Talk:FTX/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Effective Altruism tag

Should FTX be tagged as "Category:Organizations associated with effective altruism"? The organization describes itself as, "FTX was founded with the goal of donating to the world's most effective charities" (https://ftx.com/en/foundation). Its founding team are all involved with effective altruism, and it funds EA Fellowships (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/sdjcH7KAxgB328RAb/ftx-ea-fellowships). JBchrch suggests it would require WP:Secondary sources, and that we shouldn't rely on "marketing material," but I don't think that bar is used for the other organizations with that tag, and it seems like a strangely high bar for a tag that's just about "association" with a social movement. Jmill1806 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've CFD'd the category: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_8#Category:Organizations_associated_with_effective_altruism. In any case, I think that it would a strangely low to treat a company's material as a reliable source for its CSR/ESG/stakeholderism practices. That's just a straightforward application of WP:PRIMARY in the corporate sphere. JBchrch talk 23:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. Perhaps we should wait for that discussion before returning to this one, but I do not see anything in WP:PRIMARY that backs up your claim here. Also notice that the Category:Organizations associated with effective altruism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) list is almost entirely nonprofits, not the for-profit corporations you're worried about. Jmill1806 (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Revenue

"Last year FTX generated some $350 million in profit on about $750 million in revenue"

- Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2021/10/21/the-worlds-richest-29-year-old-just-got-a-lot-richer-thanks-to-new-ftx-funding-round — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.218.217.152 (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

– 1300+ daily hits[1], appears to be the primary topic here. 162 etc. (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - the company is just over 3 years old and the WP page is less than 1 year old. Ftx (gene) is the primary topic on Google scholar. Given that articles tend to be around for a long time, and there is no guarantee the company will be, I think it is better to leave it as is. Adpete (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll note that the gene is referred to as "Ftx" in reliable sources [2] [3], not "FTX". See also WP:DIFFCAPS. 162 etc. (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability

I have never heard it before. And there seem some COI editors on zhwiki. Is this subject really notable? Have any experienced editors checked all its sources carefully? --虹易 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely notable. They had the three top stories on Bloomberg today: "US Probes FTX Crypto Empire Over Handling of Client Funds", "FTX’s Financial Black Hole Leaves Binance Balking at Rescue Plan"," Panicky FTX Clients Withdrew $430 Million of Bitcoin in a Few Days".[4].
Right now, it's so notable that WP:NOTNP applies. New news articles are appearing hourly. John Nagle (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Network of companies built around Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX/Alameda)

Here is a graphical view of the network of companies built around Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX/Alameda) image, 4096 pixels, source. It might take an army of accountants and lawyers to unwind and litigate all of this, and will be challenging to understand so that the article can be improved. N2e (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Bankrutptcy proceedings begin

"@FTX_Official Chapter 11 will be most complex bankruptcy in US history. No clear commercial law roadmap re: #crypto for the judge to follow. US bankruptcy law has 'presumption against extraterritoriality.' "

Bankruptcy proceedings are underway, "under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware." We'll have better financial media sources to improve the article in the next few hours. N2e (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Mark Wetjen, head of policy and regulatory strategy at FTX

I just created a stub for Mark Wetjen. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Crisis and Bankruptcy new page

I think this section is getting rather large, is it worth warranting a separate article on this section? GR86 (📱) 21:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How is it Bahamian?

