Everything SBF is doing is in singular pursuit of not going to jail(newsletter.mollywhite.net)
newsletter.mollywhite.net
Everything SBF is doing is in singular pursuit of not going to jail
https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/everything-sam-bankman-fried-is-doing
543 comments
Not a lawyer, but I'll piggyback to say that the inevitable indictment will likely require proving criminal intent, specifically that SBF knowingly and willingly engaged in fraud. The Justice Department won't indict SFB until they have ironclad evidence demonstrating as much.
Consider a rushed indictment: SBF can always invoke his right for a speedy trial (i.e., the prosecutors must be ready for trial within 6 months of indictment). The prosecution would thus be in the ineviable position of simultaneously gathering evidence and building the case. Alternatively, they could wait to indict until after they've gathered evidence, which will give them ample time to meticulously build a case against him.
Since the harm of losing the case is greater than the harm of letting him roam free for a couple years, a delayed indictment seems like the clearly better option.
Consider a rushed indictment: SBF can always invoke his right for a speedy trial (i.e., the prosecutors must be ready for trial within 6 months of indictment). The prosecution would thus be in the ineviable position of simultaneously gathering evidence and building the case. Alternatively, they could wait to indict until after they've gathered evidence, which will give them ample time to meticulously build a case against him.
Since the harm of losing the case is greater than the harm of letting him roam free for a couple years, a delayed indictment seems like the clearly better option.
Yes, and as former federal prosecutor and current white-collar defense attorney Ken White explains on Twitter, moving too fast also prevents them from using their best tools: flipping witnesses for lying and the Grand Jury.
His really good thread starts here: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1600877380683280384
His really good thread starts here: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1600877380683280384
> a speedy trial (i.e., the prosecutors must be ready for trial within 6 months of indictment).
It's 71 days for federal trials, not six months. I know, it's a nit.
It's 71 days for federal trials, not six months. I know, it's a nit.
I wonder if this counts for the people in DC jail for Jan 6, or is that some quasi-federal thing since DC is a district by itself? But then I’d think it was at least somewhat a federal matter, and a speedy trial, one would hope, should apply at any level.
In principle the right to speedy trial applies to all federal defendants, and DC is under federal jurisdiction. But a speedy trial, while a good right to have, is a difficult one to exercise. IIUC, and IANAl, you have to exercise it in early proceedings, but in early proceedings the defendant is at a disadvantage because prosecutors have had ample time to prepare and they knew they were going to indict while the defendant did not, so the defendant has 71 days to prepare a defense while the prosecutors had no time limit in preparing their case. I suspect few defendants ever demand a speedy trial.
The right to a speedy trial may well have been incorporated against the States, but I don't know. In any case, a speedy trial mostly seems to mean that there must be a statutory limit to how much time can pass between indictment and the start of the trial, and between the start of a trial and closing arguments. Different States have different limits, and the variation in those limits surely must be constitutionally allowed, provided that in general they are a) statutory, b) not very long. I suspect a State could get away with 90 days from indictment.
EDIT: Defendants don't actually get to waive the right to a speedy trial, but if they don't assert that right, then they don't get to ask for dismissal of charges due to violations of the right to a speedy trial.
The right to a speedy trial may well have been incorporated against the States, but I don't know. In any case, a speedy trial mostly seems to mean that there must be a statutory limit to how much time can pass between indictment and the start of the trial, and between the start of a trial and closing arguments. Different States have different limits, and the variation in those limits surely must be constitutionally allowed, provided that in general they are a) statutory, b) not very long. I suspect a State could get away with 90 days from indictment.
EDIT: Defendants don't actually get to waive the right to a speedy trial, but if they don't assert that right, then they don't get to ask for dismissal of charges due to violations of the right to a speedy trial.
> The right to a speedy trial may well have been incorporated against the States,
The right to a speedy trial is incorporated against the states, yes. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967).
> a speedy trial mostly seems to mean that there must be a statutory limit to how much time can pass between indictment and the start of the trial
No, it doesn’t, nor does it provide such fixed limits on its own, instead being applied lookong at reasonableness case by case. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 providing federal limits was largely a reaction to this, rather than required by it.
The right to a speedy trial is incorporated against the states, yes. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967).
> a speedy trial mostly seems to mean that there must be a statutory limit to how much time can pass between indictment and the start of the trial
No, it doesn’t, nor does it provide such fixed limits on its own, instead being applied lookong at reasonableness case by case. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 providing federal limits was largely a reaction to this, rather than required by it.
I was referring to the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, since the amendment itself does not set such limits, the question is: what does "a speedy trial" mean? I've not looked at case law, but ISTM that having statutory limits and remedies must be a big component of what the right actually means.
What does "incorporated against" mean?
Federal courts (including in DC) issued emergency orders tolling Speedy Trial Act timelines during the pandemic (this impacts the statutory timelines, the Constitutional guarantee, which is enforced with a multifactor balancing test, is unimpacted.)
Wow! Opinion zone but this shouldn’t be allowed at all, public health is a necessary evil, it shouldn’t trample on individual rights.
The Supreme Court has made it quite clear ‘the constitution is not a suicide pact’. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_su...]
Public health is one of the clearest legitimate reasons to infringe on individual rights in an emergency.
Public health is one of the clearest legitimate reasons to infringe on individual rights in an emergency.
> It's 71 days for federal trials
70 days from indictment or arraignment to trial, 30 days from arrest to information or indictment, under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. But those timelines can be paused for many reasons. (Enforcement of the Constitutional rule does not use a hard timeline, but looks holistically at the length, reason, ans effect of delay and whether and how the defendant has asserted his right.)
70 days from indictment or arraignment to trial, 30 days from arrest to information or indictment, under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. But those timelines can be paused for many reasons. (Enforcement of the Constitutional rule does not use a hard timeline, but looks holistically at the length, reason, ans effect of delay and whether and how the defendant has asserted his right.)
Thanks for the correction!
71 days vs 6 months is a pretty big difference though, less of a nit than you think!
I was summoned for a grand jury recently (not selected) and the entire process takes up to 18 months just for the potential indictment process.
The grand jury part of the process has nothing to do with the speedy trial clause because a) the grand jury part of the process is non-adversarial (so the potential defendant doesn't even know about it), b) it precedes indictment.
It does have to do with speedy trial, if the accused is arrested prior to indictment, since speedy trial rights attach at the first of any of a number of places, including arrest. (In the federal system, there is a 30 day clock for indictment or information from arrest.)
Thanks for the correction!
> specifically that SBF knowingly and willingly engaged in fraud
He very well may go to prison for something other than defrauding FTX customers. See Al Capone for tax evasion and Elizabeth Holmes for defrauding investors (not patients).
He very well may go to prison for something other than defrauding FTX customers. See Al Capone for tax evasion and Elizabeth Holmes for defrauding investors (not patients).
Also Billy Mitchell of Fyre Festival... wire fraud instead of bilking his concert attendees.
> Billy Mitchell of Fyre Festival
You mean Billy McFarland. Billy Mitchell appears entirely innocent of this ;-)
You mean Billy McFarland. Billy Mitchell appears entirely innocent of this ;-)
For instance some of the money may really be gone but if he has tries to hide any of it he can get busted for that act. I don’t think it is safe for him to travel to the US or many other jurisdictions right now.
What would you say is different about this case, or what about the environment has changed, as compared to Madoff in 2008?
> What would you say is different about this case, or what about the environment has changed, as compared to Madoff in 2008?
Madoff confessed to his sons and said he was imminently going to surrender to authorities, his sons called the FBI, the FBI interviewed him at home (no arrest, no warrant, no indictment), and he confessed to the scheme being a large scale fraud to the FBI.
And Madoff was physically within US jurisdiction.
And Madoff had much clearer records and much less complicated an organization that the FTX network of companies, which seems to have been highly optimized to conceal specific evidence of fraud and theft by, between, and by insiders against the companies in the network.
Madoff confessed to his sons and said he was imminently going to surrender to authorities, his sons called the FBI, the FBI interviewed him at home (no arrest, no warrant, no indictment), and he confessed to the scheme being a large scale fraud to the FBI.
And Madoff was physically within US jurisdiction.
And Madoff had much clearer records and much less complicated an organization that the FTX network of companies, which seems to have been highly optimized to conceal specific evidence of fraud and theft by, between, and by insiders against the companies in the network.
Madoff was also involved in a highly regulated industry. That's one thing that confuses me about all of this. A main selling point - probably _the_ main selling point - for crypto has been that it allows users to avoid the current legal framework. And that was also the main reason FTX gave for moving to the Bahamas - there was much less regulations.
It's strange to see people actively seeking a space outside of the government's legal jurisdiction, and then getting incensed that the government isn't entering that jurisdiction more quickly to protect them when things inevitably go sideways.
It's strange to see people actively seeking a space outside of the government's legal jurisdiction, and then getting incensed that the government isn't entering that jurisdiction more quickly to protect them when things inevitably go sideways.
You’re confusing things. Centralized exchanges like FTX are acting as asset custodians in the same way as a bank, or a stock broker. FTX is not a cryptocurrency.
Crypto users that espouse freedom from government are usually talking about being able to use crypto, on chain, without government interference. They don’t want to be taxed for using bitcoin as a currency, be able to use decentralized services without complex regulations and tax laws, etc. etc
I’ve never heard the case made that asset custodians should be able to steal assets from their customers regardless of the underlying asset.
Crypto users that espouse freedom from government are usually talking about being able to use crypto, on chain, without government interference. They don’t want to be taxed for using bitcoin as a currency, be able to use decentralized services without complex regulations and tax laws, etc. etc
I’ve never heard the case made that asset custodians should be able to steal assets from their customers regardless of the underlying asset.
[deleted]
It is so convenient that Madoff was the single mastermind behind everything and his children knew absolutely nothing.
When the scam fell apart he even confessed to them so they could immediatelly report him to the FBI.
After all they didnt know anything!
He definitely did everything on his own and definitely didnt make this move to save his children.
The fact that Madoff is the only one in prison while his innocent children and innocent employees are free shows that the justice system works!
When the scam fell apart he even confessed to them so they could immediatelly report him to the FBI.
After all they didnt know anything!
He definitely did everything on his own and definitely didnt make this move to save his children.
The fact that Madoff is the only one in prison while his innocent children and innocent employees are free shows that the justice system works!
The story of what happened to Bernie's family after he confessed is pretty tragic. Definitely appears as if they were just as surprised as everyone else, and struggled to cope with the dishonesty and destruction caused by a close family member.
One of his sons, Mark, committed suicide on the 2 year anniversary of Bernie's arrest. It was his second attempt. The suicide note he left (his first attempt) read in part: "Now you know how you have destroyed the lives of your sons by your life of deceit. F*ck you"
Let's be careful before rushing to judgment.
One of his sons, Mark, committed suicide on the 2 year anniversary of Bernie's arrest. It was his second attempt. The suicide note he left (his first attempt) read in part: "Now you know how you have destroyed the lives of your sons by your life of deceit. F*ck you"
Let's be careful before rushing to judgment.
Madoff admitted to his crimes so it was easy to arrest him right away.
Ken Lay, who did not admit to crimes, took 3 years to be indicted and then was convicted.
Ken Lay, who did not admit to crimes, took 3 years to be indicted and then was convicted.
And IIRC then died before penalties could be assessed so his widow got all of his ill-gotten gains scot-free.
So $2.5 million isn't nothing (not by a long shot), but 'scot-free' is probably not a fair characterization, especially considering she has a conservator monitoring all her purchases now (to make sure she's not hiding cash).[1]
Plus her sons, who actually turned their dad in: one killed himself over this, and the other died of lymphoma (won't comment on psychological stress, but you have to imagine the fallout from the scandal didn't help).
[1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/06/ruth_madoff_...
Plus her sons, who actually turned their dad in: one killed himself over this, and the other died of lymphoma (won't comment on psychological stress, but you have to imagine the fallout from the scandal didn't help).
[1]https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/06/ruth_madoff_...
I was talking about Ken Lay, not Madoff. Sorry if that was unclear.
No he wasn't. He died before the appeal was finished so the conviction was vacated.
What I love about Hacker News is that a person can be convicted of a crime, die while still convicted of that crime, but then have the conviction thrown out after they have left this mortal plane and someone will still be like "Ummm actually he was never convicted of any crimes"
I guess I'm glad that Alan Turing was never convicted of 'Gross Indecency' then! Makes the UK look a lot more progressive!
I guess I'm glad that Alan Turing was never convicted of 'Gross Indecency' then! Makes the UK look a lot more progressive!
For those curious how that works see [1]. How common is this? I don’t recall ever hearing about it, even though I went to law school. I don’t know if I just forgot about or it just never came up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abatement_ab_initio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abatement_ab_initio
[deleted]
Madoff was arrested fast because his sons went to prosecutors and admitted to the fraud. That's very strong evidence + direct witnesses vs. here where they have to prove fraud and gather evidence.
Madoff confessed.
I agree with you, HOWEVER, we have yet to see or hear rumors of any type of search warrant(s) being executed in the Bahamas or the US.
As we saw with the Fyre Festival guy and other similar fraud cases, the government wants to move quickly to secure physical hard drives. In the case of that dude, Fyre happened on Thursday and they executed a search warrant at his apartment on Monday morning.
It’s possible that grand jury subpoenas have already been issued and served, but that doesn’t typically generate the criminal intent evidence they will need for this case.
We also know from former employees that routine business was typically discussed on Signal. That’s probably not a great sign for the government as they will need physical access to the devices used OR they will need to snag an iCloud (or other) device backup and grab the contents from there.
Your points about a speedy trial and losing a case are generally valid BUT the DOJ can always opt to file a superseding indictment once he is in custody. I don’t know the full deal with Extradition from the Bahamas but it’s likely it will take some time (several months). Despite this being a white collar case the government will absolutely seek to keep him incarcerated given his flight risk and resources unaccounted for. Anything he’s embezzled from FTX in the span shortly before bankruptcy will be used by the DOJ as proof he has hidden resources.
Remember, in pretrial arguments, they can come up with pretty far fetched or ridiculous arguments that have no merit or bearing later on. For example, in the case of Marcus Hutchins (the WannaCry kid), prosecutors argued he was potentially violent because he visited a shooting range several days prior. He was, in fact, in Las Vegas for DEFCON and went to one of many shooting ranges advertised on the Strip.
As we saw with the Fyre Festival guy and other similar fraud cases, the government wants to move quickly to secure physical hard drives. In the case of that dude, Fyre happened on Thursday and they executed a search warrant at his apartment on Monday morning.
It’s possible that grand jury subpoenas have already been issued and served, but that doesn’t typically generate the criminal intent evidence they will need for this case.
We also know from former employees that routine business was typically discussed on Signal. That’s probably not a great sign for the government as they will need physical access to the devices used OR they will need to snag an iCloud (or other) device backup and grab the contents from there.
Your points about a speedy trial and losing a case are generally valid BUT the DOJ can always opt to file a superseding indictment once he is in custody. I don’t know the full deal with Extradition from the Bahamas but it’s likely it will take some time (several months). Despite this being a white collar case the government will absolutely seek to keep him incarcerated given his flight risk and resources unaccounted for. Anything he’s embezzled from FTX in the span shortly before bankruptcy will be used by the DOJ as proof he has hidden resources.
Remember, in pretrial arguments, they can come up with pretty far fetched or ridiculous arguments that have no merit or bearing later on. For example, in the case of Marcus Hutchins (the WannaCry kid), prosecutors argued he was potentially violent because he visited a shooting range several days prior. He was, in fact, in Las Vegas for DEFCON and went to one of many shooting ranges advertised on the Strip.
For Elizabeth Holmes, the original articles which brought her down came out in 2015. She was indicted 2018. She was sentenced 2022. These things take time and the Fed is very thorough. I'm fairly confident SBF is going to get jail time. How much, IDK. It is fascinating to see someone craft their lying in real-time, though.
For the sake of conversation; what happens if it can’t be proven that SBF engaged in fraud? Can criminal charges for negligence be brought forth? I’d imagine there’s a ton of civili liability in this whole mess.
Also, there is considerable career risk involved for the prosecutor. This is a high-profile case and the prosecutors can say goodbye to whatever ambitions they have if they botch this.
Double jeopardy also means no one gets to try again if it's fucked up.
Please. Some partner in A16Z is already working on the term sheet of SBF's next startup.
Is there anything to prevent him from moving to a country without a US extradition treaty in the meantime? That seems like a pretty big risk of waiting too long.
Make a list of the countries that don't have an extradition treaty.
Then cross off the countries that have people you screwed or governments that might find it politically advantageous to prosecute you. And then cross off the countries that might send you back even without an extradition treaty.
And then cross off countries that have worse internet than prison.
What's left?
Then cross off the countries that have people you screwed or governments that might find it politically advantageous to prosecute you. And then cross off the countries that might send you back even without an extradition treaty.
And then cross off countries that have worse internet than prison.
What's left?
>likely require proving criminal intent
Yes, and there's plenty of that, have you read his Twitter timeline? Have you seen his interviews, etc? The guy's indicting himself, lol.
Yes, and there's plenty of that, have you read his Twitter timeline? Have you seen his interviews, etc? The guy's indicting himself, lol.
> the inevitable indictment will likely require proving criminal intent, specifically that SBF knowingly and willingly engaged in fraud. The Justice Department won't indict SFB until they have ironclad evidence demonstrating as much.
IANAL but I'm not sure that's true. I believe they can charge him with fraud or negligence. The latter carries lesser penalties, and everything SBF is doing now is trying to steer the inevitable indictment in that direction.
IANAL but I'm not sure that's true. I believe they can charge him with fraud or negligence. The latter carries lesser penalties, and everything SBF is doing now is trying to steer the inevitable indictment in that direction.
Which exact federal crime do you mean by ‘negligence’ exactly?
The various fraud statutes require intent.
The various fraud statutes require intent.
Relevant cite for what counts as intent to defraud for US federal stuff anyway.
‘Reckless indifference for truth or falsity’ and "The requisite intent under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence."
It’s not a super high bar to clear in this case.
[https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...]
‘Reckless indifference for truth or falsity’ and "The requisite intent under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances and need not be proven by direct evidence."
It’s not a super high bar to clear in this case.
[https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...]
[deleted]
He just has to skip up and lie to the feds once. Then he can and will be prosecuted for lying to federal agents.
Or, more likely, he just won’t talk to them.
[deleted]
does lack of intent waive responsibility for criminal negligence?
there are different charges for intentional vs non-intentional crime, with usually more lenient sentencing for non-intentional crime, so the distinction does matter
The legal definition of fraud requires intent
If you take the feds at their word, they seem to consider 'reckless disregard for the truth' as a stand-in for intent.
Depending on how connected you are.
Elizabeth Holmes was pretty well connected. She heads off to jail in April.
Also, contrary to popular claims made here and everwhere else, the prison she's going to does in fact seem to have fences. With razorwire even.
Also, contrary to popular claims made here and everwhere else, the prison she's going to does in fact seem to have fences. With razorwire even.
