why a professional would lend their reputation and credibility to speculate in a blatant hit piece on the reasons for a particular commercial structuring arrangement that they had nothing to do with / are likely missing important information or context on is beyond me
and then to double down with comments like "indicate to me that there isn't a good [reason]" - "we need to clean up this space"
this must be a burger thing - there's a reason lawyers in most countries avoid the media like the plague
because you don't know what you don't know and you risk making yourself look like a fool
I'm quoted in this story and had to keep this close to the vest for a month+.
If the docs I was shown (and are now actually published) are accurate and complete this is one of the craziest things I've seen in crypto dealmaking.
I tried to choose my words carefully and I have nothing against berachain, in fact I always thought it was cool. I kept asking Jack if he'd gotten comment from the berachain team because I was really hoping I was missing something that would explain it all innocently, but as you will see from the article it appears no alternative explanation has been forthcoming, and the fact that there is no comment from Brevan Howard and nothing but a blanket denial from the Berachain team would indicate to me there isn't a good one.
We need to clean up this space, and tbh I think it's already happening with more public token sales, better legal structures, etc. But it's on all of us to do better.
to be clear - EVEN IF IT WERE (is? idkf) TRUE - and it's some all nefarious hustle - there is no upside here as a lawyer to allowing yourself to be quoted in a piece like this
1,818
17
本页面内容由第三方提供。除非另有说明，欧易不是所引用文章的作者，也不对此类材料主张任何版权。该内容仅供参考，并不代表欧易观点，不作为任何形式的认可，也不应被视为投资建议或购买或出售数字资产的招揽。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情况下，此类人工智能生成的内容可能不准确或不一致。请阅读链接文章，了解更多详情和信息。欧易不对第三方网站上的内容负责。包含稳定币、NFTs 等在内的数字资产涉及较高程度的风险，其价值可能会产生较大波动。请根据自身财务状况，仔细考虑交易或持有数字资产是否适合您。