Hello. Related to the opening sentence: FTX is not a Bahamian company. The fact that it is registered on Bahamas doesn't necessarily make it Bahamian (in fact, it is clearly an American company to any reasonable observer.) One should evaluate the national background of top management and the majority of decisions-making personnel. As such, I propose to revise the "Bahamian" clause, at least edit it out as there are zero indications of being, well, Bahamian, beyond the utterly formal legal residence fact. 188.32.212.181 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bahamas is not only the formal legal residence, but the actual residence, in that that's were their headquarters are and most of their employees physically worked. 2A02:C7D:9B94:5F00:251E:FB6F:B781:65A0 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
There are about 160 corporate entities involved. The main ones are FTX (incorporated in Antigua and Barbuda, HQ in Bahamas), West Realm Shires Services d/b/a FTX.US (incorporated in Delaware, HQ in Chicago, or maybe Miami, a move was announced), and Alameda Research LLC (incorporated in Delaware, HQ in Richmond, CA, USA). There are also units in Japan and Ghana. They're all in bankruptcy now. The bankruptcy is Case #22-11066 in PACER. Right now, news reports are mostly rehashes of information already in the article, so there's no urgency to update the article. Expect much legal activity starting Monday. --John Nagle (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI - I was a little bit reticent to make change on a high profile article.

FYI - I was a little bit reticent to make change on a high profile article. Nevertheless the change was made to eliminate redundancy, improve grammar, and clarify the reach of the exchange.

FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange incorporated in Antigua and Barbuda and headquartered in The Bahamas.

The article now states the following

FTX is domiciled in the Bahamas but operates internationally; it is an international exchange; in fact is/was the second largest international or transnational exchange. The changed made from was to is logical

FTX is a Bahamian cryptocurrency exchange.[5] FTX is incorporated in Antigua and Barbuda and headquartered in The Bahamas.[6][7]

Suggest the article be changed to remove Bahamian and the two sentences combined.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The existing discussion "How it is Bahamian" is three paragraphs above;
International reach can be seen here;
https://help.ftx.com/hc/en-us/articles/360056976411-Jurisdiction-regulations-licensing-and-practices
By changing two sentences into one the article is improved 1) Bahamian is retained in the first sentence and not repeated which improves readability 2) the international reach of the company is implied 3) the company is a cryptocurrency exchange primarily (where it is domiciled is secondary)
I can see why Bahamian was included when looking at Danone in comparison
Danone S.A. (French pronunciation: ​[danɔn]) is a French multinational food-products corporation based in Paris. It was founded in Barcelona, Spain. It is listed on Euronext Paris where it is a component of the CAC 40 stock market index. Some of the company's products are branded Dannon in the United States.
But instead of a multinational conglomerate the article talks about a company that is similar in structure to an international"hedge fund"
As an alternative a change to Bahamas Based
FTX is a Bahamas Based would improve readability and accuracy.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Money laundering

Can we include some information on the money laundering that has taken place with this company? ExpertPrime (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

We'll need some reliable sources for those. If you have them, please feel free to share them here if you're unsure of them, or just edit the article with the information from the reliable sources. --Molochmeditates (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:FTX financial crisis which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Is FTX no longer a company?

I noticed that the article refers to FTX in the past tense, but is FTX not still a company? The company is still operating and has not been liquidated, albeit in a crippled manner. Phillycj 18:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should use present tense for now, as FTX still exists. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
FTX (company) is still a company until liquidated. Devokewater 20:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It is still a company, but is it still an exchange? The article opens saying it is an exchange; should that be changed at this point to was an exchange? It seems that they might no longer be doing any exchanges. Perhaps a better description would be is a former exchange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:2A07:E378:E2BF:140:EF7F (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

John J. Ray III

There is now an article for John J. Ray III, the current CEO of FTX. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

CoinDesk is not generally reliable and is being cited as a primary source

This is regarding "No!".

CoinDesk isn't generally reliable, per WP:RSP#CoinDesk. Any summary of this source for factual information about FTX is as context for the response that followed, but this would be much better summarized by reliable, independent sources. This article should use those reliable sources to explain which parts of CoinDeks's articles were important to the crisis. In this situation, the CoinDesk article itself is a primary source. Likewise, while the Bloomberg source in the same paragraph is reliable and informative to this issue, it's not clear what direct connection that source had to this crisis. Are readers meant to think that the problem was first publicly identified by Bloomberg in Sept. and only later amplified by CoinDesk? That's what the current paragraph implies, so do sources make that connection? Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