-This did not age well :)
Ha! I guess I should've predicted a "couple days" instead of a "couple years". Still, I hope people now realize that "failure" to indict immediately is not the same as failure to indict.
I think part of it is people not following his latest interviews. I was one of those thinking he wouldn't spend a day in jail, however he then proceeded to open his mouth and, in public interviews (Twitter spaces in particular) on the record admitted to a whole host of crimes. Coffeezilla in particular has done excellent work (NYTimes, WaPo, a youtuber with no budget is doing better investigative journalism than you): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo
It would be like if Epstein just came out on a public interview and said "yeah I hosted a pedophile ring for global elites as part of a CIA operation to get dirt on foreign nationals, in particular these ones: <insert list of names> but I didn't know what I was doing!"
I don't see how SBF can walk back all of his very public admissions to date. "Oh I was lying in all of those just to troll the internet", but then he can't make any statement in his own defense. He must really be one of those liars who believes his own bullshit, that's the only explanation for his behavior. He's totally going to jail at this point
It would be like if Epstein just came out on a public interview and said "yeah I hosted a pedophile ring for global elites as part of a CIA operation to get dirt on foreign nationals, in particular these ones: <insert list of names> but I didn't know what I was doing!"
I don't see how SBF can walk back all of his very public admissions to date. "Oh I was lying in all of those just to troll the internet", but then he can't make any statement in his own defense. He must really be one of those liars who believes his own bullshit, that's the only explanation for his behavior. He's totally going to jail at this point
While I do think that what Coffeezilla did was a terrific piece of journalism I still don't think that what SBF has fessed up to alone can be evidence of fraud. He has admitted to breaking the terms of services with his users but I didn't hear an admission of intent. He can still plead negligence in this case.
Don't get me wrong, I think that doing all of these interviews is really the nail in his coffin. I don't see how anyone can watch these interviews and not think that what this guy did was criminal. I could imagine in an alternate universe, where he just kept his mouth shut, SBF could get some kind of deal if he helps the bankruptcy courts claw back some of the assets improperly paid.
This guy is clearly a narcist who thinks that he will be able to win this in the court of public opinion by smiling at the camera and paying lip service.
Don't get me wrong, I think that doing all of these interviews is really the nail in his coffin. I don't see how anyone can watch these interviews and not think that what this guy did was criminal. I could imagine in an alternate universe, where he just kept his mouth shut, SBF could get some kind of deal if he helps the bankruptcy courts claw back some of the assets improperly paid.
This guy is clearly a narcist who thinks that he will be able to win this in the court of public opinion by smiling at the camera and paying lip service.
SBF is incredibly, blindingly, arrogant. He thinks he can secure his freedom by proclaiming incompetence to anyone who will listen, but along the way happens to occasionally admit doing some very illegal things.
I imagine he is running his mouth in every ill-advised way possible so that when he goes to trial his lawyer can argue he is way too stupid to have knowingly committed a crime.
Thankfully stupidity is even less a defense for crime than ignorance.
I feel like we're looking at a new type of narcissism and sociopathy, a generation whose criminals were weaned on social media and virtue signaling. Same old grift, adapted and weaponized in new forms for the digital era.
Coffeezilla is awesome to sniff out the BS.
Seeing SBF and saying 'look how corrupt America/NYT is' feels like deflection from the more obvious 'look how corrupt Crypto is.'
Crypto exchanges certainly seem to be geared towards fraudulent activities, and they've lured investors in with promises of high returns. The whole so-called 'decentralized finance' world (DeFi) seems to be full of shady actors and money-launderers, but cryptocurrencies themselves - when no used in the way, say, that subprime mortgages were - as vehicles for gambling - don't seem to be inherently corrupt.
FTX/Alameda is now the poster child for Defi, isn't it? Good overview here:
https://blockcast.cc/news/revealing-the-new-defi-gang-ftx-an...
FTX/Alameda is now the poster child for Defi, isn't it? Good overview here:
https://blockcast.cc/news/revealing-the-new-defi-gang-ftx-an...
The poster child for DeFi was never a CEX. The obvious poster child for decentralized finance would be the biggest decentralized exchange in the world , Uniswap.
I recognize there are tons of fraudsters who latch onto the vocabulary of cryptocurrency and twist it to trick naive consumers who don’t know the difference. Another example would be “staking” where the original intent meant earning proof of stake rewards without giving up your keys, but was frequently used as a marketing term for things like Blockfi where you literally transferred ownership if your coins.
Despite the manipulation around the terms, it’s unfortunate how a fairly technical audience like Hacker News refuses to have good faith discussions around this.
This crowd should know better than to call FTX DeFi.
This crowd should know better than to call fractional reserve interest programs staking.
I think this crowd does know the difference but chooses to ignore it in bad faith because of a general dislike of cryptocurrencies.
By all means call out the swindlers but a site called hacker news deserves better when it comes to using technical terms accurate and in good faith. And by calling FTX DeFi you’re doing neither.
I recognize there are tons of fraudsters who latch onto the vocabulary of cryptocurrency and twist it to trick naive consumers who don’t know the difference. Another example would be “staking” where the original intent meant earning proof of stake rewards without giving up your keys, but was frequently used as a marketing term for things like Blockfi where you literally transferred ownership if your coins.
Despite the manipulation around the terms, it’s unfortunate how a fairly technical audience like Hacker News refuses to have good faith discussions around this.
This crowd should know better than to call FTX DeFi.
This crowd should know better than to call fractional reserve interest programs staking.
I think this crowd does know the difference but chooses to ignore it in bad faith because of a general dislike of cryptocurrencies.
By all means call out the swindlers but a site called hacker news deserves better when it comes to using technical terms accurate and in good faith. And by calling FTX DeFi you’re doing neither.
FTX was working on DeFi with their Serum protocol. [1], [2]
Serum was meant to compete with Uniswap. [6]
Oxygen and Solana DeFi tokens were working with FTX on Serum. [3], [4]
Now that FTX has failed, people are saying "FTX was never a De-Fi". We should stop calling it that because if we do we're now "dishonest". [you and 5]
[1] https://www.projectserum.com
[2] https://cryptopotato.com/serum-srm-backs-community-hard-fork...
[3] https://decrypt.co/116652/ftx-solana-defi-serum-starting-ove...
[4] https://cryptoslate.com/defi-protocol-oxygen-held-95-of-supp...
[5] https://www.rebellionresearch.com/is-ftx-a-defi
[6] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/04/28/serum-token-beco...
Serum was meant to compete with Uniswap. [6]
Oxygen and Solana DeFi tokens were working with FTX on Serum. [3], [4]
Now that FTX has failed, people are saying "FTX was never a De-Fi". We should stop calling it that because if we do we're now "dishonest". [you and 5]
[1] https://www.projectserum.com
[2] https://cryptopotato.com/serum-srm-backs-community-hard-fork...
[3] https://decrypt.co/116652/ftx-solana-defi-serum-starting-ove...
[4] https://cryptoslate.com/defi-protocol-oxygen-held-95-of-supp...
[5] https://www.rebellionresearch.com/is-ftx-a-defi
[6] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/04/28/serum-token-beco...
I think the point is that what happened with FTX couldn't plausibly happen with a real DeFi protocol like Uniswap. FTX might have had ties to some real DeFi protocols, but that seems unrelated to what happened. FTX's collapse doesn't make them bad by association, just as SBF's shenannigans don't make veganism bad by association.
Serum seems like a special case - it was branded as a DeFi protocol, but wasn't really decentralized, since FTX had sole upgrade authority. Because of that Serum collapsed when FTX did. That couldn't happen with something like Uniswap, where governance is actually decentralized.
Serum seems like a special case - it was branded as a DeFi protocol, but wasn't really decentralized, since FTX had sole upgrade authority. Because of that Serum collapsed when FTX did. That couldn't happen with something like Uniswap, where governance is actually decentralized.
I think my point is, don't blame us for getting the nomenclature wrong, when it's clear that the crypto people were smearing the nomenclature around too like a cheap maple syrup, letting it stick to anything that looked "defi-ish"
Now only after FTX failed people are saying, "Oh that wasn't really defi, and you're being dishonest if you call it that."
Basically we're being gaslit after the fact.
Now only after FTX failed people are saying, "Oh that wasn't really defi, and you're being dishonest if you call it that."
Basically we're being gaslit after the fact.
Point taken. It depends who you listen to though. In the right circles, there are plenty of thoughtful discussions about the (de)centralization of protocols (that haven't imploded). See [1] just as an example.
But yes, in other circles, there are "crypto personalities" who cater to an audience that's just hoping to get rich quick. Such people usually don't know or don't care about things like contract upgrade mechanisms.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO693GJZITY
But yes, in other circles, there are "crypto personalities" who cater to an audience that's just hoping to get rich quick. Such people usually don't know or don't care about things like contract upgrade mechanisms.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO693GJZITY
> (that haven't imploded)
(... yet).
There does not exist a morality detector that can measure people's true intentions in crypto. SBF may have had a true heart of gold but is just an idiot. Or he's the smartest con-man in the room and squirreled the money away in a series of numbered bank accounts.
Either way, the crypto press gave him very little skepticism, and lauded his venture -- celebrating him as the next financial genius.
In the traditional banking world, I don't need a morality detector. I just need an FDIC bank.
(... yet).
There does not exist a morality detector that can measure people's true intentions in crypto. SBF may have had a true heart of gold but is just an idiot. Or he's the smartest con-man in the room and squirreled the money away in a series of numbered bank accounts.
Either way, the crypto press gave him very little skepticism, and lauded his venture -- celebrating him as the next financial genius.
In the traditional banking world, I don't need a morality detector. I just need an FDIC bank.
You don't need a morality detector, just a couple rules of thumb:
- Not your keys, not your crypto. I.e. don't trust a random foreign company like FTX to custody your funds. If you really don't want to self-custody, there are reputable, insured custodians like Anchorage or Coinbase Custody.
- Don't use niche DeFi protocols if you don't know much about them; stick to widely-used protoocls like Uniswap, Curve, Aave, etc.
It's not foolproof, but neither is traditional finance. There are plenty of ways to lose your money there, particularly if you're looking to get rich quick with exotic investments.
In fact FTX was getting into equities, so it's not just crypto investors who will probably lose money (pending bankruptcy proceedings). It's anyone who decided to trust a questionable Bahamian company with their assets, crypto or not.
- Not your keys, not your crypto. I.e. don't trust a random foreign company like FTX to custody your funds. If you really don't want to self-custody, there are reputable, insured custodians like Anchorage or Coinbase Custody.
- Don't use niche DeFi protocols if you don't know much about them; stick to widely-used protoocls like Uniswap, Curve, Aave, etc.
It's not foolproof, but neither is traditional finance. There are plenty of ways to lose your money there, particularly if you're looking to get rich quick with exotic investments.
In fact FTX was getting into equities, so it's not just crypto investors who will probably lose money (pending bankruptcy proceedings). It's anyone who decided to trust a questionable Bahamian company with their assets, crypto or not.
Wasn't FTX considered a reputable custodian before it imploded? That's been my understanding but I didn't pay much attention before it went belly up.
This actually gets into "regulated" vs "buyer beware" banking markets. And crypto is still a "buyer beware" market where reputation can be bought with super bowl ads. And then getting "glowing" reviews from the crypto press on their sudden "success".
True custodial banks could in fact be fraudulent for allow e know. But they don't buy super bowl ads to buy reputation -- they've earned it over the course of decades.
Real banking should be boring.
True custodial banks could in fact be fraudulent for allow e know. But they don't buy super bowl ads to buy reputation -- they've earned it over the course of decades.
Real banking should be boring.
They did have a fairly clean brand, but I wouldn't compare them to say Anchorage, which is a US-based bank and qualified custodian. There are more regulatory as well as technical protections with a firm like Anchorage.
I would compare FTX to say Tastyworks. Clean brand, but they're not a bank, not insured, and not focused on custody, so it wouldn't really be prudent to store idle cash or crypto with them.
I would compare FTX to say Tastyworks. Clean brand, but they're not a bank, not insured, and not focused on custody, so it wouldn't really be prudent to store idle cash or crypto with them.
These intellectual contortions are great for creating clever arguments, but the entirety of the thefts that were done could only have happened due to centralization. Being a centralization of crypto, FTX was absolutely not and could not have been DeFi. No exchange that centralizes actions, tokens, and crypto is DeFi - even though protocols may appear decentralized.
> but cryptocurrencies themselves - when no used in the way, say, that subprime mortgages were - as vehicles for gambling - don't seem to be inherently corrupt.
If you take away gambling and speculation, cryptocurrencies lack a compelling use case when compared to competing technologies.
If you take away gambling and speculation, cryptocurrencies lack a compelling use case when compared to competing technologies.
What technology is better at being money than bitcoin? Paper dollar?
> What technology is better at being money than bitcoin? Paper dollar?
Pretty much anything? (including cowrie shells and gold) Bitcoin has a lot of hype about being "money," but it's rarely used as such.
Pretty much anything? (including cowrie shells and gold) Bitcoin has a lot of hype about being "money," but it's rarely used as such.
This is a very dishonest or ignorant response. Good luck sending somebody shells or gold to make a payment. And good luck with shell inflation. And good luck with every store needing to be able to test that gold is real, store it in vaults, etc
> Good luck sending somebody shells or gold to make a payment.
Good luck sending somebody crypto to make a payment.
Good luck sending somebody crypto to make a payment.
It’s a common occurrence. No luck needed.
Don't be obtuse. Using crypto for payments isn't common.
Maybe you can make 1 on 1 payments to other people who are also convinced to use the same crypto as you. People who don't use that crypto (almost everyone in the world) or your grocery store (most in the world) won't take your payment in crypto.
Maybe you can make 1 on 1 payments to other people who are also convinced to use the same crypto as you. People who don't use that crypto (almost everyone in the world) or your grocery store (most in the world) won't take your payment in crypto.
> ...don't seem to be inherently corrupt.
That's kinda like saying the Mafia could be good if it weren't for all the bad actors.
At some point the Mafia itself becomes bad and then becomes the reason someone joins it -- to be paid handsomely for committing crimes.
That's I think where we're at with crypto.
That's kinda like saying the Mafia could be good if it weren't for all the bad actors.
At some point the Mafia itself becomes bad and then becomes the reason someone joins it -- to be paid handsomely for committing crimes.
That's I think where we're at with crypto.
It's absurd but increasingly common to see such bad, ignorant metaphors of technologies used by people with en emotional vitriol on a site like HN.
The mafia is a emphatically criminal organization made up of people whose unique and specific purpose is to extort, rob, threaten, kill and steal as their core activities.
Crypto is a bundle of interrelated technologies and cryptographic protocols that can be used for bad, good or neutral purposes by humans with all kinds of agendas. In the case of decentralized cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, nobody's even in specific control and claiming they're evil is like claiming a random algorithm is evil, or that encryption is evil because alongside dissidents and social activists, pedophiles and con men also use it to keep their communication private. Ridiculous.
The mafia is a emphatically criminal organization made up of people whose unique and specific purpose is to extort, rob, threaten, kill and steal as their core activities.
Crypto is a bundle of interrelated technologies and cryptographic protocols that can be used for bad, good or neutral purposes by humans with all kinds of agendas. In the case of decentralized cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, nobody's even in specific control and claiming they're evil is like claiming a random algorithm is evil, or that encryption is evil because alongside dissidents and social activists, pedophiles and con men also use it to keep their communication private. Ridiculous.
Judging the entire Crypto based on SBF / Luna is like judging the entire Silicon Valley based on a handful of big-name adtech scums. Sure, they dominate the zeitgeist but there is a lot more to those ecosystems.
What does this have at all to do with crypto as a whole? SBF is a single individual. This was a centralized exchange. I'd say CeFI is not really crypto at all. After 2008 was every single U.S. bank corrupt? Downvote.
Who is Crypto and how are they supposed to put SBF behind bars?
What is corrupt about bitcoin, exactly?
Don’t know why this is downvoted, it could be true.
If FTX was on chain, SBF could not have absconded with users' deposits.
Crypto mathematically prevents fraud. The problem here is that business was conducted in the fiat world and on a "trust me" basis.
Crypto mathematically prevents fraud. The problem here is that business was conducted in the fiat world and on a "trust me" basis.
"Crypto mathematically prevents fraud"
Uh what? How could it do that. Fraud isn't even a technical layer issue. It's an identity issue and identity is pretty much entirely abstracted out of the crypto ecosystem. So, if you think about it that way, it's actually impossible for crypto to "mathematically prevent fraud". That you even said something so ridiculous without any reflection speaks to your intuitions in this space.
Uh what? How could it do that. Fraud isn't even a technical layer issue. It's an identity issue and identity is pretty much entirely abstracted out of the crypto ecosystem. So, if you think about it that way, it's actually impossible for crypto to "mathematically prevent fraud". That you even said something so ridiculous without any reflection speaks to your intuitions in this space.
It's the whole point.
Only the person with the private key can move the funds.
If this was on-chain, SBF would not have had their private keys and mathematically could not have moved their funds without their consent.
Only the person with the private key can move the funds.
If this was on-chain, SBF would not have had their private keys and mathematically could not have moved their funds without their consent.
Did people not send their crypto to SBF via on-chain transactions? Oh? They did?
Exactly: they did not control the private keys, so they were able to be defrauded.
There are DEXs which you can deposit funds and retain full custody.
There are DEXs which you can deposit funds and retain full custody.
So what? FTX was a crypto company in the crypto economy, trading crypto products. this is some sort of no true scottsman crypto bullshit. the crypto economy clearly exists well beyond DEX's and its also pretty clear that the vast majority of the money is on CEX's so what's your point??
You're conflating off-chain traditional finance (rife with fraud and theft) with on-chain programs.
We have never once seen someone successfully steal users' funds without access to their private keys. That's the entire point of crypto.
Crypto never claimed to prevent fiat fraud. Crypto never claimed to prevent human custodians from absconding with funds.
We have never once seen someone successfully steal users' funds without access to their private keys. That's the entire point of crypto.
Crypto never claimed to prevent fiat fraud. Crypto never claimed to prevent human custodians from absconding with funds.
Nah, I'm not arbitrarily deciding that CEX's "aren't crypto".
It's a fallacy. No true crypto. No point in responding further to this approach.
It's a fallacy. No true crypto. No point in responding further to this approach.
It's not a fallacy because there is meaningful distinction.
Centralized finance is subject to the whim of creditors and custodians.
Decentralized finance mathematically prevents theft within the system.
Centralized finance is subject to the whim of creditors and custodians.
Decentralized finance mathematically prevents theft within the system.
I'm not saying CEX and DEX are the same. You are saying only one of them is crypto. That's obviously not true.
If you are the one with a password aka private key to an address that holds the coins on whatever reputable chain, then you are the sole owner of said coins. It's that simple. Things get complicated, ironically for the sake of being less complicated, when there is a centralized authority in the middle who holds control of those addresses and their respective private keys.
I use centralized exchanges plenty, and I am also aware that it defeats a large portion of the whole trustless money thing. Therefore, I also keep crypto offline in cold storage. Those addresses and the coins involved will go with me to the grave or until someone threatens me with a hammer.
