I’m not going to bet on this market anymore (except perhaps to close my position). Besides, my reputation on here is worth more to me than the Ṁ125 I stand to gain. Still, I’d like to understand the reasoning of those betting NO. The odds on this market have never as low since it was created in September.

Anyone care to explain?

@RobinBruce My rationale, which looks a little silly in hindsight: The state doesn't put ultra rich people in jail, so he'll just get probation / house arrest and won't need to disappear, similar case made here: https://decrypt.co/206905/will-binance-founder-changpeng-zhao-go-to-prison

@fwbt Most rich people just commit fraud. Crypto people, on the other hand, are picking a fight with the government -- trying to replace it the same way Uber is trying to replace your local cabbie.

Uber might succeed. The crypto people won't. The government has guns, nuclear weapons, control over the SWIFT system, and maximum security prisons. Crypto people have software and self righteousness.

Oh, and the crypto people wanted to challenge the government monopoly on enforcing contract and property rights too. Challenging the government's monopoly on money wasn't enough: they also wanted to go for property and law too.

Terrible idea. Deeply stupid.

CZ is doomed because governments need to make an example out of someone. He made himself the face of crypto insouciance. He basically said "we have no headquarters, we have no compliance, we have no home country -- catch us if you can."

Somehow the US convinced CZ to voluntarily leave a country with no extradition treaty with the US so he could plead guilty to felonies on US soil. Can you imagine what must have been happening behind the scenes to make that happen? That's a story to chase, if you can. What was the US Government's leverage? My guess is that the USDOJ was essentially able to hold some important people or money hostage and CZ knew he was done.

Is there any major government that likes a crypto guy right now? I doubt it. Even Russia is happy to do settlements in RMB. Is the UAE going to go out of its way to save him? He's not worth it.

If the probability that a person can be caught goes down because technology and offshore havens make it harder to get caught, then guess what has to happen: the penalties have to go way, way up. Expect the penalties for messing with currency and money laundering to skyrocket.

Something similar happened when the US realized that suicide bombers could not be deterred within their legal system but they posed a major threat to the nation. (I'll leave the rest of that argument as an exercise for the reader.)

Do not fuck with the state. Crypto people thought that software would save them from prison. They're naive. They will learn the hard way.

Given that crypto's only demonstrated use cases are money laundering, fraud, gambling, drugs, circumventing capital controls (which, by the way, are the reason that most rich countries are rich -- meaning that crypto is kicking out the rungs for the developing world), and child abuse pornography, I'll be glad to see each crypto bro behind bars.

@HarrisonLucas I kinda have to "break character" a bit and be opinionated here against my better judgment, and not because I disagree but because this really chimes with me.

I think the "revolt" against the government that crypto represents could be taken more seriously if crypto advocates didn't bawl their eyes out the when the government takes them at at their word and fights back - if they were really trying to pull off what they claim there would be some degree of discipline and craftiness to this supposed effort to dislodge all existing monetary and legal systems - and at the very least a bit of stoic fatalism when you come at the King and miss.

The sobbing and cries of "no fair" when the supposed demon you're trying to slay fights back - it shows this whole space for what is - a toddlers' revolt against mummy - as a technical feat, it's just a NO-OP in the great tech hype cycle between smartphones and LLMs.

I’m chewing over the wording on this, wish I had been clearer initially - the original wording was “in jail” it’s now “in prison” to be clearer that pre-trial detention doesn’t count.

I think it’s still yes if he goes to prison and completes his sentence before 2030 - the stricter interpretation would be that he was on prison on the end date. The “by” wording pushes me to the broader definition, if it had been “on” it would be different

suddenly more relevant

What about house arrest?

@fwbt I think YES is for conviction or evasion of justice, NO is for acquittals, non-custodial sentences or incomplete process.

That would make house arrest NO, unless it is a form of post-conviction imprisonment