CoinDesk broke the story of FTT representing a significant portion of Alameda's balance sheet in the story cited. There discussion about CoinDesk's reliability is pretty narrow anyway, and refers to potential COI issues with the publication which don't apply here. — Mainly 02:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's an accurate reading of consensus on cryptocurrency outlets in general, or CoinDesk specifically. The outlet still lacks "a reputation for accuracy and fact checking". Some of its stories have been good, but that's not enough.
Plenty of experienced editors have disputed CoinDesk's reliability, and those RSP discussions are the tip of the iceberg. If we're going to use this source for factual claims, we need to support and contextualize those claims with reliable sources. Without that context from reliable sources, this risks cherry-picking. Eventually, this problem will have to be resolved. Either way, the article will be improved by providing context from reliable independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, even though CoinDesk broke the story, the previous consensus on Wikipedia was that CoinDesk cannot be used as a reliable source. You can see the last discussion about this on the RS noticeboard here. There was some discussion then about selectively using CoinDesk as a source, but unfortunately Wikipedia has moved in another direction. I would not try to add any CoinDesk sources to crypto articles. Molochmeditates (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
CoinDesk isn't reliable on its own, but I don't see a problem with it if it's be used in conjunction with other sources to cite the same topic. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

As of should be excised

The whole "as of" wording is hacky and lazy. I refer to this sentence in the lede: "As of 11 November 2022, FTX has been in bankruptcy proceedings in the US court system following a liquidity crisis."

Could we not change this to "FTX began bankruptcy proceedings in the US court system in November 2022 following a liquidity crisis."

2604:3D09:C77:4E00:11CE:1A70:B236:B668 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I changed to "Since 11 November 2022, FTX has been in", which sounds more natural to me. What do you think? Jmill1806 (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
It's better, thank you. 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:D976:893:98EE:14F3 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft article on the collapse created

Hey guys! Consdiering the amount of coverage that the collapse of FTX has gained across the world, I've created Draft:Collapse of FTX as a place where we can organize all the information on this. Since Lehman Brothers and Enron each have their own collapse articles, and given the scale of this collapse in itself, it's probably needed to organize the collapse into this article to avoid undue weight violations, and having this article instead focus mostly on the exchange/company itself rather than its collapse. Thanks, InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging frequent and recent contributors to this article (@MainlyTwelve, @Mx. Granger, @Molochmeditates) for their thoughts. So far, all the content from the downfall section as of revision 1122301527 has been copied over into the draft. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate the notification. To let you know, there's already a version of this article at FTX financial crisis. That said, I think the best article name would be "FTX bankruptcy" or "Bankruptcy of FTX". — Mainly 22:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you for the notification by the way; never knew that article existed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure thing! What do you think about naming the article? — Mainly 22:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I proposed a move to Collapse of FTX due to it being able to better outline the entire downfall of the company while still sounding more descriptive than the generic term Crisis and more formal than downfall, though I mentioned that at your recommendation, Bankruptcy would be an alternate proposal I would support. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging me! Unfortunately, I don't have a strong opinion on this matter of whether to keep the information here in the main article or expand more in a separate one. I can see the pros and cons of each. I'll follow the consensus of other active contributors to these events. Molochmeditates (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mx. Granger: @InvadingInvader: Yeah I agree. I've restored the content that was removed and duplicated to FTX financial crisis to this article and I am going to continue editing here. InvadingInvader, I think it's best we keep things here in this article for now as we continue to discuss on the talk page for FTX financial crisis if another page is needed. Whether we do or do not determine another page is needed it doesn't seem like we'll use that page (FTX financial crisis) so I don't think we should be copying information over to it. — Mainly 14:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
    What my primary concern is about is undue weight and recentism, as there's likely a lot we could expand upon with regard to FTX that doesn't regard to the collapse. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
That's a fair concern. I think the top history section can definitely be expanded in the original FTX article, and other sections can be added as well (descriptions of what services the company offered, where it operated, etc.) to further flesh out the article and contextualize the later section. — Mainly 17:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This article looks better than FTX financial crisis. We may need a "2022 Cryptocurrency crash" article, but not quite yet. I'd suggest holding off on moves, renaming, and forks for a week or two, per WP:NOTNEWS. John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
My best approach would be to put a timeline of the FTX saga into FTX financial crisis and tag that as an article involved in a current event. Recentism should be avoided on this article, and in general, but recentism is more acceptable on an article designated for it. As a temporary remedy, I suggest using FTX financial crisis, but if 2022 cryptocurrency crash needs to be created, we can use that article as the baseline.
Also in this case, it might be necessary to merge BlockFi into that article since it's only claim to WP notability is involvement in the crash; we could cover it and other smaller crypto firms the same way that I covered the largest descendants of Standard Oil in Successors of Standard Oil (just without the main article templates and with infoboxes). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I think BlockFi can stand on its own. There's coverage of it from earlier this year and there'll probably be more coverage of its history and business if (when...??) it officially declares bankruptcy. Re: the current need to create a second article for the FTX situation, the pace of news has slowed considerably and I still think the most appropriate decision would be to 1. expand the other portions of the article (lines of business, history pre-November) and 2. redirect "FTX financial crisis" to the "FTX (company)" article. Also, if we do determine a second article is needed I'd like to stress again I don't think it should be "FTX financial crisis". "FTX bankruptcy" still seems the most appropriate. — Mainly 14:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Pretty sure that the comment of stuff probably having more coverage is WP:CRYSTALBALL. And assuming that things pretty much stand as they are with no major more effects on the industry, coverage on the bankruptcy as is right now would be a due weight problem. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Gap of information on Who appointed John J. Ray III as new CEO