I use centralized exchanges plenty, and I am also aware that it defeats a large portion of the whole trustless money thing. Therefore, I also keep crypto offline in cold storage. Those addresses and the coins involved will go with me to the grave or until someone threatens me with a hammer.
People really think "cryptocurrencies are based on code" means no fraud can happen with them.
The decentralized nature of most cryptocurrencies makes it difficult for a single entity to manipulate the market or falsify transactions, but it does not completely eliminate the possibility of fraud. In addition, the anonymity of many cryptocurrencies can make it difficult to trace the source of fraudulent activity, which can make it harder to prevent or prosecute.
The decentralized nature of most cryptocurrencies makes it difficult for a single entity to manipulate the market or falsify transactions, but it does not completely eliminate the possibility of fraud. In addition, the anonymity of many cryptocurrencies can make it difficult to trace the source of fraudulent activity, which can make it harder to prevent or prosecute.
No, people think that if self-custody your private keys carefully, nobody can steal your coins.
If you participate in actual DeFi where you keep your keys and participate via smart contracts, nobody can steal your coins.
All of this was true and is true. What happened is that corporations adopted the language of cryptocurrency to mean something totally different to trick consumers, like calling FTX a DeFi platform.
You want a villain, it ain’t the maxis who kept repeating “not your keys, not your coin”. It’s VCs like a16z, sequoias, and paradigm who lended credibility to centralized exchanges that defrauded people who ignored the cryptocurrency advocates.
The FTX story only strengthens the facts and narratives the cryptocurrency advocates have been saying. The real fraud is happening in venture capital which is rotten to the core.
And by the way, bitcoin is down this year but not nearly as much as VC darlings like Carvana and Affirm.
VC is the scam. VC is the engine of pump and dumps in both TradFi and crypto centralized exchanges. The real voices of cryptocurrency have been vindicated.
If you participate in actual DeFi where you keep your keys and participate via smart contracts, nobody can steal your coins.
All of this was true and is true. What happened is that corporations adopted the language of cryptocurrency to mean something totally different to trick consumers, like calling FTX a DeFi platform.
You want a villain, it ain’t the maxis who kept repeating “not your keys, not your coin”. It’s VCs like a16z, sequoias, and paradigm who lended credibility to centralized exchanges that defrauded people who ignored the cryptocurrency advocates.
The FTX story only strengthens the facts and narratives the cryptocurrency advocates have been saying. The real fraud is happening in venture capital which is rotten to the core.
And by the way, bitcoin is down this year but not nearly as much as VC darlings like Carvana and Affirm.
VC is the scam. VC is the engine of pump and dumps in both TradFi and crypto centralized exchanges. The real voices of cryptocurrency have been vindicated.
>"No, people think that if self-custody your private keys carefully, nobody can steal your coins."
Yeah, people think that. But what does that have to do with FTX. Yeah, if you never sent money to FTX, they couldn't take it. What insight!
Yeah, people think that. But what does that have to do with FTX. Yeah, if you never sent money to FTX, they couldn't take it. What insight!
It has to do with FTX because people are taking the FTX situation and using it to blame crypto.
SBF stole users' deposits. Fact.
SBF could not have done this had FTX been a self-custody DEX. Fact.
Crypto's sole purpose is to prevent the theft that occurred. Fact.
The theft happened because crypto was not used. The theft happened because users did not self-custody (which they could have, as is demonstrated by the billions of dollars custodied in numerous DEXs today). Fact.
SBF stole users' deposits. Fact.
SBF could not have done this had FTX been a self-custody DEX. Fact.
Crypto's sole purpose is to prevent the theft that occurred. Fact.
The theft happened because crypto was not used. The theft happened because users did not self-custody (which they could have, as is demonstrated by the billions of dollars custodied in numerous DEXs today). Fact.
The fact that this happened in the crypto space is prima facie evidence that "Crypto's sole purpose is to prevent the theft that occurred. Fact." is wrong. Full stop.
You're conflating the entire crypto space (rife with theft and fraud) with funds self-custodied on a blockchain (never once has seen theft because it is mathematically prevented).
I'm not conflating anything. This is the crypto space. The crypto space isn't only DEXs, it's full of CEXs and its where the vast majority of money is.
And you don’t have the culture of controls that exist at real financial institutions. Often you hear a story of some firm like Amaranth or M.F. Global that blew up and what you always find is that the basic controls that prevent an organization from taking on disasterous positions are not in place.
It’s a simple truth that an investment fund that is getting more deposits from withdrawals can vaporize the money and not have any problems until people ask for the money back. That is why financial institutions need strict controls.
It’s a simple truth that an investment fund that is getting more deposits from withdrawals can vaporize the money and not have any problems until people ask for the money back. That is why financial institutions need strict controls.
...or we could just mathematically prevent the investment funds from stealing the funds.
You apparently can't even comprehend the difference between theft and fraud.
The fraud that occurred is SBF said users retain the title to their deposits and, quote,
"we do not invest user deposits, not even in bonds"
and yet he _did_ take user deposits. He defrauded them by taking their funds. This is also known as theft.
This type of fraud, which also counts as theft, is not possible with self-custodied funds.
"we do not invest user deposits, not even in bonds"
and yet he _did_ take user deposits. He defrauded them by taking their funds. This is also known as theft.
This type of fraud, which also counts as theft, is not possible with self-custodied funds.
Theft and fraud aren't the same thing. Obviously, one can commit theft by the means of fraud. Fraud is a personal representation and trust relationship, and cannot be solved by a mathematical equation. A DEX might preclude the need for trust relationships in order to prevent the circumstances that make fraud possible, but it doesn't solve for fraud and, as FTX proved, crypto itself (using the commonly understood term, as opposed to the one you invented where the only things that are crypto are DEX) doesn't solve for fraud.
> Theft and fraud aren't the same thing.
I never said they were.
> A DEX might preclude the need for trust relationships in order to prevent the circumstances that make fraud possible
So you agree?
You just admitted that DEXs would have prevented SBF from committing this fraud. That's what I'm trying to convince you of.
Those who do not distinguish self-custodied funds from non-self-custodied funds, like you refuse to do, will continue to be defrauded and stolen from.
I never said they were.
> A DEX might preclude the need for trust relationships in order to prevent the circumstances that make fraud possible
So you agree?
You just admitted that DEXs would have prevented SBF from committing this fraud. That's what I'm trying to convince you of.
Those who do not distinguish self-custodied funds from non-self-custodied funds, like you refuse to do, will continue to be defrauded and stolen from.
I've not at any point contested the differences between DEX and CEXs with you and you should really work on your reading comprehension so you can realize that.
I’m a crypto skeptic so I may be missing something. This sounds impossible. If users deposit to a wallet SBF has control of, he can fraud all he likes. It’s mathematically his money now. If users deposit but retain control of the wallet, it axiomatically isn’t a deposit.
It is possible to have:
* A contract (a piece of software) hosted on the network * This contract is immutable (its code cannot be changed) * This contract defines rules such as allowing deposits, withdrawals, and trades, and those functions of withdrawing deposits or enacting trades require transactions signed by the depositor
In that scenario, it is a deposit, is controlled (and thus owned, both legally and cryptographically) by the users.
In real life, these contracts are generally mutable, so there is the possibility that users can still get fucked over.
* A contract (a piece of software) hosted on the network * This contract is immutable (its code cannot be changed) * This contract defines rules such as allowing deposits, withdrawals, and trades, and those functions of withdrawing deposits or enacting trades require transactions signed by the depositor
In that scenario, it is a deposit, is controlled (and thus owned, both legally and cryptographically) by the users.
In real life, these contracts are generally mutable, so there is the possibility that users can still get fucked over.
Contracts and law being mutable and open to interpretation by squishy brained humans is a feature not a bug. Yeah too much mutability you get room for corruption and selective enforcement/application, too little you have a contract that might do what it says or it might accidentally empty your bank account with no recourse because a flawed human implemented it and the world is complicated.
Smart contracts have existed for more than 5 years now. You can retain fully custody of funds deposited into DEXs.
Sure he could have, it just might have been spotted sooner. How many pump-and-dump shitcoins have there been to date?
If "Crypto" has proven anything over the last few years the only thing it mathematically prevents is reversing transactions, which is really useful when you want to steal money.
If "Crypto" has proven anything over the last few years the only thing it mathematically prevents is reversing transactions, which is really useful when you want to steal money.
yes, rugpulls are known to be very uncommon in the crypto world
There's no rugpulling possible if you don't give someone else your private keys. What is everyone missing about this? That's the entire glory of crypto. No one owns your coins but you... unless you use an intermediary. I'm guessing by far most transactions are done via centralized exchanges so that autonomy is lost both in practice and in headlines.
I'm fine with highly regulated exchanges despite that being counter to that glory of crypto. Also, move your large bags to cold storage.
I'm fine with highly regulated exchanges despite that being counter to that glory of crypto. Also, move your large bags to cold storage.
You can't rugpull if you don't have their private keys.
He's definitely getting prosecuted. It just takes DoJ a long time to build cases, especially financial cases, because the burden of being able to convince a jury that something intentionally malevolent happened as opposed to simply incompetent.
To Molly White's point, SBF is essentially walking around shouting "I was incompetent! Very very incompetent!" In an attempt to make that, as opposed to his clear fraud, the narrative.
To Molly White's point, SBF is essentially walking around shouting "I was incompetent! Very very incompetent!" In an attempt to make that, as opposed to his clear fraud, the narrative.
If Elizabeth Holmes is going to jail then SBF probably is too.
Yes. What the performatively cynical crowd is missing is that SBF, like Elizabeth Holmes, stole from the rich.
Even for people who believe that everything is 100% corrupt 100% of the time in the American justice system, SBF going to jail should be seen as confirmation of that bias.
Even for people who believe that everything is 100% corrupt 100% of the time in the American justice system, SBF going to jail should be seen as confirmation of that bias.
I believe SBF stated in a recent video that it might be possible for US clients to be “made whole” (indirectly stating everyone else will be fucked). So if he manages to return funds to US investors, would he still be likely to be prosecuted?
Everything is probabalistic. That would reduce the odds by reducing the number of powerful people putting pressure on prosecutors. But plenty of rich and powerful non-US people have influence in the US.
And stealing from the rich isn't the only factor at play here. Even if all of the money was returned to everyone, there are plenty of rich/powerful people and institutions who dislike crypto for various legit and corrupt reasons, so there would still be some pressure to prosecute.
IMO he's fucked, even aside from the stealing from the rich angle. It's just too high profile and too embarrassing to too many regulatory agencies. He's well into "make an example of" territory.
And stealing from the rich isn't the only factor at play here. Even if all of the money was returned to everyone, there are plenty of rich/powerful people and institutions who dislike crypto for various legit and corrupt reasons, so there would still be some pressure to prosecute.
IMO he's fucked, even aside from the stealing from the rich angle. It's just too high profile and too embarrassing to too many regulatory agencies. He's well into "make an example of" territory.
Isn't that what Shkreli tried in his defense, that none of his investors actually lost money? It didn't help him either
SBF also stated that he just needed to raise $8B and everything would be okay. I'm not sure if he's delusional or lying, or some combination of the two, but I think we're past the point where we should believe much of what he says.
I mean if you give me $8B, I assure you everything will be ok.
Don't listen to my sibling poster, I can assure you everything will be OK for $7B!
Look, we can race to the bottom or we can split $7.5B two ways.
Even if we take him at face value here (which we probably shouldn't) it isn't just money, he also made the rich people look like idiots. So retribution feels inevitable.
Many Madoff investors were compensated... doesn't change the fact that he committed fraud.
Madoff had ‘borrowed from Peter to pay Paul’ and the victims were rich enough that they didn’t really spend the money so it was possible in the end to shuffle almost all of it back to its rightful owners.
“performatively cynical” is such a fantastic way of describing that kind of discourse
Bernie Madoff got sentenced to >100 years. That feels like a pretty close comp to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff
[deleted](1)
aliqot(4)
Well, it didn't take a year or two.[1]
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33962083
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33962083
I don't think anyone can make any proclamation as what will happen without the evidence, which neither you or anyone else other than investigators will have access to. On top of that a jury has to find him guilty again not you or almost certainly anyone else here. If you're making a statement about the American judicial system as a whole (pro or con) you're very much generalizing based on the outcome of one case.
Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced to jail. Adam Neumann was not.
Without the evidence we're just hypothesizing, as far as I'm concerned justice could have been served in both cases, I simply don't know and I doubt most people who are so eager to take one side or another truly care deeply enough to actually go through the entirety of those two past cases and look at all the legal arguments and details of the case (which is all public) before reaching a conclusion.
Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced to jail. Adam Neumann was not.
Without the evidence we're just hypothesizing, as far as I'm concerned justice could have been served in both cases, I simply don't know and I doubt most people who are so eager to take one side or another truly care deeply enough to actually go through the entirety of those two past cases and look at all the legal arguments and details of the case (which is all public) before reaching a conclusion.
My gut feel says to not believe his dumb kid act. But it's up to federal prosecutors to actually prove to a jury that he knowingly committed fraud or whatever charges they ultimately decide to bring.
The problem isn't whether he will be prosecuted, but for what. His play right now seems to be playing dumb. I don't know if it can work, but he still needs to build a credible alternative story to the criminal behaviour that many here seem to suspect, for the different parties who seem to be happy to keep supporting him.
They will probably start lower down the organization, getting evidence that wrongful behavior was sanctioned by management. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. He will go to jail.
Yep.
The perils of thinking you're the smartest guy in the room. He apparently didn't even think to set up a victim to take the fall. Retroactively blaming his girlfriend will probably doom her, but isn't doing him any good.
The perils of thinking you're the smartest guy in the room. He apparently didn't even think to set up a victim to take the fall. Retroactively blaming his girlfriend will probably doom her, but isn't doing him any good.
Probably not that easy to play dumb if you set up a corporate structure involving a hundred different companies.
I don't imagine a jury would see that level of unfathomable complexity and think "clearly a guy in over his head".
I don't imagine a jury would see that level of unfathomable complexity and think "clearly a guy in over his head".
It can't work; there are documents. This stuff is always found in documents. In Madoff's case, aside his confession, they had the original financial documents and the ones manually edited by Madoff which were given to investors. That was sufficient to prove that he knew the truth and was defrauding his investors.
Somewhere in the terabytes of internal emails, screenshots, and discord logs there will be something showing that SBF knew what he was doing, even if it shows up in a completely unforeseen way.
Somewhere in the terabytes of internal emails, screenshots, and discord logs there will be something showing that SBF knew what he was doing, even if it shows up in a completely unforeseen way.
It was BAU to process all withdrawals from a single source of funds!
FTX had risk officers, they had a legal team. Whoever signed off on this, including SBF, needs to be prosecuted.
FTX had risk officers, they had a legal team. Whoever signed off on this, including SBF, needs to be prosecuted.
This belief seems to be especially pervasive amongst tech industry: That because justice/law works at a slower speed than social media, it doesn't work.
this is reminiscent of that time I heard that South Korea had prosecuted and found an ex-president[1] guilty of crimes!
There was a Samsung VIP involved too. [2,3]
I was quite impressed because putting ex-presidents on trial is (was?) illegal in my own country! (there was a referendum recently, but I'd need to look up the outcome of that, no ex-presidents are on trial as far as I know)
I'm telling this because 'recently', they overturned that ruling.
so even if he goes to jail, let's wait 3 or 4 more years after any public rulings to check if he's been pardoned.
There was a Samsung VIP involved too. [2,3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye#Pardon_and_relea...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55674712
[3] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/samsung-heir-lands-pres...
There was a Samsung VIP involved too. [2,3]
I was quite impressed because putting ex-presidents on trial is (was?) illegal in my own country! (there was a referendum recently, but I'd need to look up the outcome of that, no ex-presidents are on trial as far as I know)
I'm telling this because 'recently', they overturned that ruling.
so even if he goes to jail, let's wait 3 or 4 more years after any public rulings to check if he's been pardoned.
There was a Samsung VIP involved too. [2,3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Geun-hye#Pardon_and_relea...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55674712
[3] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/samsung-heir-lands-pres...
To be fair, when you learn that South Korea has prosecuted and convicted most of it's ex-presidents (also one assassination and one suicide)... I'm not sure it makes South Korea look uncorrupt. It makes me figure some combination of routine corruption in the presidency and corrupt political retribution by successors.
https://apnews.com/article/f4de2c758f70450583bdf1539e3fa3bd
https://apnews.com/article/f4de2c758f70450583bdf1539e3fa3bd
> To be fair, when you learn that South Korea has prosecuted and convicted most of it's ex-presidents (also one assassination and one suicide)... I'm not sure it makes South Korea look uncorrupt.
Or, alternatively, they realize it's impossible to run a country and not be corrupt. Then, all "presidents" are actually defacto dictators. Not too far off the reality of the matter...perhaps the US should get on this train.
Or, alternatively, they realize it's impossible to run a country and not be corrupt. Then, all "presidents" are actually defacto dictators. Not too far off the reality of the matter...perhaps the US should get on this train.
Maybe we should just decide that all presidents go to prison after their term, automatically. If you aren't willing to do that, I guess you don't really want to be president badly enough.
Joking aside (I think I'm joking)... what else would "getting on that train" even look like?
I'm also not sure if what you said was an alternative to what I said. I said it may point out that South Koreas presidency is routinely corrupt, and you said "alternatively, what if they just realize all presidents are corrupt" -- that doesn't seem an alternative, those seem consistent!
Joking aside (I think I'm joking)... what else would "getting on that train" even look like?
I'm also not sure if what you said was an alternative to what I said. I said it may point out that South Koreas presidency is routinely corrupt, and you said "alternatively, what if they just realize all presidents are corrupt" -- that doesn't seem an alternative, those seem consistent!
Ultimately I think the issue is that the people attracted to power are likely the last people that ought ever be granted such. And democracy makes this even more true since you pair power seeking with fast talking. I wouldn't be surprised of SBF had political aspirations. He'd have fit right in.
the US is on another train, they don't have this problem because POTUS is not the real executive power... that changed for national security reasons probably since around september 2001, or before.. impossible to know.
moreover, the usa security apparatus designed south korea. they're a subsidiary country of the city of washington corporation (or something); i.e. they're on the same train already.
I must add that this is pure speculative guesswork, I ain't got no 'clearance'.
moreover, the usa security apparatus designed south korea. they're a subsidiary country of the city of washington corporation (or something); i.e. they're on the same train already.
I must add that this is pure speculative guesswork, I ain't got no 'clearance'.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It hasn't even been a month since FTX collapsed. That's like milliseconds in legal time!
In France there is preventive prison - When the guy obviously did something and it will be offset on the final prison time.
Is there anything similar in USA? Only for violent crime maybe?
Is there anything similar in USA? Only for violent crime maybe?
In the US that's called "remanded without bail".
In the US when you're arrested you go to jail (which is distinct from prison, which is for long-term convicts).
