{"id":175,"date":"2022-11-15T05:21:33","date_gmt":"2022-11-15T05:21:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milkyeggs.com\/?p=175"},"modified":"2023-10-30T22:53:58","modified_gmt":"2023-10-30T22:53:58","slug":"what-happened-at-alameda-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milkyeggs.com\/crypto\/what-happened-at-alameda-research\/","title":{"rendered":"What happened at Alameda Research"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
If you want to read a poorly researched fluff piece about Sam Bankman-Fried, feel free to go to the New York Times<\/a> (PDF)<\/a>. If you want to understand what happened at Alameda Research and how Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), Sam Trabucco, and Caroline Ellison incinerated over $20 billion dollars of fund profits and FTX user deposits, read this article. (And follow me on Twitter at @0xfbifemboy<\/a>!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n To be clear, we still don’t have a perfect understanding of what exactly happened at Alameda Research and FTX. However, at this point, I feel that we have enough information to get a grasp on the broad strokes. Through a combination of Twitter users’ investigations, forum anecdotes, and official news releases, the history of these two intertwined companies becomes progressively less hazy, slowly coalescing into something resembling a consistent narrative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, without witness testimonies and a full financial investigation, our claims only remain tentative at best. Any given piece of information may be flawed or even fabricated. However, if they are assembled together and put in context, they together lend credence to the following timeline:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Details follow below. (Many thanks to all those who have contributed to this article, be it through private discussions or through public content that I’ve quoted or otherwise relied upon.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alameda Research probably lost >$15 billion <\/strong>dollars<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n To understand the FTX bankruptcy, we have to first understand the scope of the problem at hand. Most news accounts seem to portray the scale of the bankruptcy as relatively small. For example, the New York Times<\/a> suggests that user deposits were used to make up for money that had gone into venture investments:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, at a meeting with Alameda employees on Wednesday, Ms. Ellison explained what had caused the collapse, according to a person familiar with the matter. Her voice shaking, she apologized, saying she had let the group down. Over recent months, she said, Alameda had taken out loans and used the money to make venture capital investments, among other expenditures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Around the time the crypto market crashed this spring, Ms. Ellison explained, lenders moved to recall those loans, the person familiar with the meeting said. But the funds that Alameda had spent were no longer easily available, so the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Similarly, Matt Levine’s column<\/a> seems to imply that the drop in the value of FTT used as collateral resulted in an enormous imbalance between assets and liabilities:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now let\u2019s add one more crypto element. If you are a crypto exchange, you might issue your own crypto token. FTX issues a token called FTT. The attributes of this token are, like, it entitles you to some discounts and stuff, but the main attribute is that FTX periodically uses a portion of its profits to buy back FTT tokens. This makes FTT kind of like stock in FTX: The higher FTX\u2019s profits are, the higher the price of FTT will be. It is not actually stock in FTX \u2014 in fact FTX is a company and has stock and venture capitalists bought it, etc. \u2014 but it is a lot like stock in FTX. FTT is a bet on FTX\u2019s future profits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it is also a crypto token, which means that a customer can come to you and post $100 worth of FTT as collateral and borrow $50 worth of Bitcoin, or dollars, or whatever, against that collateral, just as they would with any other token. Or something; you might set the margin requirements higher or lower, letting customers borrow 25% or 50% or 95% of the value of their FTT token collateral.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Both of these accounts miss a crucial part of the story. First, FTX is missing about $8 billion dollars’ worth of users’ collateral. Even if you consider the sum total of venture investments made by FTX and Alameda together, as well as a marginal drop in collateral value as a result of an FTT price decline, it simply does not make sense for FTX to be $8b in debt. The losses would be significant,<\/em> yes, but they alone do not constitute a sufficient explanation for FTX’s bankruptcy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to that, it was popularly believed that FTX and Alameda together were enormously profitable, as a result of:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although it is difficult to put an exact dollar value to their estimated profits, it was believed that these avenues, especially the lucrative venture deals, were responsible for at least $10b in profit between Alameda and FTX combined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are therefore left with an even greater mystery. Somehow, it seems as though Alameda and FTX managed to burn through >$15 billion dollars’ worth of profits (likely more). This is an incredible shortfall, and, remarkably, no comprehensive account to date has emerged showing exactly how this came about!<\/p>\n\n\n\n We may never really know where all of the money went. However, we provide a number of separate hypotheses which, if combined together, could plausibly account for losses of $15 billion or more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alameda’s market-making edge decayed and they started punting longs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n There has typically been a perception of Alameda as an extremely competent and profitable market maker. But is this perception actually accurate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n First of all, it’s worth noting that although the inner circle’s backgrounds (SBF and Caroline from Jane Street, Trabucco from SIG) are impressive, they are not exceptional. Having several years’ worth of experience at a trading firm does not make you a genius\u30fcthe top tier of such firms hires well over a hundred new employees every year. In a podcast<\/a> from 2019, SBF brags about making predictions on the timescale of 1-2 seconds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sam:<\/strong> Yes. A lot of exchanges have, if nothing else, volume-based features, and often we can get in the top tier there, and that does help a fair bit, especially when it comes to eeking out a business plan. [\u2026] That\u2019s nothing. You made one basis point. If you guess randomly, maybe moderately right, about what Bitcoin is going to do in the next two seconds, maybe you make a basis point.<\/strong> [00:22:30] But if you can actually do that on one billion dollars a day of volume, then you can do the math, that\u2019s actually a lot of money. We can\u2019t always do that, but it sort of does mean that at some volume scale, you really do get down to, everything matters. Every little edge matters. So there is some of that. A lot of exchanges reach out to us about being liquidity fighters. We do do that on some exchanges. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While this might have been considered highly competitive in 2019-era crypto markets, it is a far cry from the microsecond-level precision of market making in traditional finance. (N.B.: Typically microsecond-level precision refers to a slightly different concept; however, even prediction of directional price movement takes place at timescales much lower than two seconds!) Such strategies may have served well three years ago, but as larger, extremely competent, and well capitalized market makers like Tower and XTX began to trade cryptocurrency markets, it is plausible that Alameda slowly lost its edge, much as Doug Colkitt suggests<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What do you do when:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Your natural inclination, of course, is to neglect your market-making activities and join the punters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several statements from Alameda’s executives themselves bolster this theory. For example, Trabucco describes a news-based trading strategy in April of 2021:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n