There's been a recent push for "proof of reserves" audits among crypto companies, but that's been criticized quite a bit because it mainly provides a snapshot of a firm's finances at 1 specific point in time, and it also doesn't include intel on liabilities, which can make it look misleading.

And, it doesn't show anything about whether customer funds have been commingled with company funds, which I think is a key part of your phrasing, "something like this," with FTX.

Industry experts are still trying to figure out what can be done differently. The ones I've spoke to recently tell me they are doubling down on transparency (i.e. proof of reserves) but I don't really think that's reassuring in terms of public trust.

As far as institutions go, like Wall Street firms, one hopes that they will certainly be doing greater due diligence before getting involved with a crypto exchange. And that goes for media outlets too -- hopefully more homework happens before we see any more glowing profiles of young founders who take high profile meetings while wearing shorts and playing video games.-PR

Which do you prefer, pasta pork chicken or lamb?

What area of service receives the most volunteers on average? What area of service receives the least volunteers on average?

Or maybe, what areas are people most interested in helping with and which areas are people not? And does this pose any kinds of issues for your organization?

[removed]

[deleted]

Cryptocurrency just had a brutal year. And this FTX debacle has only harmed the public perception of it. Proponents of crypto seem to focus on the merits of blockchain technology - transparency, decentralized, safety features etc - but then you have critics who say the whole concept of the actual tokens is built upon the so-called Greater Fool theory (there's always someone else who will be willing to spend more money on a token that you just bought).

It seems like crypto isn't going anywhere in terms of the technology, but i think its ceiling as an asset class has been lowered dramatically over recent months. Many people have lost trust (and money) by believing in it. Rebuilding that public trust I think poses the biggest challenge, more than any technological obstacle. - PR

What red flags were there in the beginning? Wasn't EVERYONE getting into the crypto frenzy? I stayed out of it myself.

Have you researched the tokenized stocks ftx offered that we're supposedly backed one to one with actual stocks? Turns out it wasn't. Could those have been used as locates for short hedge funds? Thanks 🙏

Are you are following r/AmeriCorps and r/volunteer and r/communityservice?

Think about this: Sam was this wunderkind MIT math wiz, who got a job at the highly competitive trading firm Jane Street after college, and his parents were high profile professors at Stanford. So the intellectual belief was there, no one doubted his capacity to think and solve problems.

Add in that he was a vocal proponent of the Effective Altrusim philosophy, more regulation for the crypto industry, and that he simply came off as a friendly, young guy who liked video games, there wasn't much in his public image that hinted he wasnt someone to be trusted.

So that whole persona he built, it seems, made people overlook red flags, and they didn't do as much homework on FTX/SBF as they should have. Big institutions bought into it, media outlets wrote glowing profiles of him -- so everyday retail traders especially really had no reason to not believe Sam. They likely assumed that if the major corporations believed in him, they surely did their due diligence.

-PR

[deleted]

For more AMAs on this topic, subscribe to r/IAmA_Journalist, and check out our other topic-specific AMA subreddits here.

Hi Michael!

Thanks for being here! I’m a mid-career journalist/podcaster and want to get into public service after years of “unbiased” or passive community work.

How does someone like me work with AmeriCorps to find a new career path? Or even us the skills I have in a new way?

Good q! I actually wrote a timeline on just this! Here's everything that happened from November 2 (the first CoinDesk report on Alameda's balance sheet) until January 3, when SBF pled not guilty. He's set to stand trial in October.

Here's the timeline I wrote

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/ftx-timeline-sam-bankman-fried-bankruptcy-trial-alameda-sec-doj-2023-1
- PR

Do you think there's a realm of possibility that the FTX-wrapped stocks were used as 'reasonable locates' for the shares they wrapped? If so, what would the unwinding of that during bankruptcy look like?

Between FTX and Celsius collapse, how much long term damage do you think was done to blockchain adoption/crypto?

Hello! Phil Rosen here - I'll be answering questions for the next ~1 hour about the FTX saga, crypto, and markets. I'll sign my initials, "PR," on all my responses -- AMA!

This story broke in early November. 6 weeks later Ellison and Wang plead guilty. How/why did this happen so quickly? Complex financial cases never move this quickly.

In your opinion, who is at fault here? Is it only SBF or his team/investors also should receive some blame? Do you think there is a way to stop things like this from happening again?

Hello Phil!
Big fan of yours! Just had an overall question for you which may have many layers, but, what are your thoughts on the present/future standing of Crypto now that all of this has happened?

What broader downstream effects do you predict within the next six months? It appears that most of these CEX's were in bed with one another, and I'm curious how many will shut down due to FTX related exposure.

What can be done differently to ensure that something like this never happens again?

Where can i find a good timeline that explains exactly what happened?

Do you think cryptocurrency is here to stay? What challenges do you see it facing as time progresses, and do you see it having to go through any changes?

Hi Phil,

What's your take on why Sam was so easily trusted? Did his parents really play such a huge role in people's perspective of Sam?

Additionally, appearing on many youtube videos, giving interviews - he had been called out that his methodology was obtuse and quite obviously a ponzi how even sam described it, without naming it. Quite frankly it appeared incredibly obvious that this kid had no actual concept of how these financial companies should function let alone be managed. Is hindsight that obvious, or did he truly trick so many people?