I try to find the information *who* appointed John J. Ray III as the new CEO of FTX but it seems no sources as of today disclosed this information. I believe this is an important piece of knowledge that could shed a light into the governance behind the restructuring of FTX. Could any Editor help find this piece of information and fill the gap? Thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I am curious about this too, User:Xinbenlv! I will try to find more information about who appointed him and when. He was someone important at Enron a long time ago.--FeralOink (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

"liquidity crisis" or "insolvency"?

Referring to this sentence in the lede (also referenced above): "Since 11 November 2022, FTX has been in bankruptcy proceedings in the US court system following a liquidity crisis." Insolvency might be the more accurate description of FTX's finances considering the bankruptcy filings & The Securities Commission of the Bahamas insolvency finding last week. AvinoamSN (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Could we maybe list it as both? Consider writing it as "following an insolvency finding and a subsequent liquidity crisis." InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
FTX had a liquidity crisis due to lack of capital. The insolvency and thus bankruptcy is due to lack of capital. The liquidity crisis was merely the initial symptom of the deeper malaise, which was a shortage of money, i.e. capital. I incorporated some of that into the article just now. I think you have the bankruptcy part written correctly at the moment, but I will double check. Good point for bringing this up!--FeralOink (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Subsequently, Mx. Granger removed the phrase, "following a liquidity crisis due to capital shortfall" to describe the cause of the bankruptcy. That seems reasonable to me for the time being, and yes, the rest of the paragraph explains sufficiently. Some mention of a shortage of capital will be necessary, but that will become apparent as the bankruptcy proceedings move forward, and can be added then.--FeralOink (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed – I think this is a case where we should be cautious until more information becomes available. Currently there is a lot of speculation and "he said/she said" type reporting in sources, which makes it hard to write a good lead, but the sequence of events will undoubtedly become clearer over time. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a bank run; crypto is not necessarily cryptocurrency

I have changed references to a "bank run" because it is incorrect. What happened was indeed a massive customer sell-off. If FTX were a bank, then it would have been a bank run. Remember that FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange, was never a chartered bank. , and deposits were never insured by the FDIC. Although the analogy is apt, bank run has a specific meaning as stated in the WP bank run article. We can discuss this here at more length if there is interest.

