Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Crime United States Technology

Secret Software Change Allowed FTX To Use Client Money (reuters.com) 62

An anonymous reader shares a report: In mid-2020, FTX's chief engineer made a secret change to the cryptocurrency exchange's software. He tweaked the code to exempt Alameda Research, a hedge fund owned by FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, from a feature on the trading platform that would have automatically sold off Alameda's assets if it was losing too much borrowed money. In a note explaining the change, the engineer, Nishad Singh, emphasized that FTX should never sell Alameda's positions. "Be extra careful not to liquidate," Singh wrote in the comment in the platform's code, which it showed he helped author. Reuters reviewed the code base, which has not been previously reported.

The exemption allowed Alameda to keep borrowing funds from FTX irrespective of the value of the collateral securing those loans. That tweak in the code got the attention of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which charged Bankman-Fried with fraud on Tuesday. The SEC said the tweak meant Alameda had a "virtually unlimited line of credit." Furthermore, the billions of dollars that FTX secretly lent to Alameda over the next two years didn't come from its own reserves, but rather were other FTX customers' deposits, the SEC said.

The auto-liquidation exemption written into FTX code allowed Alameda to continually increase its line of credit until it "grew to tens of billions of dollars and effectively became limitless," the SEC complaint said. It was one of two ways that Bankman-Fried diverted customer funds to Alameda. The other was a mechanism whereby FTX customers deposited over $8 billion in traditional currency into bank accounts secretly controlled by Alameda. These deposits were reflected in an internal account on FTX that was not tied to Alameda, which concealed its liability, the complaint said.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Secret Software Change Allowed FTX To Use Client Money

Comments Filter:
  • Starts two companies, Alameda and FTX, and then orders himself an unlimited loan from the other. I wonder if he planned this in advance when starting FTX a few years after Alameda. Or if it was a spur of the moment thing done to keep Alameda profitable and then got way out of hand. I want to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I'm struggling with this one.

  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @09:58AM (#63130010) Journal

    If prison was not certain before it is now. They can't hide behind ignorance about how to manage capital. This is proof they HAD designed controls, so there was more than simple negligence. Its also proof there was a multi-party conspiracy to evade said controls.

    This will hang Mr. I don't even know how to code, SBF and several others.

  • Bankman-Fried and his co-founders at FTX contributed $300,351 to nine Democrat members of the House Financial Services Committee, according to Federal Election Commission records. Only Rep. Chuy Garcia (D., Ill.) has said he would return a $2,900 contribution from the billionaire.

    In total, SBF donated nearly $40 million to Democrats during the midterm cycle.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by gosso920 ( 6330142 )
      "We have investigated ourselves, and have found no evidence of wrongdoing." - House Financial Services Committee
    • by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @10:27AM (#63130076) Journal

      It doesn't seem to have done him much good.

      • It's actually done him bad; there's charges of election fraud. Apparently he made donations from numerous affiliates all controled by him to skirt campaign finance laws. I just learned that one today watching hte news, but he's not just up for wire fraud but also violation of campaign finance laws.

        These cases could go on for years to fully sort out the full gamut of this guy's actions.

    • by reanjr ( 588767 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @10:29AM (#63130082) Homepage

      Let's not forget the $23 million donated to Republicans over the same period.

      • Thats the smart criminal play. Donate to everyone so it appears to garner bipartisan support. Its not his money anyway.
      • by MTEK ( 2826397 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @12:21PM (#63130420)

        The little shit publicly donated to Democrats and secretly donated to Republicans-- all because he knew the optics of the Republican party. He's playing everyone.

        • by fatwilbur ( 1098563 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @01:51PM (#63130834)
          And posters here are demonstrating why someone would do it that way..”donated to Democrats, whateverbut OMG!!!11 look he donated to Republicans”. Just another example of the twisted extremism in US politics where people believe their side is saintly but they’re all actually the same. A whole generation fooled into extreme partisanship and non-criticism of their government function, because Twitter.
          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

            And posters here are demonstrating why someone would do it that way..âdonated to Democrats, whateverbut OMG!!!11 look he donated to Republicansâ.

            That, sir, is complete bullshit. First came the claims of "he donated all this money to Democrats so they're not going to punish him", then some of us pointed out that he also donated to Republicans, and not just Democrats. IOW, the situation here is the exact opposite of what you claim. I know, because I was here writing some of those comments at the time. Then you came along after the fact to cry about how unfairly the Republicans were being treated. Well, they aren't; they're being treated fairly in resp

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @10:30AM (#63130088) Homepage Journal

      He claims he donated as much to Republicans, and now that he's been arrested we might or might not find out. Presumably they'll be going through his receipts, though.