When a person is arrested in the USA, one of the first courts is the "Bail Hearing" which determines how the accused person will be kept until their trial. They may be sent home, or given a GPS ankle-monitor, or they may be told they have to pay a large "bail bond", which is a deposit that they will lose if they fail to show up for trial and they will get the money back after the trial, or they may be just taken to jail until the conviction if the judge thinks they're too dangerous.
In the US when you're arrested you go to jail (which is distinct from prison, which is for long-term convicts).
When a person is arrested in the USA, one of the first courts is the "Bail Hearing" which determines how the accused person will be kept until their trial. They may be sent home, or given a GPS ankle-monitor, or they may be told they have to pay a large "bail bond", which is a deposit that they will lose if they fail to show up for trial and they will get the money back after the trial, or they may be just taken to jail until the conviction if the judge thinks they're too dangerous.
Jail isn't just for "dangerous" individuals. SBF is a young billionaire, already living abroad, who could easily spend the rest of his life in prison. He is the textbook definition of a flight risk, which is yet another thing that makes the slowness of the case all the more absurd.
He could, in the worst case, simply relocate to a country without an extradition clause and add their leadership onto his little black book of "donations."
He could, in the worst case, simply relocate to a country without an extradition clause and add their leadership onto his little black book of "donations."
Yes, but only after you're formally charged. The prosecutors have to build their case before that happens, which will likely take years. They're also more than happy to have SBF free and talking to the media right now. He's giving them so much useful evidence.
Honestly, I’d be curious of the impact of this period on the criminal’s psychology, I bet it deeply exhausts their energy, knowing they’re basically in, only question is when and how much. No way to “enjoy” life with relatives or new friends, all avenues are closed, only thing you have is money and fear, and you read books about survival in prison. Perhaps try to make connections among judges and politicians to share your $34bn. The longer this period lasts, I really wonder whether it destroys the individual just as much as prison time. Waiting for a trial would destroy me, as an innocent.
So what exactly can SBF do? Is he likely to destroy evidence or start next scam? Okay, later might make some people take action.
But it is not like this is a violent crime where such incarceration is entirely possible.
But it is not like this is a violent crime where such incarceration is entirely possible.
Jail. Prison is for the convicted.
American corruption aside, why does everyone expect the US to lead the prosecution of SBF? FTX was an international exchange. He could and should face criminal charges in dozens of countries.
There was a US branch of FTX that SBF has been saying "has funds to make people whole" but is still under Chapter 11 "because he made a mistake declaring bankruptcy", and that branch in independent of the international exchange. US customers still can't withdraw their funds. I am not sure people want the US to "lead" everything as much as they want, as people that invested money on a US company, for the government to help them get it back after it was, allegedly, stolen.
There are two main stages to get through, for him to go to jail and then for him to stay in jail long enough for it to not seem like a total farce. At this point, maybe the former will still happen considering that it's been a month and no one's forgotten about him yet, but the latter is still pretty questionable.
Plus, if you were to ask me, I don't really have a specific sentence duration in mind which I would consider to be sufficiently long, so it would entirely come down to my takeaway from whatever the judge says.
Eg if the judge gives him ~10 years stating that he did indeed intentionally fraud people out of $8B, it'd be okay. But on the other hand, if it seems like they're intentionally avoiding the obvious fraud to make his charges weaker, it obviously won't be satisfying.
Plus, if you were to ask me, I don't really have a specific sentence duration in mind which I would consider to be sufficiently long, so it would entirely come down to my takeaway from whatever the judge says.
Eg if the judge gives him ~10 years stating that he did indeed intentionally fraud people out of $8B, it'd be okay. But on the other hand, if it seems like they're intentionally avoiding the obvious fraud to make his charges weaker, it obviously won't be satisfying.
Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. He died there, having served 11 years of his sentence.
In that case I'd certainly hope for more than 10 years. My 10 years number came from Elizabeth Holmes' sentence.
The guy was called literally Made off (paraphrasing a comedian). I'm not a believer in QAnon conspiracies but this one is hilarious.
Prison time won't bring back the money, meaning it is really just to satisfy a primitive urge for revenge. So what are you talking about, at that rate I won't do it, seems to work, see how it deterred SBF?!?
Prison time won't bring back the money, meaning it is really just to satisfy a primitive urge for revenge. So what are you talking about, at that rate I won't do it, seems to work, see how it deterred SBF?!?
Some people feel that extreme sentences are deterrents, but studies show that people don't rationally calculate the expected value of their punishment. Almost nobody committing crimes thinks they'll get caught, so doubling jail time doesn't have much of a deterrent effect.
Almost everyone who commits crimes while expecting to get caught is in desperate circumstances (near starvation, jail preferable to available housing, loved one in big trouble, etc.), where the time isn't a big deterrent, either.
It's much more effective to increase (at least the perception) of the probability crimes will be caught and prosecuted. Excessive jail sentences presumably result in greater costs, meaning less money available on the investigation and prosecution side. (Yes, this makes faulty assumptions about how government budgeting works in practice.)
Almost everyone who commits crimes while expecting to get caught is in desperate circumstances (near starvation, jail preferable to available housing, loved one in big trouble, etc.), where the time isn't a big deterrent, either.
It's much more effective to increase (at least the perception) of the probability crimes will be caught and prosecuted. Excessive jail sentences presumably result in greater costs, meaning less money available on the investigation and prosecution side. (Yes, this makes faulty assumptions about how government budgeting works in practice.)
> so doubling jail time doesn't have much of a deterrent effect.
Doubling jail time probably doesn't move the needle much, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant behavioral difference between "go to jail" and "don't go to jail at all".
Doubling jail time probably doesn't move the needle much, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't a significant behavioral difference between "go to jail" and "don't go to jail at all".
It's important to consider the impact of excessive jail sentences not only on the offenders, but also on society as a whole. Incarceration can have significant social and economic costs, including strained relationships between the incarcerated individual and their family and community, as well as reduced employment opportunities and income potential upon release. These factors can contribute to recidivism and create a cycle of crime and punishment.
At the same time, it's important to consider that there is an important emotional component to jail sentences. They aren't meant to be strictly utilitarian. Crimes of a large enough scale deserve severe punishment in part because it is important for the victims and society to feel that justice was served.
People are vocalizing their lack of trust in the government to serve justice in part because cases where people whom they feel deserved more punishment didn't receive it and similarly with people whom they feel didn't deserve as much punishment as they got.
People are vocalizing their lack of trust in the government to serve justice in part because cases where people whom they feel deserved more punishment didn't receive it and similarly with people whom they feel didn't deserve as much punishment as they got.
I'm not a psychologist, but my feeling is that US culture's over-emphasis on punishment as a means for victims to find closure is a disservice to crime victims and their families. Particularly for major crimes that result in long trials, it seems like many victims or their families are strung along with the hope that the outcome of the trial will finally make them emotionally whole, only to discover at the end that no amount of punishment will make them feel whole. Their time, effort, and anxiety put into following the trial would have been much better spent trying to quickly move on to integration and acceptance. Waiting for the trial to end delays the healing process by years.
I think the importance of punishment as a factor isn't just a US thing. I think every justice system gives some importance to it. Plus, the idea (IMO) isn't that it'll make them whole, I think they're usually pretty cognizant of the fact that it won't. It's somewhat like the idea of karma.
An example that comes to mind is that for all the layoffs happening lately in the tech industry, a common sentiment here on HN seems to be that CEOs are talking about taking responsibility but usually don't really face proportional negative consequences to demonstrate how they're doing that. Similarly with criminals, of course you can and should rehabilitate them to prevent re-offending, but if that's all you focus on, you kind of miss out on making them take responsibility for their actions.
An example that comes to mind is that for all the layoffs happening lately in the tech industry, a common sentiment here on HN seems to be that CEOs are talking about taking responsibility but usually don't really face proportional negative consequences to demonstrate how they're doing that. Similarly with criminals, of course you can and should rehabilitate them to prevent re-offending, but if that's all you focus on, you kind of miss out on making them take responsibility for their actions.
I guess there are two possible ways you could pronounce Bankman-Fried, each of which suggest very different outcomes.
It seems like everyone just ignores their ability to use the Internet in cases like this.
Enron (a pretty good analogue since the same CEO is liquidation FTX) went under in 2001 and Ken Lay was indicted in 2004.
Madoff only went to jail right away because he cooperated
Enron (a pretty good analogue since the same CEO is liquidation FTX) went under in 2001 and Ken Lay was indicted in 2004.
Madoff only went to jail right away because he cooperated
The problem I have in this case is that many things are being reported which would be immediately indictable. Billions of dollars was misappropriated, which is a felony that could easily result in decades in prison. Billions more simple disappeared, and there was even a 'back door' in their software enabling unaccountable access of funds. And this all about the time that SBF was splashing around billions of dollars like beads at Mardi Gras - living extremely lavishly, and even trying to get in on Twitter for $3 billion.
Bringing immediate charges against him on the low hanging fruit does not preclude later charging him with anything that may require further work. And it also helps snag him before he decides his little 'blame everybody else and get the corporate media (which I also "donated" to) to back me up' isn't working out and plays a disappearing act. He's a billionaire already living in the Bahamas who could easily spend the rest of his life behind bars. He is an extreme flight risk, yet the DoJ continues to hem and haw.
Bringing immediate charges against him on the low hanging fruit does not preclude later charging him with anything that may require further work. And it also helps snag him before he decides his little 'blame everybody else and get the corporate media (which I also "donated" to) to back me up' isn't working out and plays a disappearing act. He's a billionaire already living in the Bahamas who could easily spend the rest of his life behind bars. He is an extreme flight risk, yet the DoJ continues to hem and haw.
> Bringing immediate charges against him on the low hanging fruit does not preclude later charging him with anything that may require further work.
Actually, it very easily could:
Speedy trial rules don't allow delaying trial freely once charged, and a conviction (or acquittal) on a charge that would be a lesser included charge forecloses later charging a more serious offense that includes that conduct with additional evidence, b/c double jeopardy.
Actually, it very easily could:
Speedy trial rules don't allow delaying trial freely once charged, and a conviction (or acquittal) on a charge that would be a lesser included charge forecloses later charging a more serious offense that includes that conduct with additional evidence, b/c double jeopardy.
Double Jeopardy means that lesser charges effectively cannot be used in future cases. If A is required to prove B, and you convict on A then you can't later convict on B unless it can stand without A. In this case, the countless criminal acts he engaged in are largely independent, so this is not a problem.
And speedy trial rules are regularly "bent" when convenient. See, for instance, the January 6th rioters who have been kept in brutal conditions for what will soon be years, without trial, for far lesser charges than what SBF stands to face - if he ever faces anything.
This is not a defense of the January 6th guys, as I do believe those who broke the law should face justice. But I believe all people should face justice equally. And they're one of the most visible demonstrations, as SBF is becoming, that the justice system in this country is, at best, deeply dysfunctional.
And speedy trial rules are regularly "bent" when convenient. See, for instance, the January 6th rioters who have been kept in brutal conditions for what will soon be years, without trial, for far lesser charges than what SBF stands to face - if he ever faces anything.
This is not a defense of the January 6th guys, as I do believe those who broke the law should face justice. But I believe all people should face justice equally. And they're one of the most visible demonstrations, as SBF is becoming, that the justice system in this country is, at best, deeply dysfunctional.
>Bringing immediate charges against him on the low hanging fruit does not preclude later charging him with anything that may require further work.
The US judicial system is always "one chance to convict (Double Jeopardy), many chances to appeal" and given the whole 'speedy trial' thing (The Feds get about 2 months), building a case is the only reasonable solution before charging him. Again, the Feds need to convince a jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sam did this (not that it was done, that Sam did this)
People seem to thing we can let him sit in jail indefinitely pre-trial while we collect the documents and facts, but the Constitution is pretty aggressive about that and no-one even knows what happened yet (not even SBF per his own claims).
A prosecutor can't just point towards ambiguous bad things that happened, they need iron-clad facts that a defense team can't poke holes in (even if those holes are only a shadow of a doubt).
>plays a disappearing act.
I mean, sure, there's always flight risk, but to where? Russia? I mean it "worked" for Snowden I guess, but obviously different circumstances there.
China? They banned crypto, so I doubt they want him potentially stirring up economic tumult there.
Pretty much anywhere else? The US has an extradition treaty and I doubt SBF is going to settle into a quiet life of hiding given his current behavior.
>He's a billionaire
This is always such a funny thing people say about others. Liquidity matters. Even if Sam has access to hidden billions of liquid crypto, then what? He sells it in secret and secretly buys a yacht from a company that's not worried about having those funds seized by the US Gov't? He can't make any meaningful purchase, other than legal defense, because any counter-party will know that the funds are at risk for seizure (since they are ill-gotten).
It's the same as Putin, like sure Russia's national wealth is his, but what's he gonna spend it on? The palaces he already lives in?
And then by that measure, isn't the current US President probably the wealthiest person (Say what you will, but no amount of money is going to give MBS the power to launch a nuke if he wants).
>He is an extreme flight risk, yet the DoJ continues to hem and haw.
Again, can you really be a flight risk if you're already not in the US's jurisdiction?
The US judicial system is always "one chance to convict (Double Jeopardy), many chances to appeal" and given the whole 'speedy trial' thing (The Feds get about 2 months), building a case is the only reasonable solution before charging him. Again, the Feds need to convince a jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sam did this (not that it was done, that Sam did this)
People seem to thing we can let him sit in jail indefinitely pre-trial while we collect the documents and facts, but the Constitution is pretty aggressive about that and no-one even knows what happened yet (not even SBF per his own claims).
A prosecutor can't just point towards ambiguous bad things that happened, they need iron-clad facts that a defense team can't poke holes in (even if those holes are only a shadow of a doubt).
>plays a disappearing act.
I mean, sure, there's always flight risk, but to where? Russia? I mean it "worked" for Snowden I guess, but obviously different circumstances there.
China? They banned crypto, so I doubt they want him potentially stirring up economic tumult there.
Pretty much anywhere else? The US has an extradition treaty and I doubt SBF is going to settle into a quiet life of hiding given his current behavior.
>He's a billionaire
This is always such a funny thing people say about others. Liquidity matters. Even if Sam has access to hidden billions of liquid crypto, then what? He sells it in secret and secretly buys a yacht from a company that's not worried about having those funds seized by the US Gov't? He can't make any meaningful purchase, other than legal defense, because any counter-party will know that the funds are at risk for seizure (since they are ill-gotten).
It's the same as Putin, like sure Russia's national wealth is his, but what's he gonna spend it on? The palaces he already lives in?
And then by that measure, isn't the current US President probably the wealthiest person (Say what you will, but no amount of money is going to give MBS the power to launch a nuke if he wants).
>He is an extreme flight risk, yet the DoJ continues to hem and haw.
Again, can you really be a flight risk if you're already not in the US's jurisdiction?
This is exactly what I was going to point out. People seem to forget that these kinds of cases take a lot of time to build.
It will be a very interesting few years. I assume there's a lot less regulations for "cryto exchanges" than for any of the traditional finance companies. Perhaps SBF will skirt jail because of less regulations? Perhaps the "establishment" and traditional finance companies will use this as an opportunity to dismantle the "crypto" industry (and jail SBF for a long time) through regulations to beat down competition.
I don't see why people thought SBF and FTX was any different from any other billion dollar finance company. The old men in suits were young men in suits at some point. BlackRock, with it's trillions of dollars under management, is only 34 years old. There wasn't any change or a new era that was going to be ushered in by FTX/SBF. Just more financial crime, how long would have it gone unpunished if it wasn't for their own incompetence?
I don't see why people thought SBF and FTX was any different from any other billion dollar finance company. The old men in suits were young men in suits at some point. BlackRock, with it's trillions of dollars under management, is only 34 years old. There wasn't any change or a new era that was going to be ushered in by FTX/SBF. Just more financial crime, how long would have it gone unpunished if it wasn't for their own incompetence?
This is one of those cases where “put your (play) money where your mouth is” / “skin in the game” really shines.
Anyone who wants to prognosticate on this subject should record their prediction on Metaculus or similar, and link to it. Anyone not going on record thusly should shut up.
Anyone who wants to prognosticate on this subject should record their prediction on Metaculus or similar, and link to it. Anyone not going on record thusly should shut up.
While FTX US did operate in the US, its finances were never nearly as fucked up as FTX (The Behamas company) was, especially with its relationship with Alameda.
It took 7 years, from 2015 to 2022, to convict the Therano founders. What makes you think it will be concluded in 1-2 years?
Update: Fixed the year (15 instead of 14)
Update: Fixed the year (15 instead of 14)
That's an apples to oranges comparison. First, the WSJ article came out in 2015, and things didn't really start clamping down until 2016. In 2018 they were charged by the SEC.
Nobody is saying the FTX saga will be concluded in 1-2 years, but it's quite reasonable to think the principals will have been indicted by then with legal proceedings underway.
Nobody is saying the FTX saga will be concluded in 1-2 years, but it's quite reasonable to think the principals will have been indicted by then with legal proceedings underway.
> Nobody is saying the FTX saga will be concluded in 1-2 years
As per the original comment:
> how SBF won't go to jail because of American corruption--I'll see you back here in a year or two.
Going to jail implies he will be found guilty and it will be concluded. If SBF is only indicted, he is still innocent until proven guilty.
> That's an apples to oranges comparison.
Would like to know more about this. I am not saying he won’t go to jail, but why would prosecutors be faster in indicting SBF?
Lastly, I am caught off guard by how emotional you seem about wanting to demonstrate how efficient the US legal system is. I am not saying it isn’t, but 1-2 years to conclude (again per original comment) seems quick for any legal system.
As per the original comment:
> how SBF won't go to jail because of American corruption--I'll see you back here in a year or two.
Going to jail implies he will be found guilty and it will be concluded. If SBF is only indicted, he is still innocent until proven guilty.
> That's an apples to oranges comparison.
Would like to know more about this. I am not saying he won’t go to jail, but why would prosecutors be faster in indicting SBF?
Lastly, I am caught off guard by how emotional you seem about wanting to demonstrate how efficient the US legal system is. I am not saying it isn’t, but 1-2 years to conclude (again per original comment) seems quick for any legal system.
You should include the next sentence in the quote. "Then we can have that conversation." I also think two years from now would be a better time to have the conversation about whether we believe SBF will go to jail. The trial certainly may take longer than that, but we'll have a better sense of which way the wind is blowing.
Agree. For the record, I do think he is going to jail. The facts are probably there, I think the part that will be challenging is proving intent. Did he intentionally funnel money to his trading firm. Once they build a strong enough case, they will go after him.
> Lastly, I am caught off guard by how emotional you seem about wanting to demonstrate how efficient the US legal system is
Then you are a bad judge of emotion.
Then you are a bad judge of emotion.
> Then you are a bad judge of emotion.
Having knee jerk reactions doesn't show me you have control of your emotions. It's a sign of toxic personality and difficulty working with others.
Having knee jerk reactions doesn't show me you have control of your emotions. It's a sign of toxic personality and difficulty working with others.
Dude, you are an expert psychologist in your own mind.
