Canadian math prodigy allegedly stole $65M in crypto
theglobeandmail.com276 points by bookmtn 5 days ago
276 points by bookmtn 5 days ago
He did not steal anything. He beat the fund (Indexed Finance) at their own game.
He has not stolen anybody's password, has not modified DeFI code - simply executed a set of financial transactions according to the rules (expressed as DeFI smart contracts) and profited from it.
Indexed Finance is an unlicensed investment firm. The promoters knew the risk ( decentralized finance) and now they want to blame someone who outsmarted them at their own game.
This. If you believe in cryptocurrencies, you can't run to the courts when people use them as designed, even if they didn't use them as intended.
If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?
> what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?
So far, to execute illegal transactions and using the lack of regulations to exploit the financially illiterate.
I agree with your assessment of cryptocurrencies. Here is a thought experiment that I use with other people: Ask yourself why none of the top 10 global investment banks have started their own crypto exchange. Now, add the 20 largest stock, futures, and options exchanges. Still none. After all, it is "just" market making (with a bit of clearing, custody & execution services). What is wrong with this picture? For me, the real issue is that KYC (know your customer) legal requirements will drain all the profit from the operation and expose the ibank/exchange to enormous legal risk.
Another one to make you scratch your head/chin: The world's busiest crypto exchange is Binance. The Wiki page literally says: "Headquarters: Unknown". How can anyone trust a company like that? Who regulates it? What enforcement agency will help in the event of fraud?
90% agree with this , with the little caveat that law and regulation always are a couple of steps behind huge innovations. Unfortunately sometimes companies think this gives them freedom to break current laws and regulations.
Your thought experiment reminded me a little of the Kurzgesagt video on how to debunk an internet conspiracy in seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8
I like how every attempt to legitimize cryptocurrency by the current administration has just resulted in hurting the price of cryptocoins.
That's happening because crypto 'value' doesn't exist in a vaccuum, immune to the vagaries of the tradFi markets. When shit hits the fan, credibility matters. That's why traders park cash in government bonds when a market sell-off happens; a government bond essentially guarantees you get your money back quickly when you're ready to go back into the markets.
The recent moves by the administration have been so incompetent as to tank the bond market as well, thereby leaving few safe harbors. And no harbor is less safe than crypto.
By now everyone who stands to gain from (ab)using crypto is probably already convinced. Almost everyone else heard so much about scams and illegal activities around crypto that they find it too risky. So the current admin is preaching to a small choir, to the angst of the large one.
What I like is that every time there's a hack, or someone loses money over crypto either due to some illegal action or just unintended consequence of using it, you have a few more people demanding more regulation and state intervention. If only crypto regulation was scoped exclusively to when they need it after being swindled out of it.
By far the more common use case is as an unregulated asset you can semi-legally pump-and-dump, and to extract money from gullible rubes
As recommended by the President of the United States.
And demonstrated by his new business partner in the private prison industry, Bukele of El Salvador.
You're saying the same thing
> So far, to execute illegal transactions and using the lack of regulations to exploit the financially illiterate.
I think this was edited - my understanding of the original comment was that it was primarily for buying things on the darknet ("illegal transactions").
Money laundering.
And get rich quick scams. And fraud.
And drugs. And delivery of bribes to the sitting US president (these are not the same as illegal transactions because when the president does it it is not illegal).
I posted the original comment everyone is replying to so it's clear I'm not fan of crypto. To be fair, literally everyone I've ever known, including myself, has only ever used cash to buy drugs. I can't put that on crypto.
For online sales of drugs it’s through crypto. Also, it’s the preferred way of paying ransom these days.