Also, please don't refer to cryptocurrency as "crypto" in Wikivoice. It is ambiguous, as "crypto" is the term often used for cryptography. There is too much overlap between cryptocurrency and the use of cryptography for it to use the term in this article. FeralOink (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The cited source[5] says "Mr. Zhao, who is known online as CZ, amplified the reports on Twitter, sparking a bank run that crippled FTX." The lack of FDIC protection doesn't change that; in fact, runs are more likely to happen at banks and bank-like entities that aren't protected by deposit insurance, because their depositors can lose confidence more easily. One can quibble over whether the term "bank run" literally applies here, but the dynamic was the same dynamic that happens in a bank run. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
You're right about it being irrelevant as to whether FTX was insured by the FDIC, or even a member of the Federal Reserve System. (I struck out that part of my comment above.) Thank you for correcting me! FTX was not even a U.S.-domiciled entity. Regardless of what Mr. Zhao said, FTX was never a chartered bank in any nation in which it operated. Yes, the dynamic of massive FTX customer withdrawals IS analogous to sudden bank depositor withdrawals in the event of a capital crisis.--FeralOink (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that about it being mere quibbling about whether the term "bank run" applies here. I'm not being WP:TENDENTIOUS. Then-FTX president Brett Harrison erroneously said that FTX deposits DID have FDIC protection. He said it on Twitter, and it was stated on customer-facing parts of the FTX website(s). (It is more of the egregious behavior that John Ray has referred to.) The FDIC issued a cease and desist order to make FTX stop this misrepresentation. It is a prosecutable offense, i.e. the FDIC can assess civil money penalties for violations of Section 18(a)(4) and Part 328. Given that, I want to be especially careful not to suggest that the FTX situation was a bank run even though it was analogous to one. Let me think about how to do that.--FeralOink (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The day before yesterday I edited the article to say "like a bank run", which I think is pretty clear. We could also just say it was a "run", like the Financial Times does ("Binance chief Changpeng Zhao, Bankman-Fried’s arch-rival, on Sunday said his exchange would liquidate its FTT holdings, igniting both a sell-off in the token and a run on FTX."[6]), though if we do something like that I think we should pipe the link as [[bank run|run]] for readers who don't know this meaning of the word "run". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022

Finally arrested in the Bahamas Jmr3815 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Request For edit (defunct)

Can we make "was" instead of "is a defunct company" like many other defunct company articles? 2009Dbiggs (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe the company still exists as an entity while it goes through bankruptcy. Eventually the bankruptcy process will conclude and the entity may be dissolved, then "was" will be more accurate. -M.nelson (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
If it says "defunct" in the lead and on a disambiguation page, where in the article does the company actually become "defunct"?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
That's a good point. Having googled the terms (e.g. [7] [8]), it seems like "defunct" means the company ceases to exist (therefore "was a company" and "is a defunct company" might be synonymous), which is not the case for a company undergoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. I've reworded the lede to remove the word "defunct", switching it to is a bankrupt company, though my wording could probably be improved upon. -M.nelson (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
i never knew that 2009Dbiggs (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Gary Wang