Ok apples to apples, Ken Lay was 3 years post-Enron-bankruptcy.
I wonder how having evidence of fraudulent transactions publicly accessible on the blockchain will affect the investigation time. It seems like once they figure out exactly which addresses to look for, they'll have timestamped fingerprints that trace back to all sorts of irrefutable evidence.
There's also the very real question of if the Bahamas want to lock him up first. Since they've been trying to promote themselves as the place to base a crypto business, it makes good marketing sense for them to punish him severely. If they do, the next wave of crypto banks being "based in the Bahamas" could be a sign of legal safety.
I don't think the crypto world is patient enough to let the government (any government) handle things. So since we're making predictions: if no government acts within a year, I bet he'll be dead within three. I think they call that "slashing".
I actually registered a bet regarding his eventual conviction: https://longbets.org/922/
I was bothered by the level of rhetoric from high-profile people in technology predicting that the US justice system would never pursue SBF, because these claims seem to smuggle in the conspiracy that the US government is controlled by some cabal or hidden element. While of course the US government has many problems, these insinuations don't represent a serious take on the issue, and this FTX debacle seems to be simply a convenient opportunity for "network state" or techno-libertarian proponents to promulgate some more damaging untruths into an already poisoned information environment.
Nobody has yet taken me up on the bet.
I was bothered by the level of rhetoric from high-profile people in technology predicting that the US justice system would never pursue SBF, because these claims seem to smuggle in the conspiracy that the US government is controlled by some cabal or hidden element. While of course the US government has many problems, these insinuations don't represent a serious take on the issue, and this FTX debacle seems to be simply a convenient opportunity for "network state" or techno-libertarian proponents to promulgate some more damaging untruths into an already poisoned information environment.
Nobody has yet taken me up on the bet.
Elizabeth Holmes got 11 years. There’s hope.
I would still like to know how that all played out. There were credible predictions that the federal sentencing formulas would put her away for life. For next time, I'd be interested in knowing why those predictions were wrong.
Maybe those predictions simply weren't as credible as you thought?
Federal wire fraud (and conspiracy to commit the same) has a maximum sentence length of 20 years. I guess she could have gotten 80 years if all 4 convictions were ordered to be served consecutively. I don't know how common consecutive senteces are vs concurrent.
In federal prison you can only parole at a maximum the last 15% of sentence, so she well serve the majority of the time (if held up on appeal etc., etc.)
Federal wire fraud (and conspiracy to commit the same) has a maximum sentence length of 20 years. I guess she could have gotten 80 years if all 4 convictions were ordered to be served consecutively. I don't know how common consecutive senteces are vs concurrent.
In federal prison you can only parole at a maximum the last 15% of sentence, so she well serve the majority of the time (if held up on appeal etc., etc.)
> Maybe those predictions simply weren't as credible as you thought?
They were made by people with solid credentials in the legal field. My guess is that in the end they dropped a bunch of charges to levels that would skate under the multipliers, or she simply wasn't convicted on the ones that had big multipliers. But since I am not the lawyer, that is my non-credible speculation.
They were made by people with solid credentials in the legal field. My guess is that in the end they dropped a bunch of charges to levels that would skate under the multipliers, or she simply wasn't convicted on the ones that had big multipliers. But since I am not the lawyer, that is my non-credible speculation.
Right. She wasn't convicted on the non-wire fraud counts. You may think that's wrong but it's what the jury concluded and I don't think we generally want judges effectively making their own decision to unduly punish defendants because the judge thinks they "got off" on some other charge.
Black guys have gotten more for stealing a pizza or something...
11 years for stealing a pizza? Show me.
How about 25?
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-03-03-me-38444-...
Not to mention the years tens of thousands of people (mostly Black again) have gotten for smoking some joint, or much minor theft of 1/1000000 scale to Holmes.
Or immediate execution by some cop for just talking back, or merely walking about...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-03-03-me-38444-...
Not to mention the years tens of thousands of people (mostly Black again) have gotten for smoking some joint, or much minor theft of 1/1000000 scale to Holmes.
Or immediate execution by some cop for just talking back, or merely walking about...
He will definitely go to jail. He’s not a high-profile politician and he has harmed other rich people.
[deleted]
For everyone on this thread making broad proclamations about how SBF will go to jail because of American justice--I'll see you back here in a year or two. Then we can have that conversation.
In the meantime, I suggest that you consider whether you would reevaluate your priors in any meaningful way if, as I expect, SBF is ultimately not prosecuted.
In the meantime, I suggest that you consider whether you would reevaluate your priors in any meaningful way if, as I expect, SBF is ultimately not prosecuted.
Though cute, this is a vacuous reply. The fact is, the US justice system is quite good at prosecuting white collar crimes where:
1. A lot of money was lost, especially rich people's money.
2. The fraud is particularly egregious, that is where it wasn't just a one time thing, but where the whole enterprise was a house of cards.
3. Where there is a clear smoking gun.
1 and 2 are obviously true in the FTX case, and I think given what has been reported so far that #3 will also be fairly apparent (e.g. there are tweets SBF made at the end of September that were lies that deliberately tried to hide the token movement between Alameda and FTX).
I'd easily bet that SBF will, when all is said and done, spend at least a decade in jail.
1. A lot of money was lost, especially rich people's money.
2. The fraud is particularly egregious, that is where it wasn't just a one time thing, but where the whole enterprise was a house of cards.
3. Where there is a clear smoking gun.
1 and 2 are obviously true in the FTX case, and I think given what has been reported so far that #3 will also be fairly apparent (e.g. there are tweets SBF made at the end of September that were lies that deliberately tried to hide the token movement between Alameda and FTX).
I'd easily bet that SBF will, when all is said and done, spend at least a decade in jail.
Also SBF or FTX is not big existing financial institution with multiple layers of connections in network. His parent might be somewhat influential, but I don't think it goes too deep. And donations don't really matter if money doesn't keep coming.
My bet is that he tries his hardest to never set foot on US soil again. He flees the Bahamas to a country without an extradition treaty and who also doesn't want to prosecute him -- the Bahamas likely does. So in a way, I think he may avoid prosecution, but not because of US corruption, but because he flees.
This is also why SBF can not testify to congress in person as he will likely be arrested once on US soil as a flight risk. Also why he didn't attend the recent NYTimes event in person -- again he can not step foot on US soil right now or probably ever again.
This is also why SBF can not testify to congress in person as he will likely be arrested once on US soil as a flight risk. Also why he didn't attend the recent NYTimes event in person -- again he can not step foot on US soil right now or probably ever again.
Does he have enough actual-money to pull that off?
Can't be very expensive, probably minimum is a few hundred thousand to get setup somewhere new. With billions missing and dozens of shell companies and various assets all over the place in his name (because FTX lent him personally 100s of millions if not more), I have to imagine he has a few million accessible.
[deleted]
SBF can easily escape the first world and probably even the arm of the law.
But what is life like for someone living outside the law who stole billions from angry people including likely many criminals? His life expectancy would not be long.
But what is life like for someone living outside the law who stole billions from angry people including likely many criminals? His life expectancy would not be long.
Deal!
They have prediction markets for exactly this:
https://manifold.markets/mr22222222/sbf-convicted-of-a-felon...
(On Manifold, you can only donate winnings to charity rather than withdraw, which allows them to legally operate.)
https://manifold.markets/mr22222222/sbf-convicted-of-a-felon...
(On Manifold, you can only donate winnings to charity rather than withdraw, which allows them to legally operate.)
Not the person you're responding to, but I would encourage you to read on the history of _fraud_ in the USA and how that usually turns out.
[deleted]
Don't you feel like a moron now?
How would you evaluate your priors if he is prosecuted, convicted and then given a presidential pardon?
> ...then given a presidential pardon?
I'd go online to see if I could find someone to take a wager on that, but that's such easy money I doubt I'd get odds worth it.
I'd lay $1000 against that happening, and I don't have $1000 to spend lightly.
I'd go online to see if I could find someone to take a wager on that, but that's such easy money I doubt I'd get odds worth it.
I'd lay $1000 against that happening, and I don't have $1000 to spend lightly.
...I might counterparty that, just because Michael frigging Liberty got one, and if I did, Murphy would almost surely conspire to keep it from happening, on account of the favorable outcome for me at stake.
Then again, I try not to tempt those that should not be tempted.
Then again, I try not to tempt those that should not be tempted.
I'd set my priors on fire and throw them in the trash.
Dramatically.
I still wait for Elizabeth Holmes to go to jail. I disagree that SBF will go to jail. American justice has a problem in that some people are just too rich, too connected, and too "pretty" to jail.
I think he will eventually be appointed to the of the board for the Federal Reserve. Maybe even chairman!
His parents are both big shot lawyers who were fairly involved in the whole thing, right? I would be seriously and pleasantly surprised if dude does a day behind bars.
Yes, they're both Stanford law professors and compliance lawyers. In fact, he was born at Stanford.
Valuable Bahamanian property was apparently in their names:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-bankman-frieds-...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-bankman-frieds-...
[deleted]
> For everyone on this thread making broad proclamations about how SBF won't go to jail because of American corruption
People are forgetting he stole money from rich people, the worst crime imaginable in America. If instead he made billions killing poor people either by selling them highly addictive drugs or by poisoning their drinking supply his company would be hit with a fine.
People are forgetting he stole money from rich people, the worst crime imaginable in America. If instead he made billions killing poor people either by selling them highly addictive drugs or by poisoning their drinking supply his company would be hit with a fine.
Can you provide an example in which a crime was committed by selling addictive drugs or poisoning water supplies?
If you are alluding to pain killers, those were approved for use so whether or not the company knew they were addictive is a moral question not a legal one. A massive fine was also leveed against Purdue.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
As for the water, I assume you mean Flint? What crime was committed?
If you are alluding to pain killers, those were approved for use so whether or not the company knew they were addictive is a moral question not a legal one. A massive fine was also leveed against Purdue.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
As for the water, I assume you mean Flint? What crime was committed?
> Can you provide an example in which a crime was committed by selling addictive drugs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma
Technically, updating priors wouldn't necessarily be warranted. Consider a statement X implies Y, e.g. The government is corrupt, which implies SBF won't go to jail. Just because X implies Y does not mean ~Y implies ~X. E.g. SBF going to jail does not imply the government is not corrupt.
Sure but it is a simple result in Bayesian statistics that if event X increases your confidence in fact Y then ~X should decrease your confidence in Y.
For example, if SBF evading jail would increase your confidence in the statement "The US justice system is wholly corrupt" then SBF being sentenced should decrease your confidence in it.
For example, if SBF evading jail would increase your confidence in the statement "The US justice system is wholly corrupt" then SBF being sentenced should decrease your confidence in it.
We've seen enough examples of X to maintain confidence in Y. You need a lot more than a single ~X to significantly impact that assessment.
You're conflating real life with logic.
In your example, according to logic, if X implies Y, then if you don't have Y, you necessarily don't have X. If this were a logic exercise, then not "SBF goes to jail" necessarily implies not "the government is not corrupt."
However, in real life there's no connection between the two.
In your example, according to logic, if X implies Y, then if you don't have Y, you necessarily don't have X. If this were a logic exercise, then not "SBF goes to jail" necessarily implies not "the government is not corrupt."
However, in real life there's no connection between the two.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
I imagine you’re remembering that P -> Q does not mean ~ P -> ~Q. That’s right, but you can absolutely get to ~Q -> ~P.
I imagine you’re remembering that P -> Q does not mean ~ P -> ~Q. That’s right, but you can absolutely get to ~Q -> ~P.
[deleted]
X -> Y litteraly means ¬Y -> ¬X because of (¬X ∨ Y) = (Y ∨ ¬X).
¬Y=='Gov not corrupt' is not an option for those people who argue that the government is corrupt.
In conclusion, naysayers say he wont be convicted is imying and thus proves that the gov is corrupt. The top comment says he may get a sentence, meaning the government is not necessarily corrupt. Yaysayers say the gov is not corrupt and he will get a conviction iff he is guilty.
This is trivial, but difficult to formalize. Thanks for your correction.
In conclusion, naysayers say he wont be convicted is imying and thus proves that the gov is corrupt. The top comment says he may get a sentence, meaning the government is not necessarily corrupt. Yaysayers say the gov is not corrupt and he will get a conviction iff he is guilty.
This is trivial, but difficult to formalize. Thanks for your correction.
I would formalize it as "(corruption ∨ ¬guilty) <-> ¬jail".
- If the government is corrupted it does not matter if SBF is guilty, he will not go jail. - If the government is not corrupted and SBF is not guilty, he will not go to jail. - Only if the government is not corrupted and SBF is guilty, he will go to jail.
The problem is: There are more factors in life that just a corrupted government and guilt. There are jurys, capable lawyers, incapable DAs, loopholes, you name it.
So in truth we have "(corruption ∨ ¬guilty ∨ X) <-> ¬jail", with X being the unknown. Thus, if SBF does not go to jail, it could be true that the government is not corrupted, that SBF is guilty, but any of the other factors were at work.
I think this is what people are really arguing about: what will be causally relevant for the outcome. Mind you, even a conviction would not convict (ha!) people that the convernment is not corrupt. They'd rather say that somebody did not pay enough, other interests were at work, aliens, and so on.
The truth is that you cannot infer much based on a singular outcome if you do not have extremely good insight into the mechanics behind the outcome. Which is precisely why people rather update priors as a way to build up an evaluation based on statistics over a longer time frame. Quite ingenious, if you ask me.
- If the government is corrupted it does not matter if SBF is guilty, he will not go jail. - If the government is not corrupted and SBF is not guilty, he will not go to jail. - Only if the government is not corrupted and SBF is guilty, he will go to jail.
The problem is: There are more factors in life that just a corrupted government and guilt. There are jurys, capable lawyers, incapable DAs, loopholes, you name it.
So in truth we have "(corruption ∨ ¬guilty ∨ X) <-> ¬jail", with X being the unknown. Thus, if SBF does not go to jail, it could be true that the government is not corrupted, that SBF is guilty, but any of the other factors were at work.
I think this is what people are really arguing about: what will be causally relevant for the outcome. Mind you, even a conviction would not convict (ha!) people that the convernment is not corrupt. They'd rather say that somebody did not pay enough, other interests were at work, aliens, and so on.
The truth is that you cannot infer much based on a singular outcome if you do not have extremely good insight into the mechanics behind the outcome. Which is precisely why people rather update priors as a way to build up an evaluation based on statistics over a longer time frame. Quite ingenious, if you ask me.
> Just because X implies Y does not mean ~Y implies ~X.
As others have mentioned, X implies Y does in fact require ~Y implies ~X. I think your example is confusing because "the government is corrupt" means many different things, but you're using it in a rather specific way ("the government is protecting SBF"). The equivalence of `X implies Y` and `~Y implies ~X` is more manifest through the following example
As others have mentioned, X implies Y does in fact require ~Y implies ~X. I think your example is confusing because "the government is corrupt" means many different things, but you're using it in a rather specific way ("the government is protecting SBF"). The equivalence of `X implies Y` and `~Y implies ~X` is more manifest through the following example
"The government is protecting SBF, so SBF won't go to jail"
"SBF went to jail, so the government wasn't protecting him."I get what you mean, but I think you've formulated this incorrectly. Let P(Y) be your prior about government corruption. Let X be the event that SBF is arrested. You want to compute P(Y|X) using the Bayesian update formula and then set P(Y) = P(Y|X). That is what is meant by re-evaluating your priors.
You're modelling X and Y as propositions and you're correct about the inference of ~X and ~Y, but Bayesian updating is about degree of belief in those propositions, which your inference is not a claim about.
You're modelling X and Y as propositions and you're correct about the inference of ~X and ~Y, but Bayesian updating is about degree of belief in those propositions, which your inference is not a claim about.
Let's not forget extradition is in Bahamian jurisdiction. The Bahamian politicians will most likely want their cut and stall extradition, and to do that they can either 1) shake down FTX leaders or 2) cut a deal with US extradition courts for cash. I don't see 2) working out since the case is so public. There wont be a snatch and grab either. I don't see a extradition until all the local cash is gone from FTX leaders and the Bahamians lose interest which could be years if not a decade. I bet the Bahamians already took FTX leaders passports and are seizing properties.
Yeah, Bahamas would definitely bend over backwards for the US.
US blacklisting Bahamas with the various tools at its disposal isn’t worth it for Bahamas.
(Cutting off preclearance, cutting off from US financial system, increasing visa/travel barriers for Bahamians)
US blacklisting Bahamas with the various tools at its disposal isn’t worth it for Bahamas.
(Cutting off preclearance, cutting off from US financial system, increasing visa/travel barriers for Bahamians)
"US blacklisting Bahamas with the various tools at its disposal isn’t worth it for Bahamas."
Really for SBF? Removing financial systems? I think this is a far stretch. Fraudsters are held up in extradition messes all the time. The US doesn't change international policy for a single case (usually).
Really for SBF? Removing financial systems? I think this is a far stretch. Fraudsters are held up in extradition messes all the time. The US doesn't change international policy for a single case (usually).
>US blacklisting Bahamas with the various tools at its disposal isn’t worth it for Bahamas.
US swinging its dick around in that manner over one dude who ran one fraudulent company isn't worth it for the US.
US swinging its dick around in that manner over one dude who ran one fraudulent company isn't worth it for the US.
We are talking about a country that just traded an infamous arms dealer for a WNBA player...
Oh, that like, just happened:
https://apnews.com/article/brittney-griner-freed-viktor-bout...
https://apnews.com/article/brittney-griner-freed-viktor-bout...
What are you trying to imply?
We "overpayed" for her and everyone knows it. Getting taken advantage of is kind of the opposite of putting pressure on another country to make them do something that's a crap deal for them.
We "overpayed" for her and everyone knows it. Getting taken advantage of is kind of the opposite of putting pressure on another country to make them do something that's a crap deal for them.
That was an incredible deal for Russia. The cost of that woman's mistake was pretty steep, she should be very grateful.
I just hope my country has some Americans locked up in case I mistakenly bring some herb with me to USA.
Depends on optics. This is controlled by executive branch and if they want portray themselves as hard on corruption, they’ll do it. You’ll see this on Americans arrested overseas. If it makes the media, the executive branch will flex its power. Just happened today with the basketball player caught with drugs in Russia.
Not entirely, since some of the entities were based in the US. But this is likely one thing the prosecution has to untangle before filing charges.
SBF is 100% in the Bahamas. This is 100% up to bahamian courts to extradite or not.
You mean FTX, not SBF.
> You mean FTX, not SBF.
SBF, the name of the visible head, is as good a collective label for the network of individual criminals and the many dozens of companies they used in their crimes as FTX, just one of the companies, is.
SBF, the name of the visible head, is as good a collective label for the network of individual criminals and the many dozens of companies they used in their crimes as FTX, just one of the companies, is.
Except FTX is already a collective label, SBF is not.
Using SBF as a collective is a confusing and incorrect. If you want to use it as part of a collective label, you could use "SBF & co.", "SBF et al" or similar conventions for creating a collective label from a singular one.
Using SBF as a collective is a confusing and incorrect. If you want to use it as part of a collective label, you could use "SBF & co.", "SBF et al" or similar conventions for creating a collective label from a singular one.
[deleted]
gah fixed thanks
My cynical take is that the fact that the well to do are screeching about how he won't go to jail all but ensures he will. The system always saves face.
The ruling class needs the PMC to see the system as legitimate and they'll happily throw one of their own in jail to do it.
The ruling class needs the PMC to see the system as legitimate and they'll happily throw one of their own in jail to do it.
The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scot free is unbelievable. I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system. It's going to be a legal fight all the way -- and SBF has few friends and doesn't have any money - he's likely going to prison or spend the rest of his life in a country where he can't be extradited to the US.
Go look at Bernie Madoff as an example of someone who defrauded a lot of people and was much more respected then SBF was. Think people - don't just whine like a bunch of petulant children how the game is rigged.
edit: Scott to scot
Go look at Bernie Madoff as an example of someone who defrauded a lot of people and was much more respected then SBF was. Think people - don't just whine like a bunch of petulant children how the game is rigged.
edit: Scott to scot
> I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system.
I think it's more about trust in propaganda. Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective.
E.g., we could look at Elizabeth Holmes. As Wikipedia says, "The credibility of Theranos was attributed in part to Holmes's personal connections and ability to recruit the support of influential people, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Jim Mattis, and Betsy DeVos, all of whom had served or would go on to serve as U.S. presidential cabinet officials." Republican cabinet officials, I should add. It was more than 2 years between Carreyrou's bombshell article and her indictment.
Do I believe that she got a lot of money and cred from cozying up to politically prominent individuals? Definitely. Do I believe that delayed the investigation? No, complex crimes, especially ones with intent requirements, require patient, careful investigations. And I don't even recall anybody saying that she wasn't immediately arrested because she was politically connected.
I think it's more about trust in propaganda. Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective.
E.g., we could look at Elizabeth Holmes. As Wikipedia says, "The credibility of Theranos was attributed in part to Holmes's personal connections and ability to recruit the support of influential people, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Jim Mattis, and Betsy DeVos, all of whom had served or would go on to serve as U.S. presidential cabinet officials." Republican cabinet officials, I should add. It was more than 2 years between Carreyrou's bombshell article and her indictment.
Do I believe that she got a lot of money and cred from cozying up to politically prominent individuals? Definitely. Do I believe that delayed the investigation? No, complex crimes, especially ones with intent requirements, require patient, careful investigations. And I don't even recall anybody saying that she wasn't immediately arrested because she was politically connected.
> I think it's more about trust in propaganda. Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective.
So much "news discourse" today comes from people who have lost their minds to partisan politics. With every news item, the only question they ask is "how does this prove that my side is 100% right and very unfairly treated".
It's not even the partisanship that is annoying about this, it's the straining for a connection. A lot of things don't have a meaningful connection to partisan politics, and trying to force it constantly leads to a lot of uninteresting noise.
It's as if there were millions of people constantly trying to relate everything happening in the world to Weird Al Yankovic. Except that would at least be funny.
So much "news discourse" today comes from people who have lost their minds to partisan politics. With every news item, the only question they ask is "how does this prove that my side is 100% right and very unfairly treated".
It's not even the partisanship that is annoying about this, it's the straining for a connection. A lot of things don't have a meaningful connection to partisan politics, and trying to force it constantly leads to a lot of uninteresting noise.
It's as if there were millions of people constantly trying to relate everything happening in the world to Weird Al Yankovic. Except that would at least be funny.
Bingo.
They're not trying to understand the case or offer an opinion about it. The term "virtue signalling" refers to a similar category of speech, ie., signalling (vs communicating).
You can distinguish communication from signalling by the introduction of a hypothetical premise: suppose "The Issue" (eg., SBT) was discovered not to relate to "Identity" (eg., Left/Right, etc.), then would you/the-speaker still care?
If not, then what you're actually concerned about is the impact of this issue on your ingroup/outgroup game, not the issue itself.
Here, most either want to distance their identity from SBT, or associate it with their enemies.
They're not trying to understand the case or offer an opinion about it. The term "virtue signalling" refers to a similar category of speech, ie., signalling (vs communicating).
You can distinguish communication from signalling by the introduction of a hypothetical premise: suppose "The Issue" (eg., SBT) was discovered not to relate to "Identity" (eg., Left/Right, etc.), then would you/the-speaker still care?
If not, then what you're actually concerned about is the impact of this issue on your ingroup/outgroup game, not the issue itself.
Here, most either want to distance their identity from SBT, or associate it with their enemies.
I want to take your comment and frame it. Honestly, the state of public political discourse these days makes me want to become a hermit and live in the middle of nowhere, primarily because it is extremely rare to see any good faith arguments. Instead, you have each side already knowing their desired outcome, and the only mental work going into the argument is "how can I pretend this event proves my side." And folks can say what they want about looking at the past with rose-colored glasses, but the sheer amount of conspiratorial nonsense that gets play at high levels, where it really shouldn't, is so much worse now than in the pre-Internet days.
The thing that makes me particularly annoyed is when people's conspiracy theories don't make sense even if you believe all of their (usually false) points. I mean, if you believe that all politicians have 0 morals and only act in self interest, the idea that a politician who only cares about self interest would for some reason put their reputation on the line for SBF is insane. There is practically nobody, in public, sticking up for this villain, so even if a politician took money from him in the past, they have no reason to help him now. It's just totally logically inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense.
The thing that makes me particularly annoyed is when people's conspiracy theories don't make sense even if you believe all of their (usually false) points. I mean, if you believe that all politicians have 0 morals and only act in self interest, the idea that a politician who only cares about self interest would for some reason put their reputation on the line for SBF is insane. There is practically nobody, in public, sticking up for this villain, so even if a politician took money from him in the past, they have no reason to help him now. It's just totally logically inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense.
> Republican cabinet officials, I should add.
It’s worth noting that the “right” doesn’t consider these people you mention as the “right”. It’s the same reason Joe Biden will say “MAGA Republicans”. The Republican base is almost entirely different than the elected officials (same with most of the left btw).
I recommend the book “the new right” by michael malice
The right views much of their political leadership with contempt. They equally view them as the “enemy”, perhaps more-so.
When people hear “he donated to both parties” what the people on the right here is “they donated to my enemies”. The “MAGA Republicans” mostly are concerned about illegal immigration, off shoring of jobs, corruption, globalism, etc. Republican leadership and SBF openly worked against their interest. It’s colloquially called the “uniparty” for a reason
It’s worth noting that the “right” doesn’t consider these people you mention as the “right”. It’s the same reason Joe Biden will say “MAGA Republicans”. The Republican base is almost entirely different than the elected officials (same with most of the left btw).
I recommend the book “the new right” by michael malice
The right views much of their political leadership with contempt. They equally view them as the “enemy”, perhaps more-so.
When people hear “he donated to both parties” what the people on the right here is “they donated to my enemies”. The “MAGA Republicans” mostly are concerned about illegal immigration, off shoring of jobs, corruption, globalism, etc. Republican leadership and SBF openly worked against their interest. It’s colloquially called the “uniparty” for a reason
I'm using the term "the US right" here in the fashion of political scientists, especially non-American ones. I understand that the US right, which has for decades spent a lot of time pursuing orthodoxy (see, e.g., "RINO", or the the way there is no longer a pro-choice wing of the Republican Party), has a lot of internecine fighting over who is truly within the tribal boundaries. But I think none of that is relevant to my point. Whether you think somebody is "the right" or not doesn't map well onto who might be able to squash a prosecution for political reasons. Being a cabinet member is a more useful proxy.
The reason I was bringing it up was regarding how it was relevant to your point…
First, I agree it’s about who can squash prosecution. That said, it’s a bit bigger than that. These funds were used to help elect people. Meaning, it was directly used to squash people who would prosecute SBF in the future.
> Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective.
That’s why who was funded matters, you can use it as a proxy for who is corrupt / who best aligns with a given interest.
The US right doesn’t view it as “both parties” taking funds. The reason it’s a right wing talking point is it’s one party getting the money. The “uniparty” - ie the democrats & the republican leadership who appear to work against the republican base. That’s who’s getting the fund — not the republicans who are opposed to funding Ukraine, for instance. The republicans who more closely represent the base, did not get funds from SBF, that we know of.
It’s also why the right doesn’t believe there will be any arrest(s). Who’s motivated? If it goes to trial / is investigated those in power will be named.
If any arrest(s) are made, it would be similar to ghislaine maxwell - where she goes to prison for sex trafficking minors… but none of the recipients of those minors are charged or named.
First, I agree it’s about who can squash prosecution. That said, it’s a bit bigger than that. These funds were used to help elect people. Meaning, it was directly used to squash people who would prosecute SBF in the future.
> Both parties take a ton of money, and some of it always turns out to be from dubious people. A lot of those dubious people go to jail. But this "SBF hasn't been arrested in the first 20 minutes so Democrats are corrupt" line is one I've seen as a talking point all over the US right. But it never comes with any perspective.
That’s why who was funded matters, you can use it as a proxy for who is corrupt / who best aligns with a given interest.
The US right doesn’t view it as “both parties” taking funds. The reason it’s a right wing talking point is it’s one party getting the money. The “uniparty” - ie the democrats & the republican leadership who appear to work against the republican base. That’s who’s getting the fund — not the republicans who are opposed to funding Ukraine, for instance. The republicans who more closely represent the base, did not get funds from SBF, that we know of.
It’s also why the right doesn’t believe there will be any arrest(s). Who’s motivated? If it goes to trial / is investigated those in power will be named.
If any arrest(s) are made, it would be similar to ghislaine maxwell - where she goes to prison for sex trafficking minors… but none of the recipients of those minors are charged or named.
People believe (rightly!) that law follows power. I think the Epstein trial and general incuriosity about who among the rich and powerful had committed great crimes led many to this realization. It’s not supposed to be true in a society with rule of law but it does appear to be at least somewhat true in our society.
People notice the kid-gloves treatment he’s been getting in the media (and from congress!!). And people assume that power is not against him, and so people are pessimistic.
I don’t think any of this is unreasonable, although it is incompatible with many beliefs that people often hold dear.
People notice the kid-gloves treatment he’s been getting in the media (and from congress!!). And people assume that power is not against him, and so people are pessimistic.
I don’t think any of this is unreasonable, although it is incompatible with many beliefs that people often hold dear.
Epstein went to jail...
Sure, eventually, after decades went by and a cut and dry criminal case got dismissed because he was an alleged intelligence asset. But because of public scrutiny, largely because a dissident president named Donald Trump talked about the Epstein island issues on live television in a bid to damage his political opponents, he did eventually go to prison.
If it hadn't been politically expedient for a billionaire to attack him for political points, it never would have been an issue of public concern, and Epstein would still be trafficking children for sexual abuse. Everyone knew about Epstein for years and he was personally exempted from the consequences of his actions. While Epstein is now gone, there are going to be dozens of other well connected child sex traffickers similarly generating blackmail on politicians just like Epstein and Maxwell did, and they will continue to evade the criminal justice system.
Most importantly, the feds seized all of Epstein's files and CDs and that was the last thing we heard of any of it. Zero people have been punished for raping children. The only person to get materially punished for it is Richard Stallman, who only spoke in defense of one of the alleged rapists who visited the island. Nobody else has seen an ounce of heat. No lost jobs. No criminal charges.
If it hadn't been politically expedient for a billionaire to attack him for political points, it never would have been an issue of public concern, and Epstein would still be trafficking children for sexual abuse. Everyone knew about Epstein for years and he was personally exempted from the consequences of his actions. While Epstein is now gone, there are going to be dozens of other well connected child sex traffickers similarly generating blackmail on politicians just like Epstein and Maxwell did, and they will continue to evade the criminal justice system.
Most importantly, the feds seized all of Epstein's files and CDs and that was the last thing we heard of any of it. Zero people have been punished for raping children. The only person to get materially punished for it is Richard Stallman, who only spoke in defense of one of the alleged rapists who visited the island. Nobody else has seen an ounce of heat. No lost jobs. No criminal charges.
There's a lot of conspiracy theory in there. All this stuff about intelligence assets and blackmail and murder to keep him quiet is all too exciting in a made-for-tv kind of way. How do we know he wasn't just some rich dude who wanted to bang underage chicks and thought he could get away with it? It seems like the occam's razor answer.
I didn't say intelligence asset, I said alleged intelligence asset. This isn't conspiracy theory, it the reason stated by the prosecutor for why he let him plea to a no-time deal instead of going with charges that fit his crimes.
> Acosta informed the Trump presidential transition team that he offered a lenient plea deal because he was told that Epstein "belonged to intelligence", was "above his pay grade," and to "leave it alone".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta
It is possible that he didn't belong to intelligence -- but still got people within the DOJ to assert falsely that he was so that he could be exempt from the consequences of his crimes. It just goes to show the core of my post's assertions, that Epstein was exempt from the normal criminal process for decades due to his position as a prominent child sex trafficker.
> Acosta informed the Trump presidential transition team that he offered a lenient plea deal because he was told that Epstein "belonged to intelligence", was "above his pay grade," and to "leave it alone".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta
It is possible that he didn't belong to intelligence -- but still got people within the DOJ to assert falsely that he was so that he could be exempt from the consequences of his crimes. It just goes to show the core of my post's assertions, that Epstein was exempt from the normal criminal process for decades due to his position as a prominent child sex trafficker.
Seems like the more relevant paragraph from the Acosta article is this one:
> Acosta has variously stated that he was not directly involved in the unusual agreement, that prosecutors determined it to be the best available solution, and that he "was unduly pressured by Epstein's heavy-hitting lawyers." He also has argued the prosecution team believed conviction by trial in federal court was unlikely, and an agreement would therefore be the best way to put an end to Epstein's exploitation of underage girls.
Any conversation with Trump's presidential transition team happened 8 years after the plea agreement. Maybe Acosta is just trying to make himself look better. I wouldn't read too much into that.
> Acosta has variously stated that he was not directly involved in the unusual agreement, that prosecutors determined it to be the best available solution, and that he "was unduly pressured by Epstein's heavy-hitting lawyers." He also has argued the prosecution team believed conviction by trial in federal court was unlikely, and an agreement would therefore be the best way to put an end to Epstein's exploitation of underage girls.
Any conversation with Trump's presidential transition team happened 8 years after the plea agreement. Maybe Acosta is just trying to make himself look better. I wouldn't read too much into that.
I would concur that it is possible that it is only Acosta making the claim that Jeffrey Epstein belonged to intelligence. If this is true, it is still a materially relevant agent of the Department of Justice making the claim that Epstein belonged to intelligence and using that claim to justify his no-time plea deal. Even if the only person doing so is Acosta, the claim is still true.
Which, to me, takes this outside the realm of "conspiracy theory" and into the realm of what the DOJ prosecutor is lying about.
> and an agreement would therefore be the best way to put an end to Epstein's exploitation of underage girls.
If this were actually the motivation instead of sweeping it under the rug, he could have still been sentenced to prison (plea agreements are just paper making recommendations to a judge -- the judge can sentence however they wish) and also heavily publicizing that he at least has been convicted of child sexual exploitation instead of quietly resolving it with no punishment in shadows and secrecy. We know that Epstein was certainly engaging in pimping after -- even hosting Bill Gates at a mansion known to be a site of thinly veiled prostitution labeled as massage therapy.
Which, to me, takes this outside the realm of "conspiracy theory" and into the realm of what the DOJ prosecutor is lying about.
> and an agreement would therefore be the best way to put an end to Epstein's exploitation of underage girls.
If this were actually the motivation instead of sweeping it under the rug, he could have still been sentenced to prison (plea agreements are just paper making recommendations to a judge -- the judge can sentence however they wish) and also heavily publicizing that he at least has been convicted of child sexual exploitation instead of quietly resolving it with no punishment in shadows and secrecy. We know that Epstein was certainly engaging in pimping after -- even hosting Bill Gates at a mansion known to be a site of thinly veiled prostitution labeled as massage therapy.
Nah, later review by DoJ suggests that Acosta chickened out for some reason.
and his customers?
Also Elizabeth Holmes and Sonny Balwani, who were just convicted in the last year. And Martin Shkreli and any number of other high-profile white-collar criminals in the last decade. The system is deeply flawed, but there is a threshold above which highly public, blatantly obvious crimes do get prosecuted (provided you’re not the President, anyways).
This is a great article about the difference between Madoff and SBF, and also why the wheels of justice turn very slowly on financial crimes. Worth a read, for sure.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/why-hasnt-sam-bankma...
To your point. Madoff gave himself up. He confessed to his crimes and didn't even want an out. He more or less gave up defending himself in a meaningful way.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/why-hasnt-sam-bankma...
To your point. Madoff gave himself up. He confessed to his crimes and didn't even want an out. He more or less gave up defending himself in a meaningful way.
> The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scot free is unbelievable. I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system.
I think it's history that shows this and builds this low trust. The 2008-2009 housing and economic crisis had effectively no prosecutions that came to fruition. Bury things in sufficient complexity, and it's easy to get away with it. The thing about Elizabeth Holmes is that she wasn't actually wealthy or powerful. That's why she's going to prison, which to be clear, I agree with but I also think a lot of financial criminals belong in prison. Sam Bankman-Fried is in that same boat, but he does seem to have some strange connections that are a little more engrained than the board members Holmes had. So we'll see. I think he'll be prosecuted and likely go to jail, but I also see it maybe just not happening. I just wish we'd see the same reckoning for other fraudsters who are bit better in hiding their malfeasances.
I think it's history that shows this and builds this low trust. The 2008-2009 housing and economic crisis had effectively no prosecutions that came to fruition. Bury things in sufficient complexity, and it's easy to get away with it. The thing about Elizabeth Holmes is that she wasn't actually wealthy or powerful. That's why she's going to prison, which to be clear, I agree with but I also think a lot of financial criminals belong in prison. Sam Bankman-Fried is in that same boat, but he does seem to have some strange connections that are a little more engrained than the board members Holmes had. So we'll see. I think he'll be prosecuted and likely go to jail, but I also see it maybe just not happening. I just wish we'd see the same reckoning for other fraudsters who are bit better in hiding their malfeasances.
> The 2008-2009 housing and economic crisis had effectively no prosecutions that came to fruition.
Because it was not a crime at that point to bet against common sense.
> Bury things in sufficient complexity, and it's easy to get away with it.
Yes, but that's why there's the whole system of independent government institutions, staffed by specialists, and they are supposed to understand the complex aspects of economy/society, recommend specific actions, warn legislators, publish summary statistics, ask for better tools, etc.
And as is tradition these institutions are themselves used as political tools, are suffering from regulatory capture, are underfunded, and ineffective.
Just as the SEC was "asleep" the FDA/FTC was too.
*But* it's very important to not forget that, even though everyone wants magically better institutions, just making laws stricter and other "brute force" solutions don't lead to better institutions, they lead to more government control over society, which is rarely a net positive.
.
.
.
