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
1,804
17
本頁面內容由第三方提供。除非另有說明，OKX 不是所引用文章的作者，也不對此類材料主張任何版權。該內容僅供參考，並不代表 OKX 觀點，不作為任何形式的認可，也不應被視為投資建議或購買或出售數字資產的招攬。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情況下，此類人工智能生成的內容可能不準確或不一致。請閱讀鏈接文章，瞭解更多詳情和信息。OKX 不對第三方網站上的內容負責。包含穩定幣、NFTs 等在內的數字資產涉及較高程度的風險，其價值可能會產生較大波動。請根據自身財務狀況，仔細考慮交易或持有數字資產是否適合您。