What's ironic about Doug's whole online persona is that he's become exactly what he's rallied against for years.

Didn't Chris Ferguson feign ignorance over the FTP Ponzi scheme?

Wasn't Ferguson and Lederer's defense that that were just a couple guys, wearing a patch, getting a check every month and they had no idea how FTP really worked?

Not to mention that there's a whole thread dedicated on how more rake is better, as long as Doug owns the poker room.

Doug can try to finesse the poker community but as soon as YouTubers like Spencer Cornelia and others find out that a popular YouTube personality was involved in promoting a scam, then trying to claim ignorance.... he's going to have dozens of videos made about him making him look like an idiot.

Its irrelevant how they presented themselves or their reputations. Lots of scammers are very reputable people. What matters is what they are selling and being aware to recognise an obvious scam when its served up. You accept Doug was too trusting yet claim it wasn't his fault. That does not correlate. The key point here is that their product on its face was CLEARLY not deserving of the trust he gave it. 100% his fault. Its hilarious how this clown now has the audacity to come on here and deny any fault but not surprising.

And LOL at the ' guys i didnt make any money on this' defence lol. Point is YOU stood to make a crap load of money off this if the coin took off. All about greed.

This was my fault addressing a 20 post dude. I never claimed it wasn’t his fault.

On the bright side, at least Doug will never make another crypto video.

Your wife has good taste,

at least when it comes to forum avatars.

It's better to talk to a bussin poster with a sus post than it is to talk to a sus poster with a bussin post fr.

OMG this has to be 1 of the best 2+2 posts ever. Agree with all of it.

I read Doug's twitter feed today briefly and 1 guy tweeted he invested $20,000 and of course it's now worthless. And he invested the 20k because of Doug. What this man did to the poker community by promoting this was/is shameful.

This is to Doug, how on earth can you have any credibility ever again in the poker community?

This is just more proof that many in poker are scummy. Really sux.

Having an incredible unstable asset pegged 1:1 to the one of the safest currencies available is hilarious

Thinking 20% is normal shows you are unaware of the law of 72


If you don’t understand basic finance , how could you ever see this was a scam? Essentially Doug’s argument is that it was nigh impossible for him to see it was a scam. And given how little Doug knows about finance, he might even be correct

there are approx 0 people itt that understand how flexusd works yet everyone is an expert on the "obvious scam"

not defending coinflex or doug here, feel like they are probably both more at fault that they are letting on but i don't think the trust but not verify applies here.

the way these products work are complex and every exchange that offers them are at risk of margin funding to be under collateralized. poloniex, bitmex, okex, etc all have had similar issues in the past despite being much larger and more liquid exchanges. the problem is, during extreme market moves, positions like these aren't liquidated in time or the book liquidity isn't there in order to recover the collateral for margin lenders. I assume this was one of the cases where the position was so large vs. the book liquidity that it would have wiped out lenders and the bch book at the same time if it was forced to market close. Instead they kept it open in negative assuming that roger would eventually top up margin as he agreed to, which is pretty poor risk management not to at least start partially liquidating the position. without a doubt the position was opened fully collateralized but assets are volatile and issues cascade when (this is just speculation) there is a long on bch using bch as collateral on the position. I don't think this situation is as simple as, they lied about the site collateral, and there is a severe lack of understanding by everyone posting here about the actual issues at hand.

The look on his face when this guys he's interviewing is saying "hey throw all your money on here it's not a scam"
is pretty good too,

Dan Bilzerian will have fun with this one.

Bro, if Dan brought Doug on and did an interview that would be gold

Anyone with a brain does not need to know the complexities of X, to realise when something clearly sounds too good to be true.

Are you Carrycakes?

Anyway, clearly you understand this space better than probably everyone else here, but like the above poster said, you don’t need a deep understanding of CoinFLEX’s business model to recognize Lamb lied.

With the volatility of crypto it’s insane to not plan for the exact scenario you described. It’s criminally negligent to have your business depend on the word of someone to top up his margin and if he doesn’t then everyone else is ****ed.

That’s a bit of a strange take when there was already a ton of criticism on coinflex and their high yields prior to this crisis. Doug went as far as putting out a 100:1 bet on a rug pull happening. And now when indeed a rug pull is about to unfold you come in here with “bro you just don’t understand the mechanics of what is to be claimed a stablecoin”.