> I just wish we'd see the same reckoning for other fraudsters who are bit better in hiding their malfeasances.
Yeah, but that's mostly consumer protection. Which is soooo laughably missing nowadays. Amazon gets away with filling the planet with junk. People already don't want to spend effort on safety if it would come at the cost of some individualism.
Because it was not a crime at that point to bet against common sense.
> Bury things in sufficient complexity, and it's easy to get away with it.
Yes, but that's why there's the whole system of independent government institutions, staffed by specialists, and they are supposed to understand the complex aspects of economy/society, recommend specific actions, warn legislators, publish summary statistics, ask for better tools, etc.
And as is tradition these institutions are themselves used as political tools, are suffering from regulatory capture, are underfunded, and ineffective.
Just as the SEC was "asleep" the FDA/FTC was too.
*But* it's very important to not forget that, even though everyone wants magically better institutions, just making laws stricter and other "brute force" solutions don't lead to better institutions, they lead to more government control over society, which is rarely a net positive.
.
.
.
> I just wish we'd see the same reckoning for other fraudsters who are bit better in hiding their malfeasances.
Yeah, but that's mostly consumer protection. Which is soooo laughably missing nowadays. Amazon gets away with filling the planet with junk. People already don't want to spend effort on safety if it would come at the cost of some individualism.
> I think it's history that shows this and builds this low trust. The 2008-2009 housing and economic crisis had effectively no prosecutions that came to fruition
They must have been busy prosecuting and seazing assets from thousands of debtees.
They must have been busy prosecuting and seazing assets from thousands of debtees.
I feel that faith really is a component of things getting better in society. No matter how bad things are, we collectively have to believe and expect them to get better, in order for us to figure a way out of bad situations and in order to hold leaders accountable in the long term.
It grates on me like no other when people not only make observations, but give off nihilistic hopelessness of anything ever possibly having an alternate outcome.
To view corruption or inequality as "just the way things are" is to permit it and tacitly support it.
Take 2: Some of these comments could be bad-faith nation-state trolls on a broader mission to undermine American citizens' faith in government, but I don't think HN has been targeted as much as say, reddit.
It grates on me like no other when people not only make observations, but give off nihilistic hopelessness of anything ever possibly having an alternate outcome.
To view corruption or inequality as "just the way things are" is to permit it and tacitly support it.
Take 2: Some of these comments could be bad-faith nation-state trolls on a broader mission to undermine American citizens' faith in government, but I don't think HN has been targeted as much as say, reddit.
> The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scot free is unbelievable.
Well, it depends on what example you want to compare SBF to.
Maybe this will be like Bernie Madoff, and SBF will die in jail.
Or maybe this will be like the 2008 financial crisis, with barely any punishment and most of the people who caused the crash gifted billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.
Maybe it will be like Elizabeth Holmes, and SBF will get 10 years in jail.
Or maybe it will be like the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, where there appear to be substantial crimes revealed, and yet somehow nobody gets prosecuted.
Maybe it will be like George Floyd, and stealing $20 is enough to get someone killed on the spot, let alone a billion dollars.
Or maybe, like Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted for trafficking minors to have sex with... nobody, apparently... it'll turn out any evidence of other people's involvement has somehow vanished in a puff of smoke.
Maybe it will be like Enron's Kenneth Lay, and he'll be found guilty and face a big jail sentence.
Or maybe, like the Bhopal disaster or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the corporation will pay some money but despite corporations being comprised of nothing except people, somehow no people will face any punishment.
My intuition is SBF won't manage to avoid prosecution - He hasn't managed to spread the blame thinly enough, he isn't a prince, and $70 million in donations don't make you into Scooter Libby. But in the American justice system, it can really go either way.
Well, it depends on what example you want to compare SBF to.
Maybe this will be like Bernie Madoff, and SBF will die in jail.
Or maybe this will be like the 2008 financial crisis, with barely any punishment and most of the people who caused the crash gifted billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.
Maybe it will be like Elizabeth Holmes, and SBF will get 10 years in jail.
Or maybe it will be like the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers, where there appear to be substantial crimes revealed, and yet somehow nobody gets prosecuted.
Maybe it will be like George Floyd, and stealing $20 is enough to get someone killed on the spot, let alone a billion dollars.
Or maybe, like Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted for trafficking minors to have sex with... nobody, apparently... it'll turn out any evidence of other people's involvement has somehow vanished in a puff of smoke.
Maybe it will be like Enron's Kenneth Lay, and he'll be found guilty and face a big jail sentence.
Or maybe, like the Bhopal disaster or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the corporation will pay some money but despite corporations being comprised of nothing except people, somehow no people will face any punishment.
My intuition is SBF won't manage to avoid prosecution - He hasn't managed to spread the blame thinly enough, he isn't a prince, and $70 million in donations don't make you into Scooter Libby. But in the American justice system, it can really go either way.
Madoff admitted to his crimes (once his family turned him in I believe) which made that go much faster. It will likely take years for DOJ to build a case. From what I've read they tend to be very meticulous once they believe they have a case that is winnable.
I think he and/or others will likely be in federal prison at some point but it will take a lot longer than the hot-take-minute culture of the internet would like. He also has no source of income (right?) to keep greasing the legislative wheels (aka political donations) to get laws/rules written in his companies favor as far as regulations go.
I think he and/or others will likely be in federal prison at some point but it will take a lot longer than the hot-take-minute culture of the internet would like. He also has no source of income (right?) to keep greasing the legislative wheels (aka political donations) to get laws/rules written in his companies favor as far as regulations go.
"Scott free" is maybe a bit strong, but it's totally plausible that he'll walk away with a slap on the wrist. White collar crime is famous for leading to leniency.
"Scott free" is way too strong. Like, a whole extra T strong. It should be scot free.
All that said, I'm not sure how this will play out. He cozied up to the right people, but so did Epstein, and he... definitely did not get away scot free.
All that said, I'm not sure how this will play out. He cozied up to the right people, but so did Epstein, and he... definitely did not get away scot free.
> but so did Epstein, and he... definitely did not get away scot free
Not a big conspiracy fan, but in the case of Epstein, he very obviously made a mistake in compiling files of incriminating evidence on the rich and powerful who'd used his 'services'.
I'd say he was expected to disappear in case of problems, in one way or another. And it's at least possible that when he didn't do it himself, he was 'helped' on his way.
Not a big conspiracy fan, but in the case of Epstein, he very obviously made a mistake in compiling files of incriminating evidence on the rich and powerful who'd used his 'services'.
I'd say he was expected to disappear in case of problems, in one way or another. And it's at least possible that when he didn't do it himself, he was 'helped' on his way.
> he very obviously made a mistake in compiling files of incriminating evidence on the rich and powerful
This strategy clearly seems to have worked well in some cases (Scientology, Hoover’s FBI).
Maybe you need a big institution engaging in the strategy, to obfuscate and diffuse the responsibility & blame?
This strategy clearly seems to have worked well in some cases (Scientology, Hoover’s FBI).
Maybe you need a big institution engaging in the strategy, to obfuscate and diffuse the responsibility & blame?
> and SBF has few friends and doesn't have any money
He wasn't able to "sneakily" siphon a few billion off to the side for himself?
He wasn't able to "sneakily" siphon a few billion off to the side for himself?
Seriously, I’d challenge people to name a legal case this high profile in recent memory where there wasn’t a prosecution.
It’s become cool to be cynical about everything in American politics, but the fact it’s that it’s just cover for blatant ignorance and laziness.
It’s become cool to be cynical about everything in American politics, but the fact it’s that it’s just cover for blatant ignorance and laziness.
Be careful directly comparing Madoff to SBF. Madoff admitted his crimes (hat's why it was so speedy).
SBF is more like Ken Lay, and that took 3 years for the Feds to build their (ultimately successful) case.
SBF is more like Ken Lay, and that took 3 years for the Feds to build their (ultimately successful) case.
> The amount of comments in here who think that SBF is going to walk away scott free is unbelievable. I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system.
It's more that it reinforces the priors of the people making the accusation. People can "celebrate" the potential non-prosecution since it sits as evidence for the corruption of the government folks want to believe is there.
And the test will be when Bankman-Fried ultimately is prosecuted, none of these folks will celebrate the actual event as evidence of justice being done. It will be "too late", or "too little", or there will be another whataboutist argument about something that should be happening instead or in addition. (Edit: or more likely and horrifyingly circular, by removing agency from the government and claiming credit: "He was only prosecuted because The People demanded it!").
It's more that it reinforces the priors of the people making the accusation. People can "celebrate" the potential non-prosecution since it sits as evidence for the corruption of the government folks want to believe is there.
And the test will be when Bankman-Fried ultimately is prosecuted, none of these folks will celebrate the actual event as evidence of justice being done. It will be "too late", or "too little", or there will be another whataboutist argument about something that should be happening instead or in addition. (Edit: or more likely and horrifyingly circular, by removing agency from the government and claiming credit: "He was only prosecuted because The People demanded it!").
Madoff was constantly swarmed by the press and had multiple physical altercations with them.
SBF was invited to prestigious $2500-a-seat event by the NYT.
Something is very, very different about these situations.
SBF was invited to prestigious $2500-a-seat event by the NYT.
Something is very, very different about these situations.
So many things are different. Two things are that Madoff, unlike SBF, admitted to fraud as his company blew up. Also SBF's relationship with the Bahamas is certainly a complicating matter that will only serve to help him as he delays the inevitable arrest.
> SBF was invited to prestigious $2500-a-seat event by the NYT.
Where he was grilled about possible crimes.
Where he was grilled about possible crimes.
It's distrust in the elite who, frankly, have earned it.
The 2008 bank bailouts were the last straw for many.
Epstein was the last straw for many.
Covid mismanagement was the last straw for many.
The 2008 bank bailouts were the last straw for many.
Epstein was the last straw for many.
Covid mismanagement was the last straw for many.
Yes because the people running human societies have traditionally been transparent and fair until 2008.
Conspiracy thinking is not new, the mobilization and scale of social media allows the "othering" of people to reach a level we haven't seen since the second world war. And that's frightening.
Conspiracy thinking is not new, the mobilization and scale of social media allows the "othering" of people to reach a level we haven't seen since the second world war. And that's frightening.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>SBF has few friends and doesn't have any money
I think that the skeptical people would disagree with this statement, especially since the only source to that is SBF himself.
There is about $3.3 billion in loans to himself and an entity that he controls (Paper Bird) that is still unaccounted for. 3 billion dollars can buy a lot of friends.
I think that the skeptical people would disagree with this statement, especially since the only source to that is SBF himself.
There is about $3.3 billion in loans to himself and an entity that he controls (Paper Bird) that is still unaccounted for. 3 billion dollars can buy a lot of friends.
It is the same mindless angry mob sentiment that has existed through the ages, from the crucifixion of Jesus to the burning of witches to the lynchings through the American South.
People bray for blood and deem the government corrupt and ineffective if it is not immediately provided.
People bray for blood and deem the government corrupt and ineffective if it is not immediately provided.
"I guess it goes to show how low trust is in the legal system"
...
"SBF has few friends and doesn't have any money - he's likely going to prison"
that seems like a pretty damning indictment of the legal system right there
...
"SBF has few friends and doesn't have any money - he's likely going to prison"
that seems like a pretty damning indictment of the legal system right there
I believe SBF is exactly a case that will be end up thrown away. Despite donations and connections. No more money coming in and he is on top of too much media. Useful idiot that can be cut.
> edit: Scott to scot
TIL https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot-free.html
TIL https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot-free.html
Damn, was right all along - thanks.
Justice is a steam roller not a Porsche.
Conversely, look at how many of Maxwell/Epstein's clients that have been prosecuted so far.
The first case in history that a sex trafficker was trafficking victims to nobody.
> SBF has few friends
SBF was the second-biggest donor to the Dems in the 2022 midterm elections. Not only does he have friends, he also has a cadre of politicians who will look terrible in the case that their major supporter ends up rotting in prison. It is unsurprising that some people believe he could walk.
SBF was the second-biggest donor to the Dems in the 2022 midterm elections. Not only does he have friends, he also has a cadre of politicians who will look terrible in the case that their major supporter ends up rotting in prison. It is unsurprising that some people believe he could walk.
Madoff donated a ton of money to Democrats. Elizabeth Holmes literally hosted a fundraiser for Hilary Clinton. Both ended up in jail.
On the other hand, pardons under Republican presidents tend to be a who's who of white-collar criminal shitbags. If I'm doing crimes, I know who I'm donating to! Just look at this list!
https://www.nytimes.com/article/who-did-trump-pardon.html
On the other hand, pardons under Republican presidents tend to be a who's who of white-collar criminal shitbags. If I'm doing crimes, I know who I'm donating to! Just look at this list!
https://www.nytimes.com/article/who-did-trump-pardon.html
While I agree Trump did pardon a large number of shitbags, so did Clinton. Marc Rich? And Trump even pardoned Rod Blagojevich a powerful and horribly corrupt Democrat. So much for the swamp draining I guess.
The corruption of the powerful apparently transcends party lines. Almost like these lines are a diversion and distraction for the little people.
The corruption of the powerful apparently transcends party lines. Almost like these lines are a diversion and distraction for the little people.
As a Chicagoan, I struggle to call Rod anything more than a stupid asshole and a total opportunist (notice how he got on Trump's radar because his wife was going on Fox News and calling Democrats evil).
Marc Rich was bullshit though. Absolutely disgraceful. That being said, I'd still rather cast my net with Republicans though if I'm trying to get out of jail for white collar crime. Clinton had n=1 and was famous for not commuting crimes. Trump basically legalized white collar crimes for his friends. Even Bush let some real pieces of shit off.
Marc Rich was bullshit though. Absolutely disgraceful. That being said, I'd still rather cast my net with Republicans though if I'm trying to get out of jail for white collar crime. Clinton had n=1 and was famous for not commuting crimes. Trump basically legalized white collar crimes for his friends. Even Bush let some real pieces of shit off.
Not to mention actual murderers like Eddie Gallagher.
Trump pardoned Anthony Levandowski also
Your theory is that the people are so very corrupt that they are taking money to betray their country, but so loyal that they'll defend a guy who won't be able to do anything for them ever again?
It just doesn't make sense. SBF is already notorious and will be for a long time. Whether or not he's convicted in the US, that's already guaranteed, especially since other countries may go after him. The best thing Democrats (or Republicans if they took his money) can do for themselves is to very publicly get him to face justice. Which is why you see the chair of the House Financial Services Committee inviting him to come talk in front of Congress. Corrupt or not, their best line of action is to demonstrate independence and grease his slide to a long prison sentence.
It just doesn't make sense. SBF is already notorious and will be for a long time. Whether or not he's convicted in the US, that's already guaranteed, especially since other countries may go after him. The best thing Democrats (or Republicans if they took his money) can do for themselves is to very publicly get him to face justice. Which is why you see the chair of the House Financial Services Committee inviting him to come talk in front of Congress. Corrupt or not, their best line of action is to demonstrate independence and grease his slide to a long prison sentence.
Even the most cynical (possibly accurate) take is that politicians only care about getting elected. How would defending a confirmed bankrupt scammer help anyone get elected? He doesn’t have any money or power left
All the more reason why politicians won't throw him a lifeline. They gain nothing at this point by defending or supporting him.
It's not entirely the same, but we saw this with the Elizabeth Holmes case. The powerful people that supported her early on became her biggest detractors when the shit hit the fan. Their reputation was tarnished by association. They severed all support and publicly decried her as a fraud. We're already seeing the same [1] with SBF.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/bankman-f...
It's not entirely the same, but we saw this with the Elizabeth Holmes case. The powerful people that supported her early on became her biggest detractors when the shit hit the fan. Their reputation was tarnished by association. They severed all support and publicly decried her as a fraud. We're already seeing the same [1] with SBF.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/bankman-f...
He also donated a ton to Republicans. He was trying to buy crypto regulation. Those people aren't his friends. If anything they see him as an embarrassment/liability now.
$235,000 out of nearly $40,000,000 isn’t “a ton”. It’s barely enough to even register - but it does make the media narrative sound better as he goes down in flames to be able to say he donated to both parties.
[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/11/megadonor-no-more-s...
[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/11/megadonor-no-more-s...
According to SBF, so potentially unreliable source:
> “I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
> “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billi...
This isn't terribly different from the pattern we see with a lot of tech companies where direct employee donations often favor Democrats but donations to PACs which then support candidates have the opposite trend (varying in degree based on the industry and balance of power where the company's interests lie).
> “I donated to both parties. I donated about the same amount to both parties,” Bankman-Fried told the crypto commentator and citizen journalist Tiffany Fong.
> “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billi...
This isn't terribly different from the pattern we see with a lot of tech companies where direct employee donations often favor Democrats but donations to PACs which then support candidates have the opposite trend (varying in degree based on the industry and balance of power where the company's interests lie).
At this point it would be naive to take at face value anything SBF said about his money. Financially speaking, he appears to be the world's biggest liar of 2022.
> direct employee donations often favor Democrats but donations to PACs which then support candidates
Rather than speculating, we could alternatively choose to look at some numbers:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Wq2kPw3C4X_50Tqc8H9...
> direct employee donations often favor Democrats but donations to PACs which then support candidates
Rather than speculating, we could alternatively choose to look at some numbers:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13Wq2kPw3C4X_50Tqc8H9...
I’m aware that he publicly donated to Democratic PACs. I was just trying to illustrate that there’s considerable precedent for someone being strategic about which donations they think will be unpopular with their friends, customers, employees, etc.
Given that he basically ran a money laundering machine this is extremely plausible - the amounts which various people reportedly embezzled would be plenty to fund a ton of PAC spending and it’ll take forensic accountants years to figure out whether that happened.
Given that he basically ran a money laundering machine this is extremely plausible - the amounts which various people reportedly embezzled would be plenty to fund a ton of PAC spending and it’ll take forensic accountants years to figure out whether that happened.
Now add his co-founder, 24 millions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/01/crypto-po...
His co-CEO donated $24 million to Republicans. Not that I think any of this has any relevancy. It's just more tribalism and distraction. I'm a bit sad that it's so prevalent on a site that values honest and open debate.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-team-amon...
He also funneled almost an equal amount of dark money to Republicans. Plenty of sources for this -
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billi...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/sam-bankma...
Hold your horses sir. Both of those links cite the same not-reliable source: a comment [0] made by Sam Bankman-Fried in a conversation with crypto YouTuber Tiffany Fong.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DezodR9hNI&t=774s
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DezodR9hNI&t=774s
[deleted]
Much of his financial support was to Democrats in primaries -- so it was literally spent against democrats as much as it was in support of them. Over 1/4 of his 2022 giving was to a single candidate in Oregon (Carrick Flynn) who was running against a well-liked Democrat incumbent (Andrea Salinas). Flynn lost, SBF spent nearly $1,000/vote in that primary, and basically garnered zero 'power' from that spending. If anything he antagonized the actual power brokers by diverting their resources to support a candidate that otherwise would have won without intervention.
