[hnfong]

> It's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science, but it involves banking and property law. I'm not sure which one is more complicated.

> If your banker tells you he used your savings for his holiday it's not ambiguous

In fact, your banker does routinely use your savings for his holiday. This is called "fractional-reserve banking", where the bank doesn't put your money in a metaphorical "safe", but rather they use it for whatever. Most of the money is loaned to other parties, but the money can also be used to pay employees' salaries (which can get used on a holiday).

I'm not saying FTX didn't do anything criminal. Most likely they did. It's just that laws are sometimes more complex than they seem. (And that you probably have the wrong impression of what your bank can do with your money?)

[influxmoment]

It's a meaningless statement that can be said about anything. It's more complicated.

You intensionally misconstrued the banking theft example as legitimate lending to make a nonexistent point

[hnfong]

> It's a meaningless statement that can be said about anything.

Which statement?

> It's more complicated.

Says the person who claimed "It's not rocket science."

> You intensionally misconstrued

Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> the banking theft example

Even during a bank run, employees are supposed to get paid. When the banker takes your money and uses it to pay salary, it's not banking theft. Theft happens when the exchange (not banker) promises you to hold your assets in escrow and then uses it to pay themselves. There's a legal difference between bankers and exchanges in which one borrows your money, and the other holds your assets on your behalf.

The fact that you don't (want to) understand the point doesn't make it non-existent.