Intent and moral responsibility are two completely separate instances here. I do hold Doug in high esteem and think he’s a person of high integrity. This is exactly the reason why he’s receiving so much blowback on this. I (we) expect more of him than his current excuse, same excuse he would absolutely scorch people to the bottom of the earth for if it was someone else in the same situation.

of course i do considering none of you seem to understand anything, just love to chirp from the sidelines

there are multiple exchanges currently offering higher return on margin funding products similar to flexusd, none of it is guaranteed its a market either the funding rate traders are willing to pay to trade perps or the funding spread between perps and spot markets (can google "what is a basis trade" if you are still clueless). funding rates depend on asset and market, you could have made 10% a day at one point last month supplying luna coins, is that an "obvious scam"? or maybe there is infinite demand to borrow it and short on perps when the whole thing was falling apart. flexusd market yield is basically what the perp traders on the platform are willing to pay for it minus the fee the platform takes to execute the basis trade for you.

like i said in the post, coinflex had terrible risk management with rogers account not defending them there, they should have seen it coming. i don't see where lamb lied though you will have to explain that one, everything was fine on the exchange until the massive position got under water and the position didn't get liquidated.

I'm unclear on the argument you're trying to make because it all boils down to two things here.

A) What was supposed to happen

B) What really happened

It doesn't really matter what anyone in this thread thinks and it doesn't really matter what was supposed to happen.

All that really matter is: B) What really happened

If Doug gets sued and he ends up being deposed... he will be the one explaining what you're attempting to explain, under oath.

[Popcorn.gif]

Yea, and everything was fine on the Titanic until it hit that iceberg. What’s your point?

In the clip I posted Mark said people should put all their money into stable coins. If I felt like digging through YouTube I imagine it wouldn’t take long for me to find a video of Mark espousing the safety of stablecoins in general and his business specifically. Now no one can withdraw and their whole business is in jeopardy because of one failed position.

what's the point of just quoting that and ignoring everything else because you don't understand it at all? i even talk about how their risk management was terrible, they could have seen this coming, they should have started partial liquidations. something to learn here for other exchanges for sure. the flexusd product is fine is the point its just tied to an exchange that is now partially illiquid is the issue. everyone should be taking issue with the exchange operations side and not the stablecoin side of the matter. same risk occurs if exchange gets hacked for large amount, site management and opsec are different than the products they offer, there is no chance you could look at flexusd or any usd margin lending product and say thats a clear scam because of the interest rate return is too high, which seems to be what everyone is cluelessly posting about here.

Uhh, yea, I don’t understand what you’re talking about. Didn’t see the point in quoting your whole post since that last line was really the crux of the issue.

All my crypto is stuck on a Trezor. I have some friends that worked legal for blockchain.com and now another one at Kraken. They’ve tried to explain it to me a few times while we were getting drunk in Vegas but it might as well of been in Chinese. But I did buy some years ago and they told me to stick it in a cold wallet and forget it.

I guess someone sent up the pepe frog signal and you felt the need to come post here and explain how little everyone understands. Not sure I saw anyone claim to be an expert but whatever.

I thought the point of this thread was to discuss Polk’s involvement with CoinFLEX, and what responsibility he has to his audience. What you’re saying sounds boring, but smarter people are probably following it, so I encourage you to keep informing everyone (not being sarcastic).

Wait - it was a stablecoin that paid interest?
Can someone explain how that was supposed to be possible?
Isn't a stablecoin just like money - that you get - unless someone else holds and and/or can't withdraw it for X time - and in that case - wouldn't it be highly susceptible to becoming a Ponzi?


i.e. I exchange 10 bucks for 10 Euros, I now own those 10 euros and have it in my hand - how is it generating interest when others can't do anything with it?

i think trust but verify absolutely applies here, especially factoring your speculation hypothetical.

exchanges like coinflex can make a statement that is *factually correct* at the time for doug, but involve underlying weaknesses that blow them the **** out when real volatility actually happens. on a long enough timeframe "real volatility" is a certainty to happen and not building that safety measure is tantamount to suicide. letting daddy roger build up a big enough balance to make them pause withdrawals is an unforgivable failure. to make doug out like he's 100% innocent by strict virtue of not knowing the deep workings of the tail risk that led to failure, I just don't buy.

to say trust but verify doesn't apply here, to me, infers that on some level this was just bad luck and it can happen to anyone. that is chicken *****. i don't want to build out some kind of strawman so i won't go further, but it seems to me coinflex doesn't know what they're doing and Doug didn't do enough homework to stake his reputation on telling his followers to throw their money at a DeCeFi with garbage risk management protocols.

i'm pretty sure most people are taking issue with the exchange and with doug, getting overly sensitive on flexUSD being labeled a scam by noobs is a weird hill to die on. especially with rvUSD existing.