Sorry but the "wildest conspiracy theory" is that Democrats sent money to Ukraine, Ukraine deposited the money at FTX, and SBF donated the money to Democratic congressional campaigns. Nothing about what we know today lends any credence to that theory.
That some guy with access to a lot of cash tried to buy influence is not a "conspiracy theory" because it is unilateral. And, if that's what he was trying to do, it seems like a really poor strategy since you cannot really buy influence over law enforcement that way.
> Nothing about what we know today lends any credence to that theory.
I'm personally much more interested in the billions or the tens of billions that disappeared (in the bank account of tether/Deltec?) than in the petty amount that went to the democrats but... It's a fact that media were posting articles explaining how crypto was helping Ukraine (and there was a government ran website in Ukraine accepting crypto donation).
SBF's very mom was running a political fundraising thinggy.
It's also a fact that at least one US congressman is saying Gary Gensler was allegedly working hand in hand with FTX to allow SBF/FTX regulatory capture of crypto exchanges.
I'm not saying they did: I'm saying a US congressman says he has records indicating that.
These are facts. Now did these donations to Ukraine found their way back to FTX? (and if that's the case there's at least some truth to the conspiracy for it's a fact that SBF was donating stolen money to her mommy's fundraise)
I think it's a bit early to dismiss with the back of the hand the information people are digging out.
The one thing that seems certain is that if we were to depend on the journalists from the New York Times to investigate on that we wouldn't go very far.
The usual angle is also going to be used for sure: "The wildest conspiracy theories are false, hence nobody besides SBF did anything wrong".
People are trying to connect the dots. And with 130 companies, blinded journalists, a political party receiving $40m in donation, etc. there are certainly dots that do need connecting.
Congress hearings in december for a start. Should be interesting (even if I don't have high hopes).
I could see Ukraine donations that hadn't been withdrawn getting caught up in all of this, but I'm highly doubtful there was some weird shell game going on. Not because it wasn't possible, but because it wasn't necessary. SBF was openly throwing cash around to buy political and media influence. There wasn't any need to skim government cash when he could use ~$8b of customer's deposits as his slush fund.
I've heard a lot of wild conspiracy theories, but that one is new to me. To be fair, I do not believe the conspiracy theories, just that the inaction we're seeing is feeding credibility to the people peddling them.
That some guy with access to a lot of cash tried to buy influence is not a "conspiracy theory" because it is unilateral. And, if that's what he was trying to do, it seems like a really poor strategy since you cannot really buy influence over law enforcement that way.