🧵1/Ω
Let's talk about Metropolitan Community Bank (@MCBankNY, $MCB) one of the remaining publicly traded "crypto-friendly banks. Because the SEC filings look a lot like a mini-me version of our friend $SBNY.
Cash position down 90% YoY 👇
🧵2/Ω
$MCB has $2.2 billion - 42%! - in uninsured, non-interest bearing accounts.
In other words someone is willing to set $132 million a year on 🔥 because of inflation just to hold money in $MCB.
Why?
(note that $SIVB and $SBNY also had large non-interest bearing accounts)
🧵3/Ω
$MCB also of course has large unrecognized losses due to the "duration mismatch" problem that rekt $SI and $SIVB ¹.
¹ though other things rekt $SIVB even more...
🧵4/Ω
Also just like $SI and $SBNY, $MCB has started tapping its advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank system (#FHLB). However $MCB isn't primarily a residential lender and has less borrowing power.
🧵5/Ω
The critical $MCB numbers that are Not Good:
➤ $5.3 bn in deposits
➤ $5.2 bn in high flight risk deposits (!)
➤ $2.2 bn in **extremely** high flight risk deposits
vs.
➤ $257 mm cash
➤ $872 mm advance available from #FHLB
You see the problem here?
@MCBankNY Oops typo - should say $250mm instead of $230mm in $MCB deposits. Doesn't make a huge diff.
🧵6/Ω And this is **before** we even start talking about the fact that $MCB is the bank for #CryptoCom, which is a giant scam whose € bank accounts were already seized for money laundering.
🧵7/Ω Unfortunately for $MCB scam companies run by money launderers (#CryptoCom) have a habit of wiring all the money out as soon as feds start sniffing around.
We saw this with $SBNY... $17bn wired out at last minute. $1bn of $TUSD backing to #CapitalUnionBank in The Bahamas.
🧵8/Ω One more $MCB thing I just noticed: as of Dec. 31th the bank had $257 million in cash and $250 million in advances from the #FHLB.
So 97% of cash $MCB has on hand is from a government program to support home loans for the middle class.
Remind you of anyone? (hint: $SI)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵2/Ω
I have videos of these screenshots but the frame rate is broken and i'm too lazy to correct it right now, but Uzbekistan's #Agrobank hired Brock Pierce's favorite lobbyist and went to meet Ted Cruz and went to the White House:
Ω❓Ω
maybe nothing but interesting the total value of Tether's repo assets for 2023-Q4 is only 2% less than the collateralized assets listed on #CantorFitzgerald's 2023 filing
2/ maybe more likely to be nothing but Tether's infamous "Secured Loans" number is only 3% less than the "Securities purchased under agreements to resell" on the #CantorFitzgerald balance sheet
🧵1/Ω
Just read #Chainalysis "2024 Crypto Crime Mid-Year Report". Obvs they have a habit of minimizing crypto crime stats but reading closely I realized this is kinda nuts. So nuts I that we need new rhyme akin to "pump & dump" vein. I give you:
"Minimize & Legitimize"
Ω👇Ω
🧵2/Ω
The report has two parts. I focused on the 2nd half because it makes a big deal about CSAM. Surprisingly to me it seemed like Chainalysis was for once maybe not downplaying something really bad...
🧵3/Ω
Below is the tweet I dashed off as did a quick scan. CSAM is bad. If CSAM number go up = really bad. Looked like Chainalysis was admitting bad number go up!
Which, speaking as someone who's checked their work on terrorism financing, was surprising.
🧵1/Ω
It’s that time again. Gather round, children, for a thread about the closing arguments in the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried. #FTXTrial #FTXScam
Ω👇Ω
🧵2/Ω
The govt’s case revolves around a few things but fundamentally it’s about risks that were not disclosed to customers/investors.
According to the govt not only were these risks not disclosed SBF took steps to conceal them. Which is, you know, a crime
Text from my 📌 twt 👇
🧵3/Ω
It’s conceded by everyone including SBF himself that there were undisclosed risks so the question becomes one of intent. The govt’s argument is that the many steps taken to conceal the risks reveal ill intent. SBF's argument is basically "being irresponsible is not illegal"
🧵1/Ω
Thoughts from SBF’s 2nd day of cross examination:
Today went very, very badly for Mr. Bankman-Fried but it was still kind of a shame the jury didn’t get to witness the absolute train wreck of his first attempt especially this part:
🧵2/Ω
Things got off to a rough start when SBF tried to say that the million and one times he claimed that Alameda was just like any other FTX customer in every way he secretly was communicating that “every way” meant “one way”: Alameda didn’t front run FTX's customers.
🧵3/Ω
Cue AUSA bringing up approximately a bazillion tweets, emails, slack messages, etc. where SBF said Alameda was just like any other customer followed by the question “does it say ‘in terms of frontrunning customers’ here?”
1. I never imagined it would be so grimly satisfying to watch a man hang himself before my eyes. The only disappointing part was that today wasn’t in front of the jury.
🧵2/Ω
SBF’s “my view from the perspective of the data I had available to me at the time” and “I’ll try to answer the question I think yr asking”¹ schtick did not play well with the judge.
¹ he actually said this, after which the prosecutor said “you didn’t answer my question".
🧵3/Ω
His testimony today was about whether he would be able to use the “but my lawyer said it was OK” defense in front of the jury. Let me summarize how it went: