Re:Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’
by loeg on Friday December 23, 2022 @04:47PM
(#34110969)
> Its not an IOU. Bail is not a loan.
It becomes an IOU if he skips on his court appearance, no? That is, the potential penalty here is an IOU. (You have even described it as a "promise to pay" earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34100971 ) Yes, if he shows up to court, no one pays $250M and everything is great. We are talking about the penalty if he skips. No one has deposited $250M with the courts to be returned when SBF shows up for trial. If he does skips on his court appearance, I find it difficult to believe that anyone will successfully recover anything like $250M from SBF and parents. Which begs the question of what the point of a $250M figure is.
The rest of your comment is just not responsive to my comment? You have replied to several of my comments talking about people in the abstract having "misconceptions" around bail agents, and these responses are wholly unrelated to my remarks, which do not mention bail agents at all and are not about bail agents. So I would appreciate it if you would respond with more specific arguments and leave out the fluff.
It becomes an IOU if he skips on his court appearance, no? That is, the potential penalty here is an IOU. (You have even described it as a "promise to pay" earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34100971 ) Yes, if he shows up to court, no one pays $250M and everything is great. We are talking about the penalty if he skips. No one has deposited $250M with the courts to be returned when SBF shows up for trial. If he does skips on his court appearance, I find it difficult to believe that anyone will successfully recover anything like $250M from SBF and parents. Which begs the question of what the point of a $250M figure is.
The rest of your comment is just not responsive to my comment? You have replied to several of my comments talking about people in the abstract having "misconceptions" around bail agents, and these responses are wholly unrelated to my remarks, which do not mention bail agents at all and are not about bail agents. So I would appreciate it if you would respond with more specific arguments and leave out the fluff.