    • It's part of what allows both sides to be corporate shills forever.

    • and you leave out that he gave just as much to the GOP, and that his VP gave $40 million to the GOP.

      Corporations always play both sides. What you're doing here is called "The Benghazi". You're trying to create a vague feeling of distrust for the Democratic party rather than argue on the basis of policy.

      If we're talking policy, the Democrats have been repeatedly shown to be better for the economy [wikipedia.org] and 96% of jobs are created under Democrats [twitter.com]

      Meanwhile the GOP's up and coming leader is using the lega
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Budgets are created in the House. Check out who controlled the House during the Democrat presidencies and vice versa. Republicans are *way* better for the economy.

        • by Holi ( 250190 )

          Historically, the United States economy has performed better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents since World War II.

        • Budgets are created in the House. Check out who controlled the House during the Democrat presidencies and vice versa. Republicans are *way* better for the economy.

          Federal budgets are guidelines for appropriations. Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution says, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." So, technically the House gets to "originate" the appropriations bills, but the Senate gets to "propose" and "concur". Since the Senate gets to amend the bills (which effectively grants the power of "origination" by simply changing whatever the Sen

        • that's why I said "Democrat administrations". When the GOP takes the house in the Mid terms economic & job growth slows.

          If you'd stop voting Republican we could stop those job losses, and replace them with gains.
          • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            that's why I said "Democrat administrations". When the GOP takes the house in the Mid terms economic & job growth slows.

            BULLSHIT - "the administration" always is used to refer to the executive branch. You were spouting counterfactual nonsense and someone called you out. Now you are just gas-lighting like you always do.

      • Both parties cock gobble to large corps to create jobs. Nobody gives a shit about companies with less than 50 employees even though thats 80percent of all businesses. COBRA, FMLA, all the big alleged wins for employees dont actually apply to most employees. Only the ones working as a slave for some megacorp.
        • they tried to give you healthcare. You (and by "you" I mean voters) got scared by "Death Panels" and instead of a public option we got the ACA. Then you got scared again, put a bunch of Republicans in charge and they gutted what was there to protect you. Then you blamed the Dems for what the GOP did because the GOP has better marketing and you don't pay a lot of attention to politics until the week before election when all the adverts are on TV.

          Dems care, but they can only do so much when you keep votin
          • by e3m4n ( 947977 )
            lets just start debunking this with the term Affordable Care Act. you dont take out of control premiums and create a 1200 page bill outlining a ton of NEW things to cover and expect premiums to go DOWN. In fact they did not. Dems tried to take 12 bites at the apple all in one bite. If the idea was that more people having and paying into insurance would lower premiums you start there. THEN when its clear and evident that premiums DID go down, then you come back and start adding new coverages a little at a ti
            • they tried to give you healthcare. You (and by "you" I mean voters) got scared by "Death Panels" and instead of a public option we got the ACA.

              lets just start debunking this with the term Affordable Care Act. you dont take out of control premiums and create a 1200 page bill outlining a ton of NEW things to cover and expect premiums to go DOWN. In fact they did not. Dems tried to take 12 bites at the apple all in one bite.

              Republicans did that. Dems tried to propose a public option which was shot down by Republicans, so instead we got the ACA which was modeled on Romneycare. It's literally the Republican plan, which is why it's unsurprising that it's garbage. The Republicans objected to having the government be responsible for "death panels" just like was said, and instead we got insurance companies running them.

              • by e3m4n ( 947977 )
                dude why do you insist on forgetting the fact that they wrote a bill in secret that they even refused to let their own party review? Don't you remember Pelosi telling her own party they had to vote to approve the bill BEFORE she would even let them see the content? I don't care what party you are in, that just screams of distrust, which is why its generally unpopular. As far as single-payer, thats also easy for the government to fuck up. Our federal government has only 1 revenue stream. Its not manufacturi
  • by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @10:52AM (#63130152) Journal

    "It was just bad software" is already the excuse being put forth by the industry. See this appearance [youtube.com] on the news today, where some Coindesk bigwig makes very sure to harp on the fact that FTX was using Quickbooks somewhere, and this is not good enough software, implying that it must be Quickbooks' fault the money disappeared. (I realize the software in question here probably isn't even Quickbooks, but the average viewer will not.)

