[bnjemian]

Can't say I care too much about FTX's woes. Nonetheless, this article has some janky moments. The author cites an unnamed friend "who is deeply involved in [the crypto] industry" when saying CZ played a master stroke against SBF. Get a real source or at least demonstrate that your "friend" has an opinion worth 2 cents.

Maybe CZ did outplay SBF, but aside from the optics it doesn't seem anywhere that salacious. As was summed up earlier today in an NPR segment on this story "airlines don't compete on safety." In other words, it is in the interest of every exchange that the exchange industry is on the whole viewed as being comprised of trustworthy actors. Crashing FTX doesn't seem an optimal move given the already precarious state of the crypto industry these days.

Speaking of optics, the author also made a nonsensical analogy "more opaque than a dog with glaucoma" when describing the inner workings of FTX. Quite certain they meant cataracts – the clouding of the lens of the eye – not glaucoma, which is damage to the optic nerve.

[VectorLock]

Really in this case CZ put a bullet in him as sure as he was holding a real gun. The need to build "trust" by not absolutely ruining one of his competitors didn't factor in here, because there is no need.

[skinnymuch]

CZ could have gotten paid $1B or whatever many FTT they owned for $22/coin. That would have still weakened FTX and Alameda a ton. Them having to pay out so much of that money would have put them closer to the tipping point and gaining over a billion for CZ.

Obviously removing a top competitor that’s doing straight up robbery is something that should always be done. We are talking about awful actions.