I recently created a draft for FTX co-founder Gary Wang. I think an article is justified as it appears he will be a key witness in the trial of Bankman-Fried. Thriley (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; another related draft is Draft:Ryan Salame -M.nelson (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
.... I see you created both! Hopefully both get some eyes by being posted here. -M.nelson (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Thriley Looks like a good start. I hope you get lucky and find a reliable source confirming Gary Wang is a cunt so that his article can drive that point home. He, mouse teeth girl, and SBF deserve extraordinary rendition for what they've done. Side note, this FTX article is pretty good so far as well. Glad good editors are on task. John Shandy` • talk 05:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– Primary topic - others listed at the current disambiguation only use FTX as an abbreviation and are unlikely to be a genuine search term. GeebaKhap (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 04:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose move: let's not fall victim to WP:RECENTISM here. While the company will certainly be the most-talked about FTX this year, we have to apply the WP:10YEARTEST and I don't see a compelling reason to believe that this company will continue to be the primary topic in the long run. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    I’m not so sure that the WP:RECENTISM ideas are as applicable. Whatever’s going on right now will always be significant in the history of cryptocurrency. I imagine that anyone looking for information about an “FTX” in the future are most likely looking for this company (and its role in crypto history) more so than any of the other meanings. Silvestertaylor (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmm. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=FTX&pws=0 indicates there's a lot of usage of this acronym, but it seems unrelated to the company (seems to refer to 'federal taxation' mostly?). Why do you think that people will not genuinely be searching for this term to see what it means? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Because there are no other Wikipedia articles with the title FTX, with the exception of Ftx (gene) which averages three views per day. GeebaKhap (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it's a plausible redirect for federal taxation, which in turn exists as a redirect to a list of countries by tax rates. Leaning oppose --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - My initial sense was to oppose this due to recency bias, but looking at the other pages in the dab, it's clear to me that FTX (company) is the primary topic for FTX. Here are the pageview stats on all of the pages covered by the dab: [9]. IMO pageviews are clear - even before the recent controversy, the company was getting far more views than the other pages, and since the controversy has died down a bit, both the dab and company are at about 10x-20x views than before whereas the other pages' views are roughly unchanged. I know that pageviews alone isn't a great argument for something being a primary topic, but I see no evidence that the other items are anywhere nearly as significant (conceptually or from a reader's perspective). Is there any argument to be made that any of the other pages are a (shared) primary topic? -M.nelson (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with the other commenters below that although this is a recent topic, it's almost certain to have lasting significance in the future (like Enron's collapse), far exceeding the significance of the other articles in the dab. If for some reason that changes in the future, another move can always be proposed with the new evidence of significance (or lack thereof). -M.nelson (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Note that I proposed this back in August [10]. 162 etc. (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A recently defunct company seems like an odd choice for a primary topic. It may be the overwhelmingly most popular article at the moment, but that appears to be down to the popularity of the company in the brief period in which it existed, and, to a larger extent, due to the ongoing media coverage (this week alone brought to the headlines fresh allegations of fraud and the arrest of the founder). It is possible that the collapse of the company may become the sort of event that continues to get talked about in the future and gets written into the textbooks, but that's far from guaranteed. I'm not seeing any indication that the sum of the other topics with the name will have smaller long-term significance. – Uanfala (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support although a recent topic, this is currently the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I suspect it will stay that, but if not we could move it back in the future. This is a very large bankruptcy case that will most likely be a case study for decades to come. The other topics are mostly referenced by other names anyway, this company isn't. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support it is at the center of one of the largest financial scandals in history. cookie monster 755 02:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to recency bias. If a year from now we are talking about it, we can again revisit the move. But considering the move right in the middle of likely peak media hype seems silly. Remember we have a cryptocurrency exchange failing almost every year, lets not make an extra special deal about this one. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I agree with M nelson, this is the most relevant article with the name FTX. Swordman97 talk to me 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. Wikipedia is not a "latest news" website. Primary topics for TLAs are rare. The current popularity is a WP:RECENT and probably transient phenomenon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. While the fall of the company is a timely event, due to the reported financial scale of the loss in the tens of billions of dollars, its legacy will be remembered and no doubt used as a historical reference and case study for decades. Just like Softcard chose to rebrand from "ISIS" to avoid confusion with the most common American English term for the Islamic State, it is unlikely that other meanings of "FTX" will rise to prominence for many years. ~PescoSo say•we all 21:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. News coverage of it rivals that of Enron, and some financial experts are comparing it to Enron. Given that it had already become a topic in university accounting lectures and the subject of case studies (massive WP:OR, I know), there's no reason to keep it on equal footing with other obscure subjects of the same name. Its failure has made it far more notable[11] than it was beforehand. DFlhb (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. None of the other entries at FTX are particularly important, this is going to be a clear primary topic for a long time. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This is always the first result on searches, so makes sense for this to be moved.Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

