Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Turbostream's avatar

The FTX collapse was a systemic stress test that very few firms passed, and Amber being caught in the exposure is instructive precisely because Amber was considered one of the more sophisticated crypto market makers. The broader lesson is that counterparty risk in crypto was essentially invisible before November 2022 because the market had not experienced a centralized exchange failure at that scale. Firms like Amber had modeled exchange insolvency as a tail risk but were not hedged for simultaneous exchange collapse, credit freezing across lending desks, and client redemption pressure all hitting at once. The candor in how Michael describes the personal cost is valuable because it counters the narrative that crypto setbacks are just market cycles. When a firm has staff, clients, and long-term obligations, exchange failures create real operational crises, not just mark-to-market pain. The survival and rebuild arc matters because it speaks to what institutional-grade infrastructure in crypto actually requires from a risk management standpoint going forward.

No posts

Ready for more?