7 ms·

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but just in case it's sincere: Alameda are considered a lynch-pin of the crypto industry, they're holding up pretty much

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but just in case it's sincere: Alameda are considered a lynch-pin of the crypto industry, they're holding up pretty much everything... and by extension, FTX is far more important than Kraken. If Alameda implode, it'll be far worse than 3AC's implosion. I don't think it's possible to kill the crypto industry, but Alameda's implosion would be the most likely event to cause it.

chinathrow 4y ago
> I don't think it's possible to kill the crypto industry, but Alameda's implosion would be the most likely event to cause it. As a bystander, it's hard to grasp the likeliness of this happenning, can someone elaborate on what would be able to trigger it?
- phphphphp 4y ago
  Hard to say, because we can only speculate on the true state of Alameda. Sam Bankman-Fried owns both Alameda and FTX and so while they’re separate entities, they are co-mingled in many ways. Assuming FTX is a profitable enterprise (a big question in the current market) then any problems Alameda faces could be addressed by SBF leveraging FTX in some way to bail Alameda out… but it’s also plausible that FTX is dependent upon Alameda and that Alameda’s faltering could take down FTX. My guess is that an Alameda implosion is unlikely because, as far as I can tell, they’re not engaging in fraudulent behaviour, just crypto hubris… and so, worst case, they have to scale back their activity… but if they are reliant on third-party capital, and the current economic trend continues… it seems plausible that could trigger major problems in the crypto world.
x1ph0z 4y ago
The whole point of crypto was to be decentralized. For one company to go down and cause the industry to implode means the industry is on the wrong path and needs to be reset.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Once the investors got in the whole point became making it more centralised just with the dominant players being ones they control.
- Finnucane 4y ago
  Or it could be that the idea that it could actually work that way was just wrong. The creators of bitcoin adopted the delusions of goldbugs, tried to replicate it in a digital form. Adapting 19th century ideas about money to 21st century technology, and expected it to work.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  I don't think anyone, even proponents of cryptocurrencies think that the industry as a whole is 'on the right path'.
- NickM 4y ago
  A decentralized system can still die if nobody wants to use it anymore. If prices continue to fall as a result of more and more flywheels and ponzi schemes coming to light, and more and more people keep losing their shirts as a result of companies getting hacked/going backrupt/etc., then we may start seeing negative feedback loops as more and more people give up and leave. Arguably this has already started happening.
- xiphias2 4y ago
  Bitcoin is still the same as ever, it has survived and recovered from lots of exchange collapses after a few years. But there are tens of millions of new people (or even more) since the MtGox collapse in 2014 who haven't learned the lesson and ,,chasing yields'' or lending against their crypto tokens / leveraging their positions (the new forms of financializing BTC, aka not holding your own keys). I personally know somebody who lost all his BTC / ETH by lending against it and buying more when BTC price was over $50k.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
I work for another (much smaller) crypto market maker. Alameda imploding would definitely cause a lot of specific assets to nosedive in the short-term, and a lot of volatility, but I think it'd be impossible for it to destroy crypto (perhaps the Solana blockchain, since they're heavily invested, but even that seems like a stretch). That volatility would also be a ton of opportunity (for other market makers). Things that could conceivably destroy crypto are more along the lines of coordinated regulation from an influential, multinational group, like the entirety of the G7
- FabHK 4y ago
  > Things that could conceivably destroy crypto are more along the lines of coordinated regulation from an influential, multinational group, like the entirety of the G7 Sounds like a plan.

chinathrow 4y ago

> I don't think it's possible to kill the crypto industry, but Alameda's implosion would be the most likely event to cause it. As a bystander, it's hard to grasp the likeliness of this happenning, can someone elaborate on what would be able to trigger it?

phphphphp 4y ago
Hard to say, because we can only speculate on the true state of Alameda. Sam Bankman-Fried owns both Alameda and FTX and so while they’re separate entities, they are co-mingled in many ways. Assuming FTX is a profitable enterprise (a big question in the current market) then any problems Alameda faces could be addressed by SBF leveraging FTX in some way to bail Alameda out… but it’s also plausible that FTX is dependent upon Alameda and that Alameda’s faltering could take down FTX. My guess is that an Alameda implosion is unlikely because, as far as I can tell, they’re not engaging in fraudulent behaviour, just crypto hubris… and so, worst case, they have to scale back their activity… but if they are reliant on third-party capital, and the current economic trend continues… it seems plausible that could trigger major problems in the crypto world.

x1ph0z 4y ago

The whole point of crypto was to be decentralized. For one company to go down and cause the industry to implode means the industry is on the wrong path and needs to be reset.

threeseed 4y ago
Once the investors got in the whole point became making it more centralised just with the dominant players being ones they control.
Finnucane 4y ago
Or it could be that the idea that it could actually work that way was just wrong. The creators of bitcoin adopted the delusions of goldbugs, tried to replicate it in a digital form. Adapting 19th century ideas about money to 21st century technology, and expected it to work.
CyberDildonics 4y ago
I don't think anyone, even proponents of cryptocurrencies think that the industry as a whole is 'on the right path'.
NickM 4y ago
A decentralized system can still die if nobody wants to use it anymore. If prices continue to fall as a result of more and more flywheels and ponzi schemes coming to light, and more and more people keep losing their shirts as a result of companies getting hacked/going backrupt/etc., then we may start seeing negative feedback loops as more and more people give up and leave. Arguably this has already started happening.
xiphias2 4y ago
Bitcoin is still the same as ever, it has survived and recovered from lots of exchange collapses after a few years. But there are tens of millions of new people (or even more) since the MtGox collapse in 2014 who haven't learned the lesson and ,,chasing yields'' or lending against their crypto tokens / leveraging their positions (the new forms of financializing BTC, aka not holding your own keys). I personally know somebody who lost all his BTC / ETH by lending against it and buying more when BTC price was over $50k.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

I work for another (much smaller) crypto market maker. Alameda imploding would definitely cause a lot of specific assets to nosedive in the short-term, and a lot of volatility, but I think it'd be impossible for it to destroy crypto (perhaps the Solana blockchain, since they're heavily invested, but even that seems like a stretch). That volatility would also be a ton of opportunity (for other market makers). Things that could conceivably destroy crypto are more along the lines of coordinated regulation from an influential, multinational group, like the entirety of the G7

FabHK 4y ago
> Things that could conceivably destroy crypto are more along the lines of coordinated regulation from an influential, multinational group, like the entirety of the G7 Sounds like a plan.