The simplest explanation is usually true. A billionaire enabler of Sam's was willing to put up $250M in collateral because Sam spilling on him would cost him far more that $250M. I think the claim he was acting alone solely on his own behalf is absolute garbage. He rose too high, and too rapidly to have been solely of his own creation. Someone bigger than him was absolutely involved.

I think we need to look further into FTX's Tokenized Stock Offerings, as that's what the SEC has been honing in upon, among other things.

https://news.bitcoin.com/report-suggests-ftxs-tokenized-stoc...

FTX was selling stock, claiming it to be backed 1:1, which was likely being used as collateral for further speculation, or as locates for short sales, despite never actually holding the shares they claimed to.

Crypto is unregulated and is a whole thing, but claiming to have stocks you don't have is a way to really piss off the ultra-rich.

Why invoke conspiracy, when normal stupidity and corruption will suffice?

I'm not the one invoking conspiracy here.

SBF has been charged with the following crimes in a U.S. federal court.

    Conspiracy to commit wire fraud on customers
    Wire fraud on customers
    Conspiracy to commit wire fraud on lenders
    Wire fraud on lenders
    Conspiracy to commit commodities fraud
    Conspiracy to commit securities fraud
    Conspiracy to commit money laundering
    Conspiracy to defraud the United States and violate the campaign finance law.

With the limited information we currently have, to assume that he is the biggest player in this and that him, Ellison, and Wang were the only ones involved is naive at best. The discovery process for these cases will be extremely interesting.

> A billionaire enabler of Sam's was willing to put up $250M in collateral

No one put up collateral beyond his parents home, and only SBF and his parents are on the hookfor the full $250M, the other two sureties are exposed for a smaller amount.

This is all public record in the court documents.

> The simplest explanation is usually true. A billionaire enabler of Sam's was willing to put up $250M in collateral because Sam spilling on him would cost him far more that $250M.

But whether SBF is out on bail doesn't affect what comes out at trial. If you're saying that SBF is effectively extorting those other individuals, on threat of revealing their secrets, then their pretty dumb extortion victims, since nothing stops SBF from continuing to demand massive investments of their money such as this one.

I think equivalent collateral to 250 million was posted yes.

Anyone catch the AMC -> APE reverse

Let’s name the FTX tokenized stocks

What APE —> AMC reverse? All I’m seeing is a plan to convert APE to AMC and a reverse split, but I don’t see how that would be relevant here.