He was [[arraign]]ed in [[United States district court|federal court]] in [[Manhattan]] on January 3, 2023, and entered a [[Plea#No plea ntered|plea of not guilty]] to all counts. I'd recommend changing "ntered" to "entered" to fix the typo, and then remove the relevant banner advertising that broken anchor from the talk page. (Someone should also probably update the infobox's Revenue, Operating income, etc. to 2023, since I'm guessing a bankrupt company doesn't still have 300 employees and a billion-dollar revenue.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:40B:7EBF:EA5D:E37D (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I fixed the typo and removed the talk page banner. You're probably right about your assumptions re: the infobox in this specific case, but you should provide a reliable source to back up that part of the request. Pinchme123 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

notable lawsuit: colluded with Sotheby's to pseudonymously pump Bored Apes?

Worth adding a new section on notable lawsuits? Bored Ape seems like a notable connection that is as of yet unmentioned in the article, though the Bored Ape article notes FTX was an investor: "their investor, now defunct FTX"(citations in Bored Ape article).

E.g. from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/buyers-of-bored-ape-nfts-sue-after-digital-apes-turn-out-to-be-bad-investment/

Lawsuit: Sotheby's $24M sale to FTX gave Bored Ape NFTs "an air of legitimacy."

The boost to Bored Ape NFT prices provided by the auction "was rooted in deception," said the lawsuit filed in US District Court for the Central District of California. It wasn't revealed at the time of the auction that the buyer was the now-disgraced FTX, the lawsuit said.

"Sotheby's representations that the undisclosed buyer was a 'traditional' collector had misleadingly created the impression that the market for BAYC NFTs had crossed over to a mainstream audience," the lawsuit claimed.

Tantek (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend adding class action lawsuits to any articles until they've actually made some progress through the court system. There are probably at least a dozen FTX or FTX-adjacent class actions, some of which have received coverage in RS, but it's way too early to suggest they'll go anywhere. Furthermore, anyone can say just about anything when they file a lawsuit, and just because a claim has been made before a court doesn't mean that claim is necessarily accurate (or even rooted in reality). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"closely associated with FTX.US"

That's kind of understating matters, isn't it? According to the reconstructed structural charts SBF and Wang had a controlling interest in FTX US (identified as "Ledger Holdings"), and SBF used his own image to promote it. I think it would be accurate, and more informative, to say that "Bankman-Fried developed the FTX brand in the United States through another operating company, FTX US." 98.248.84.55 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Unable to edit this article

I was doing to correct a spelling error in this article, but was unable to do so because it appears to be blocked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What spelling error were you doing to correct? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Secondary source cited instead of primary source?

The claim that FTX was at one point the third-largest cryptocurrency exchange is attributed to "NPR" using this link: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/14/1136482889/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-shockwaves-crypto.

However, this article is just a republication of an Associated Press article. NPR attributes the article to "The Associated Press". The same article can be found on AP here: https://apnews.com/article/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-crypto-downfall-a2eaec231027dfd9f18426ff8982bbf8. There it is attributed to Ken Sweet, who is a writer for AP.

The odd thing is that the publication date for NPR is a few hours earlier than the AP one. However, the NPR article explicitly attributes it to the Associated Press so it seems pretty cut and dry that AP did the original publication. I think someone should change the citation to point to the AP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.84.202 (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

In the introduction, insert the missing space between "the Bahamas." and "FTX". 2A01:C22:3499:FE00:4FF4:16A0:83D5:10D0 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done NotAGenious (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

FTX Token 'White Paper': Broken Link

If you click on the 'FTT Whitepaper' link, it sends you to a google docs page you can't access.

Two questions: 1) Is there a way to fix this, does someone have a working link? 2) Does the 'ftx token' & white paper need its own section there? Feels like a footnote - if that ScottDNelson (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FTX/Archive_1&oldid=1216404427"