Gambles with customer funds -> looses -> passes losses to be bailed out through opaque means. This is really not that different than FTX, except it was legal. The current argument is they were incompetent and fell into some bad bets, this is the same argument Sam Bankman Fried tried to argue. Its all a facade
"passes losses to be bailed out through opaque means" isn't at all correct. Comparing SBF to to buying treasury bonds is somewhat laughable... let's focus on what actually happened instead.
Thats another misconception, there were mortgage backed securities and VC loans in their portfolio. The idea that this was purely about treasuries is another attempt at passing off the buck.
