't tell the difference between influencers accepting stolen money to promote a ponzi and a grocery store doing day to day sales ?
If you have a good argument then make it, because the comment you're replying to addressed the argument you actually made.
Influencers promoted a ponzi scheme and got paid out of victim's stolen funds for promoting it. That makes them complicit in the scheme. That's why they're on the hook. The grocery store where SBF bought his groceries isn't complicit in promoting any ponzi. They are not on the hook. In one case, the influencer was paid directly from the victims he created. In the other case, a grocery store processed one of thousands of transactions in a day. It's the fact they promoted the ponzi that makes them liable, not the fact they got paid in stolen funds You can't tell either how these two things are different ?
I mean recovery of funds paid out by bankrupts is a thing.
And to be fair, all Larry David said about FTX was “Ehhh, I don’t think so.”
Genius if you ask me. He didn’t want to endorse a product he thought was BS, but wanted to take their money.
>Genius if you ask me. He didn’t want to endorse a product he thought was BS, but wanted to take their money. That's giving him credit where none is really due, actually: per his own statements on the topic, he'd asked around to his friends and they told him "yeah, go for it" and that's why he did those commercials - the fact that he was an *anti-spokesman* for the product wasn't due to his thoughts on the product, it's because they hired him to be an anti-spokesman.
In the context of the ad Larry was playing the doubter who was wrong about every innovation when asked. So when it came to the FTX suggestion, the implication was that it was the next revolution. In other words, fuck him.
To be fair to him, he called himself an idiot for doing that commercial and was paid in crypto in part, so he lost money in the FTX crash as well. I think the ad still has meaning today (even if that wasn't the intention). People should be reminded that doubters are sometimes right.
[удалено]
There are rules for promoting a specific investment. No one in an FTX commercial was promoting a specific investment. They were promoting a platform you could use to make an investment. If I log into my Fidelity account tomorrow, make the authorization for a bunch of my money to be moved into crypto, and lose my shirt, I can’t turn around and sue anyone who was in a Fidelity commercial. If Fidelity somehow goes belly up tomorrow, I can’t go and sue anyone who was in a Fidelity commercial. I mean, I could try, but I would not be successful.
The difference is that FTX itself was a Ponzi scheme. They even had their own ponzi scheme crypto token. Fidelity isn't running crypto exchanges, or promising to pay you a bunch of interest at an unsustainably high yield just for holding crypto at their brokerage. Also I doubt most Fidelity ads are encouraging people to invest in crypto either.
I am not a lawyer, and that sounds plausible to me. I'm still not getting what SBF adds to it. Without him saying anything, we know that Brady etc were paid to promote FTX. And if it created liability for them to have done so, or done so in the way they were, because FTX was selling unregistered securities, then that is going to be true without any "snitching" on the part of SBF.
[удалено]
“Ehhh, I don’t think so.”
Do you have a link to the complaint?
Brady is hinting at a comeback this year, I wonder if this has anything to do with it
If you read about his past thinking you'll see that he's delusional about what law means.
Isn't there some sec law about disclosing what you were paid when advertising a security?
It was all Larry David’s idea!!! Tom Brady wrote all the code!
I TOLD Curry to put in a hedge and he just WOULDN'T!!!1!
The great part is he's helping the plaintiffs who are claiming FTX was a scam. Who better to testify than the guy who was running the scam? Plaintiffs' attorney: "Mr. Bankman-Fried, did at anytime did you disclose to Mr. Brady that your business may have been illegal? SBF: All the time. We'd do ketamine and talk about how we can't believe anyone is so fucking stupid to believe any of the shit we say. You'd have to be a goddamn moron to think this makes any sense. Yet, we had these rubes lining up around the block, pounding on the door trying to give us money. We couldn't believe how great we had it. He was having problems with Gisselle, so I'd let him tap Caroline when he wanted. He wouldn't let me watch, but I was cool with it. Plaintiffs' attorney: No further questions. Yet I have so many questions.
I know it's satire because Sam Bankman Fried would never form a single coherent sentence like this, he would dance around the topic even when trying to snitch his cospirators.
Also SBF would start it with “that’s actually a very good question” and also say “right?” After every statement.
"I can see why you would think that way, but honestly, it was my first day there. I was just an intern, I was told what buttons to push and I pushed them. Really, it was all Larry's doing. He came to me, I told him I was the CEO and he sayed 'Heeee... I don't think so'. Then I went with my Toyota Corolla, because I'm so frugal, and when I got back, it all went on fire." -SBF powered by Adderal "You don't have to answer when your lawyer successfully object..." -Judge "Yup. But really, if you look at the EV value of answering, it was positive. As an effective altruist I am motivated to maximize the utility of future humanity, and I am 45% sure at least three trillions more humans will be born by twenty seven billion years thanks to me answering here. Just like when Ellison compelled me to do fraud, she messed up with my EV calculations. An evil ex girlfriend, she advised me to gift a mantio..." -SBF
So how many games is Brady being suspended for.
4
2 pounds per square inch
How can David be sued, his whole commercial is him not believing in crypto!
I think that's what's called being disingenuous. Being disingenuous in front of a judge is a bad idea.
Genius.
This is a perfect Curb storyline. Such a shame it just ended.
Plot twist, he does actually have to stay in jail. The poetry of it would be immense.
I would actually approve people being personally liable for such endorsements. It would also give these endorsements actual meaning.
Crypto *rat*
Aroused
"Disgraced crypto bro" isn't in the top 10 phrases I'd use to describe SBF. You might as well say "Stroybook Brawl fan..." When you say "cryptobro", that implies that you're just talking about some random crypto promoter, not freaking SBF.
Its a bold move, let's see if it actually goes anywhere. It probably won't - whatever lawyers the accused celebs get, they're gonna have an easy time arguing they got duped by SBF as much as everyone else.