    The Coindesk dude also runs through the rest of the narrative that he was just incompetent, in way over his head, wrestling with bad software, etc. Anything to make it look like there's no scam going on. It's a very concise statement of what the industry line will be going forward.

    • Mark Karpelès was not actually the first, but the implosion of MtGox was sufficiently prominent that everyone should suspect every crypto exchange is going to collapse with "oops, my software was bad" as the excuse.

      Today, the kinds of risks associated with exchanges are worse than ever, even if by some stretch of the imagination the CEO so happens to be basically honest. The crypto assets that get put up as collateral for crypto loans is much more volatile and less liquid. It takes much more sophisti

    • "It was just bad software" is already the excuse being put forth by the industry. See this appearance [youtube.com] on the news today, where some Coindesk bigwig makes very sure to harp on the fact that FTX was using Quickbooks somewhere, and this is not good enough software, implying that it must be Quickbooks' fault the money disappeared. (I realize the software in question here probably isn't even Quickbooks, but the average viewer will not.)

      The Coindesk dude also runs through the rest of the narrative that he was just incompetent, in way over his head, wrestling with bad software, etc. Anything to make it look like there's no scam going on. It's a very concise statement of what the industry line will be going forward.

      Except that's not the excuse. "Bad software" would be a bug somehow causing the bad behaviour, this story is that they deliberately modified the software to enable the bad behaviour.

      As for the Quickbooks thing, I think the point is that Quickbooks is something you use to run a small to medium sized business, not a multi-billion dollar bank and trading firm.

      Basically, the story is they were doing things they knew they shouldn't (criminal liability) and at the same time they were in waaay over their head.

    • The implication of their use of Quickbooks is that they weren't taking accounting seriously, which at this point should be relatively obvious.

      The CEO of Coinbase isn't going to make any accusations of fraud without proof because not only would that be a terrible precedent to set, it could result in SBF suing him and Coinbase, and that would be very expensive for no good reason.

  • by Ed Tice ( 3732157 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @11:00AM (#63130174)
    The great thing about crypto-currency is that we now have an entire new lexicon of fancy-sounding synonyms for stealing.

    The worst part here is that he stole all of that money and yet his trading firm was so incompetent that they lost it. If had just stolen the money and put it into US treasury notes, he could have paid it back without getting caught and actually be rich.

    • They should patent it! "Ponzi Scheme, but totally different, because it's done on a computer."

      • Except it wasn't even a Ponzi scheme, it was just plain them losing money right and left while they spent money right and left. A Ponzi scheme at least pays some of the investors money.

    • We have seen this movie before. Being apparently "incompetent" proved convenient for Mark Karpelès. Does anyone believe that he did not take a piece of the action before MtGox went down?

      • This is a different type of incompetent. He stole money that he could have invested, earned a return, and paid back and nobody would have ever known. But, instead, he used the stolen money to trade crypto-currencies and lost it all.

        If he had just stolen money like a normal Ponzi scheme, the crash in the value of crypto-currencies would have let him meet redemptions and still have a huge profit. I guess he started to believe his own bullshit. That's too bad. Because if he had been net short on crypto-

        • SBF just never really understood what he was doing, on a good day. Apparently FTX outright lost several hundred million in real money lending to an aggressive crypto speculator whose "collateral" suddenly crashed in value. Duh.

          FTX thought they could grow big and be the shark, when they were actually nothing more than a barrel of fat minnows waiting for the bullet. "Luckily" there was probably enough embezzlement going on that at least some of the customer funds were protected from FTX's and Alameda's inv

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @11:05AM (#63130186)
    They're forcing customers to use their coins and suspending withdrawals. All the same stuff the other companies did just before collapse. They're still allowing some withdrawals, probably out of fear of prosecutors, and $3 billion's already gone
    • This hardly unexpected development, coming so soon after, puts Binance's brief FTX "rescue" foray into a different light. Maybe it quickly backed away not because it said "Woah! This is too far gone to fix." but "Woah! This is too far gone to loot BTW, can you book me a charter flight to Dubai?"

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @11:56AM (#63130320)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • It's surprisingly hard to manipulate the stock market.

    It's stupidly easy to manipulate crypto.

    Instead of a crooked accountant, this company used a crooked software engineer -- who is going to sing like a canary on the stand

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...