SBF的判决可以带来什么？我们应该吸取什么教训

Thursday, March will mark the curtain call of one of the strangest stories of the century. The sons of two legal scholars at Stanford University systematically stole hundreds of millions of dollars in the name of technical optimism and elite charity, but their real purpose is to accumulate power as soon as possible before being tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of new york. This is the basic story. He will be charged with seven fraud-related crimes committed by the jury last month on May. His sentence will also be based on the untried but well-documented charge that he used stolen client funds to bribe China officials and finance a series of campaign financial fraud activities, which once made him a force to be reckoned with in American politics. The sentencing proposal submitted by the federal prosecutor to Judge Lewis Kaplan on May may tell the story in the most concise and convincing form so far. The prosecutor carefully determined the repeated intentional deception and supplemented it with a series of orders. The heartbreaking victim's statement suggested that he should be sentenced to years in prison, which is already a long prison term, but still far below the possible years in prison. The defense team that gave investors a favor asked for leniency and advocated that he should be sentenced to only six years in prison. This requirement largely relied on two arguments that were proved invalid in the trial, and he never really stole any money, and he donated a lot of money to charity. The first argument was largely based on a misleading view that the bankrupt property had been fully repaid to depositors. This is a really deceptive idea. The CEO of Recovery has strongly refuted in his briefing that the idea that the deposit will eventually be repaid echoes the criminal motive. Although he and his allies such as Michael Lewis tried to describe him as an unfortunate person, they obviously believed that he could gamble with other people's money and win, as testified, and regarded the client's funds as a good source of funds to promote the development of the exchange, despite his repeated public claims that deposits were sacred and inviolable. Some people think that he is helping depositors and investors to maximize the expected value as soon as possible, and then he can repay all the deposits. In his view, he is not stealing, but just borrowing. Even after his conviction, Jon Donohue of Stanford University and Ian Ayers of Yale University and other allies have put forward basically the same argument, which is the speech of his defense team again. Judge Kaplan has expressed his complete contempt for this moral decay. Kaplan joked at the trial on May. For example, if I break into the Federal Reserve Bank and steal $10,000 and spend all my money on power ball and happen to win, it doesn't matter. One of the inconveniences of relying on charitable work as evidence of good character is that, as proved by the trial, the donation itself mainly comes from stolen client funds. Although the leniency plan of the defense includes a series of supported character witness statements, these statements are limited and sometimes even strange, including statements of many people who only knew each other as children. And a statement from a suspected pedophile seems to have become friends in prison. Last year, I spent a month observing the criminal trial. I saw again and again that Judge Lewis Kaplan made a dismissive or even angry reaction to the misleading and dishonest defense of the defense team, and he would not support them for the second time. I believe that Judge Kaplan is very, very likely to follow the prosecution's suggestion and sentence him to imprisonment for about half a century, unless considering the way these things work. The appeal is unlikely to succeed, which means that the collapse of cryptocurrency will not purify the evil of cryptocurrency. The crime that people often say has nothing to do with cryptocurrency as a technology. This is indeed true. The background of Wall Street is similar to that of many other criminals who collapsed in 2000. Most of them think that cryptocurrency is a simple way to make money because of its volatility. His fraudulent behavior relies on centralization and opacity to deceive customers, if any, which is on the chain finance. Nevertheless, he did choose to engage in long-term fraud in the encryption industry. His judgment is a reflection of the industry, and maybe he can learn one or two things. The most important thing is not to get complacent. This is very important. Among the documents contained in the prosecution's sentencing package, there is a list of real insanity written by him, which lists the ways in which he can reconstruct his crimes after bankruptcy, including the proposed narrative of dying for your sins, even though there is no evidence of fraud. Still reminiscent of the experience that the project was hastily launched and the revenue-centered marketing method all have the same impulse to pursue maximization, which will eventually lead to crime, poverty and now prison. With greed, we will once again override the concern of deeper social and political reforms as the basis of cryptocurrency movement, and we will see another round of vulnerability, risk fraud and collapse. Smart people will see through the rewards or promises of double pledge of primary income at a glance and recognize them. Ignoring warnings and taking risks is the root cause of the collapse. He ignored the repeated objections of his deputies Caroline Ellison NisshadSingh and Wang, who will now face their own judgments, convinced that they are smarter than anyone else. He ignored the lawyer's advice and thought that they didn't know what they were talking about and refused to conduct a comprehensive public relations trip after the collapse. Those interviews helped the prosecution limit his defense team and ensure his conviction, industry lessons and life lessons. The world outlook that drives the reckless plan is also based on a huge ego, which comes down to his belief in his absolute correctness and his contempt for the moral standards that ordinary people should abide by. Ellison testified in court that he believed that rules such as don't lie or steal were applicable to the moral standards he chose. His moral standards mixed his mother's utilitarian results theory, the same utilitarian propaganda of the effective altruism movement that earned money and then donated it, and when he was a trader. The society's endless calculation of expected value sees a person who could have made a real contribution to the world but regrets being imprisoned for almost his whole life. We can learn many lessons from it, but some key points seem particularly clear. First, caution and humility are not evil. Risk management is a part of achieving sustainable success, whether as a founder or a trader. Secondly, morality is very important, not what may happen in the future, but how you treat others' morality now. Finally, greed is dangerous. Although encrypted assets can be enjoyed when they appreciate, paying too much attention to digital growth rather than fundamentals is the way to poverty. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=53976