> where he took deposits, put them in completely inappropriate investments
It's not just that they were inappropriate, taking assets from FTX to prop up Alameda is fraudulent and should never have happened right? He claimed there was a firewall between the organizations.
This part of the story is where we are starting to see the MIT grad and former Jane Street trader claim to be actually quite stupid and naive. His excuse is that they took customers' account deposits to FTX via an account Alameda held, then credited the FTX accounts with balances without ringfencing those funds in that Alameda account (or I guess opening an FTX one and moving them there, not sure why they didn't do that in the first place...) so they got double-spent, so to speak. Which would be kinda funny for a crypto-firm, but I don't buy it.
It's not just that they were inappropriate, taking assets from FTX to prop up Alameda is fraudulent and should never have happened right? He claimed there was a firewall between the organizations.