A prominent new donor gets is responsible for a massive financial collapse and likely fraud, resulting in major losses for retail investors. Options are:
1. Claim ignorance of shady practices and disown donor.
2. Pull strings to avoid a real prosecution, and claim the guy did nothing wrong.
People really think politicians are going to choose option 2?
1. Claim ignorance of shady practices and disown donor.
2. Pull strings to avoid a real prosecution, and claim the guy did nothing wrong.
People really think politicians are going to choose option 2?
I'd also like to hear skeptics explain how he's going to continue donating. Because politicians have a lot more to gain by keeping past donations and throwing him to the wolves.
We'll see, but I think the more likely outcome is that the recipients of the donations will realise it's more harmful to stick their neck out for him than it is to just step away. To be honest I don't even who all the recipients of his donations are and what they could possibly do to aid him, people are acting like he's basically bought the US justice system and is basically as good as acquitted.
Madoff was also a big political donor [1]. Most politicians (credibly) claimed they were unaware of his shenanigans and returned his money.
Probably exactly what's going to happen here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff#Government_acces...
Probably exactly what's going to happen here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Madoff#Government_acces...
Friends? Or fair weather friends?
This. As a friend who's had more than his fair share of dealing with politicians in countries far more corrupt than the US likes to say, you can buy people, but you can't make sure they stay bought.
This is a Dec 2 tweet from Representative Maxine Waters, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee:
".@SBF_FTX, we appreciate that you've been candid in your discussions about what happened at #FTX. Your willingness to talk to the public will help the company's customers, investors, and others. To that end, we would welcome your participation in our hearing on the 13th."
https://twitter.com/RepMaxineWaters/status/15986938112528752...
She backtracks a bit afterwards.
".@SBF_FTX, we appreciate that you've been candid in your discussions about what happened at #FTX. Your willingness to talk to the public will help the company's customers, investors, and others. To that end, we would welcome your participation in our hearing on the 13th."
https://twitter.com/RepMaxineWaters/status/15986938112528752...
She backtracks a bit afterwards.
I mean what’s the big deal? Should he not be invited to a hearing to explain what he did?
[deleted]
He was also the second largest donor to Republicans, which he did in secret to avoid criticism from liberal friends.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billi...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/ftx-billi...
It’s not like he’s a guy who’s been on the political scene for decades. He just popped up in the last couple of cycles, and his money is gone, so he’s easily replaced.
Plus, whether he goes to prison or not, he’s made every politician who took money from him look terrible, so whatever “friends” he may have bought have little to gain from sticking with him.
Plus, whether he goes to prison or not, he’s made every politician who took money from him look terrible, so whatever “friends” he may have bought have little to gain from sticking with him.
He admitted he secretly donated an equal amount to republicans: https://gizmodo.com/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sbf-secret-donatio.... They have his money and don't need him anymore.
‘Secretly donated’ are people really still buying what he’s selling?
I assume people believe claims like this with zero evidence because it is convenient and alleviates any cognitive dissonance (re: Democrats being for the little guy and not just as 'corrupt' as Republicans). If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
> If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
To what end? Selectively believing what SBF says is a Rorschach test. If it was something that goes against your your politics "Oh, he is obviously lying" while simultaneously "He is running his mouth and confessing his crimes unforced".
It's particularly notsble because those who disbelieve SBF spending dark money agree with his reasoning dor doing so. I his own words, he said most journalists/media folk are on the left, and he wanted journalists to like him, so he publicly donated to the Dems and made dark money donations to Republicans. He also specifically mentioned Citizens United for enabling this.
To what end? Selectively believing what SBF says is a Rorschach test. If it was something that goes against your your politics "Oh, he is obviously lying" while simultaneously "He is running his mouth and confessing his crimes unforced".
It's particularly notsble because those who disbelieve SBF spending dark money agree with his reasoning dor doing so. I his own words, he said most journalists/media folk are on the left, and he wanted journalists to like him, so he publicly donated to the Dems and made dark money donations to Republicans. He also specifically mentioned Citizens United for enabling this.
To the end that people might actually have to accept the claim as true rather than 'believing' in it or not.
Granted, he doesn't owe anyone any sort of proof of his claims. You can make as many assumptions as you want about what it says about the people who believe or disbelieve the claim, the fact remains it's unsubstantiated, just an idea he threw out in an interview. And just like I am not owed proof of the claim, he's not owed my belief in it.
> If it was something that goes against your your politics "Oh, he is obviously lying" while simultaneously "He is running his mouth and confessing his crimes unforced".
Why do you feel coming up with a strawman argument is appropriate here? Is it just to point out that my disbelief in his dark money claim must mean that I also adhere to these two contradictory quotes, therefore I'm an idiot who believes contradictory things? Great argument. And maybe others have said this, but I didn't. I've said nothing about SBF "confessing" crimes, and as far as I can tell, he's trying to play dumb and pin the blame on other hated figures like Caroline Ellison, and he has not confessed to anything.
At least, this is how I read your comment. It may not be a generous interpretation, I apologize for that, but at least I'll acknowledge it. Posting an example of contradictory statements in direct response to my comment (as an of illustration of the silliness of people who agree with my position) is, I think, even less generous.
Granted, he doesn't owe anyone any sort of proof of his claims. You can make as many assumptions as you want about what it says about the people who believe or disbelieve the claim, the fact remains it's unsubstantiated, just an idea he threw out in an interview. And just like I am not owed proof of the claim, he's not owed my belief in it.
> If it was something that goes against your your politics "Oh, he is obviously lying" while simultaneously "He is running his mouth and confessing his crimes unforced".
Why do you feel coming up with a strawman argument is appropriate here? Is it just to point out that my disbelief in his dark money claim must mean that I also adhere to these two contradictory quotes, therefore I'm an idiot who believes contradictory things? Great argument. And maybe others have said this, but I didn't. I've said nothing about SBF "confessing" crimes, and as far as I can tell, he's trying to play dumb and pin the blame on other hated figures like Caroline Ellison, and he has not confessed to anything.
At least, this is how I read your comment. It may not be a generous interpretation, I apologize for that, but at least I'll acknowledge it. Posting an example of contradictory statements in direct response to my comment (as an of illustration of the silliness of people who agree with my position) is, I think, even less generous.
So he's lying about giving to the GOP ... why exactly? What would he get out of saying this?
If you listen to the interviews he's given you can tell when he's being reaally careful with his wording so if he's later caught he can wriggle out of any accusations of lying. And you can tell that there are some questions where he was really uncomfortable and didn't want to give any answer. But when they're talking about the donations, it's very light, breezy, matter of fact and importantly the justification is simple and believable. He uses some really far-fetched reasons to excuse some of the other stuff what happened - and that's obviously causing raised eyebrows - but I don't buy that he's lying about this.
I also don't understand the fixation on this specific thing, it feels like people don't actually have any curiosity about the FTX bankruptcy and just want to score a few points for their side in the game of politics.
If you listen to the interviews he's given you can tell when he's being reaally careful with his wording so if he's later caught he can wriggle out of any accusations of lying. And you can tell that there are some questions where he was really uncomfortable and didn't want to give any answer. But when they're talking about the donations, it's very light, breezy, matter of fact and importantly the justification is simple and believable. He uses some really far-fetched reasons to excuse some of the other stuff what happened - and that's obviously causing raised eyebrows - but I don't buy that he's lying about this.
I also don't understand the fixation on this specific thing, it feels like people don't actually have any curiosity about the FTX bankruptcy and just want to score a few points for their side in the game of politics.
> If SBF did donate the large amounts of money he claims he did as "dark money", surely he could prove this.
Yes, I'm sure someone who carefully managed their massive fraud/theft empire to conceal movement of funds, to the point of making sure the corporations involved didn't keep records of who their employees were, what their job duties were, what bank accounts they controlled, etc., would have no reason to avoid providing supporting documentation of political donations that were deliberately made in a way which doesn’t require reporting, because there is no way such documentation would also reveal previously concealed parts of the mechanisms of the crimes he has committed.
Yes, I'm sure someone who carefully managed their massive fraud/theft empire to conceal movement of funds, to the point of making sure the corporations involved didn't keep records of who their employees were, what their job duties were, what bank accounts they controlled, etc., would have no reason to avoid providing supporting documentation of political donations that were deliberately made in a way which doesn’t require reporting, because there is no way such documentation would also reveal previously concealed parts of the mechanisms of the crimes he has committed.
If only he'd donated to the GOP, he could've scored a preemptive Trump pardon!
He donated the same amount to the GOP it's not getting as much attention.
That is probably because the source on his dark money donations is SBF and that's it.
What does he have to gain out of saying that?
My only take is that he can prevent prevent Fox & hard right from further making him to be a democratic super donor and try and paint the entire democratic party/system as corrupt.
My only take is that he can prevent prevent Fox & hard right from further making him to be a democratic super donor and try and paint the entire democratic party/system as corrupt.
SBF has claimed to have donated as much (without proof), but he's also claimed to have not committed any crimes.
What would he have to gain from lying about donating to Republicans? He lies about not committing crimes to stay out of prison.
Seems like a lot of partisans want SBF to be a democratic cartoon villain and won't let reality get in the way of that assessment.
Seems like a lot of partisans want SBF to be a democratic cartoon villain and won't let reality get in the way of that assessment.
He's been very careful and cagey about those other claims though - things like saying he didn't implement an FTX/Alameda backdoor (deliberately avoiding the more important issue of whether one existed and whether he used it) and saying he didn't try to commit fraud (sure he didn't try, but he succeeded on a rather impressive scale).
Oh my goodness no! I'm not sure what SBF thinks he is doing, but he is definitely maximizing his chances of going to jail.
He is making his future defense lawyer's job very difficult by committing to a story. The lawyer will be severely constrained from suggesting alternate explanations of the facts to the jury because SBF has already negated so many possible interpretations. Every time SBF overstates an explanation, the prosecutors get that into the record. Every time SBF provably misstates or misleads in an interview, the prosecutors get to say "take a look at this slime ball."
When under investigation, you shut up. It's the only smart thing to do.
He is making his future defense lawyer's job very difficult by committing to a story. The lawyer will be severely constrained from suggesting alternate explanations of the facts to the jury because SBF has already negated so many possible interpretations. Every time SBF overstates an explanation, the prosecutors get that into the record. Every time SBF provably misstates or misleads in an interview, the prosecutors get to say "take a look at this slime ball."
When under investigation, you shut up. It's the only smart thing to do.
I think one thing to keep in mind here is that, while everything you said is true for most ordinary defendants, Sam's parents are both highly regarded Stanford law professors. They have both been spotted in the Bahamas with him, and are certainly giving him counsel here, not to mention any whiteshoe legal team he's hired. Sam may be a lot of things, but he's not an idiot. There is no doubt that what he's doing is part of a calculated strategy, and it is a virtual certainty that that strategy has been approved of by legally serious elements of his defense team.
Whether or not it works time will tell, but it's a mistake to think that he's just a fool running his mouth.
Whether or not it works time will tell, but it's a mistake to think that he's just a fool running his mouth.
Just because he's getting good advice doesn't mean he's taking any of it. Indeed he has said he isn't; is that part of the advice, to pretend he isn't listening to it?
Pride is a powerful drug that can make people think they're immune to all kinds of harsh realities. Clever fools abound. If it's a calculation, it sure looks like he's bad at math.
Pride is a powerful drug that can make people think they're immune to all kinds of harsh realities. Clever fools abound. If it's a calculation, it sure looks like he's bad at math.
Exactly. From the king himself...
https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/1598113040918249473
https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/1598113040918249473
Ah, Mark Karpeles. The OG of bankrupt crypto exchanges.
And he admitted to commiting fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo
Go on… where in this 23-minute video does this happen?
I'm wondering if he actually assumes he will have to go to jail, and is trying to use this situation to get as much attention as possible, perhaps hoping to become "famous" so people will hire him for.. something.. when he gets out of jail? Seems like there's always someone wiling to work with you if you're famous enough.
I dunno, I'm probably wrong. Most likely he's just not very smart. That fits the evidence considering what we've heard about how he ran the company
I dunno, I'm probably wrong. Most likely he's just not very smart. That fits the evidence considering what we've heard about how he ran the company
Everything this idiot says to any random interviewer from any random media outlet is ammunition for his inevitable prosecution. He's already said incriminating things; for instance, his Dealbook Summit interview established some of the predicates for wire fraud.
Perhaps as importantly, every element of his story that he tells constrains his defense. Whatever arbitrary "facts" he lays out in public now, he won't be able to effectively contradict at trial. He's pinning himself down a variety of ways.
It takes years to bring a complicated federal financial services fraud case to trial. We're barely into the top of the first inning. Be suspicious of people with bad analyses of what's happening right now, like the idea that SBF is somehow serving his own best interests by speaking publicly about this stuff.
Perhaps as importantly, every element of his story that he tells constrains his defense. Whatever arbitrary "facts" he lays out in public now, he won't be able to effectively contradict at trial. He's pinning himself down a variety of ways.
It takes years to bring a complicated federal financial services fraud case to trial. We're barely into the top of the first inning. Be suspicious of people with bad analyses of what's happening right now, like the idea that SBF is somehow serving his own best interests by speaking publicly about this stuff.
I'm not really sure I buy it. It seems to me more likely that he's just still incompetent and sort of addicted to the spotlight. He was one of the most popular and well-respected people in the world in a certain sub-community and he did that all while playing league of legends every day.
It might be some master plan, but it really also might just be him not wanting to accept that it's over.
I have a hard time imagining any remotely rational person wouldn't realize to just not say anything to anyone without a lawyer present.
It might be some master plan, but it really also might just be him not wanting to accept that it's over.
I have a hard time imagining any remotely rational person wouldn't realize to just not say anything to anyone without a lawyer present.
In a way, speaking publicly like nothing's wrong somewhat normalizes the impression that everything was above the board. Perception can certainly shape public expectations. Might be his angle/strategy
Of course, anybody that digs even a second beyond the headlines realizes it was blatant fraud
Of course, anybody that digs even a second beyond the headlines realizes it was blatant fraud
His behavior is so absurd it almost makes me suspect he's being forced to give these insane interviews.
From his interview with NYT on Nov. 14[1]:
> Shortly before the interview, Mr. Bankman-Fried had posted a cryptic tweet: the word “What.” Then he had tweeted the letter H. Asked to explain, Mr. Bankman-Fried said he planned to post the letter A and then the letter P. “It’s going to be more than one word,” he said. “I’m making it up as I go.”
> So he was planning a series of cryptic tweets? “Something like that.”
> But why? “I don’t know,” he said. “I’m improvising. I think it’s time.”
I think he's still winging it, and that he's taken it in a pretty weird direction. I think he's trying to pull off some sort of hail-mary. In the Tiffany Fong interview [2], it seemed like he was trying to manufacture popular support for a return to FTX. He had a story about how he shouldn't have filed for bankruptcy, how money came in immediately afterwards, and how "they" weren't letting him fix things at the company even though "they" knew he could.
It was an odd yarn, but the only purpose for it I can imagine is trying to drum up a pressure campaign so he could be reinstalled as CEO.
So I don't think he's exactly trying to stay out of jail, I think he's experimenting to try and figure out what might be possible and whether he can somehow come out on top. But that it's desperate and inept so it's just baffling from the outside and almost looks like he's trying to go to jail. But I do think he's doing it out of his own will.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/30/business/sam-bankman...
http://web.archive.org/web/20221115024748/https://www.nytime...
[2] https://youtu.be/6DezodR9hNI
> Shortly before the interview, Mr. Bankman-Fried had posted a cryptic tweet: the word “What.” Then he had tweeted the letter H. Asked to explain, Mr. Bankman-Fried said he planned to post the letter A and then the letter P. “It’s going to be more than one word,” he said. “I’m making it up as I go.”
> So he was planning a series of cryptic tweets? “Something like that.”
> But why? “I don’t know,” he said. “I’m improvising. I think it’s time.”
I think he's still winging it, and that he's taken it in a pretty weird direction. I think he's trying to pull off some sort of hail-mary. In the Tiffany Fong interview [2], it seemed like he was trying to manufacture popular support for a return to FTX. He had a story about how he shouldn't have filed for bankruptcy, how money came in immediately afterwards, and how "they" weren't letting him fix things at the company even though "they" knew he could.
It was an odd yarn, but the only purpose for it I can imagine is trying to drum up a pressure campaign so he could be reinstalled as CEO.
So I don't think he's exactly trying to stay out of jail, I think he's experimenting to try and figure out what might be possible and whether he can somehow come out on top. But that it's desperate and inept so it's just baffling from the outside and almost looks like he's trying to go to jail. But I do think he's doing it out of his own will.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/30/business/sam-bankman...
http://web.archive.org/web/20221115024748/https://www.nytime...
[2] https://youtu.be/6DezodR9hNI
Just going to point out that federal grand juries are secretive as hell. And they take a super long time. FTX imploded weeks ago and I don't expect an indictment to be handed down before the end of 2023.
Theranos started to collapse in 2015 before going bankrupt in 2018. And the founders were only convicted now. 7 years after journalist and investors started really looking into them.
Theranos started to collapse in 2015 before going bankrupt in 2018. And the founders were only convicted now. 7 years after journalist and investors started really looking into them.
"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but boy do they grind." - Ken White
often to dust
Notice just how little has been said by other top FTX/Alameda people? Gary Wang, Nishad Singh, Caroline Ellison, Sam Trabucco, etc? Those people are trying to not go to jail.
Sam seems to be taking an approach of "they cant indict me if I dont stop confessing to crimes".
Sam seems to be taking an approach of "they cant indict me if I dont stop confessing to crimes".
Plea deals? :)
Publicly admitting to crimes while firing to top flight law firm, which you later replace with one of your parents academic colleagues is maybe not what a sane persom in a “singular pursuit of not going to jail” does.
Sure, he's reputation washing, but that’s less to avoid jail and more for future business opportunities, whether or not he goes to jail.
Sure, he's reputation washing, but that’s less to avoid jail and more for future business opportunities, whether or not he goes to jail.
The reputation washing will have a mixed effect, since he’s portraying himself as both innocent and incompetent. Not sure I’d do business with someone like that.
I'm definitely not commenting on the effectiveness of his reputation washing, just my view of its aim.
I don't think he has any future business opportunities (beyond maybe being "that notorious guy" on the after dinner speaking circuit), not even in crypto.
I think he probably believes he is both successfully reputation-washing and setting the foundations for a legal defence, but the whole reason he's in this position in the first place is that his gambles didn't pay off...
I think he probably believes he is both successfully reputation-washing and setting the foundations for a legal defence, but the whole reason he's in this position in the first place is that his gambles didn't pay off...
Probably because of this:
“When asked by Reuters why the couple decided to buy a vacation home in the Bahamas and how it was paid for -- whether in cash, with a mortgage or by a third party such as FTX -- a spokesman for the professors said only that Bankman and Fried had been trying to return the property to FTX.
"Since before the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Bankman and Ms. Fried have been seeking to return the deed to the company and are awaiting further instructions," the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate.“ https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-bankman-frieds-...
“When asked by Reuters why the couple decided to buy a vacation home in the Bahamas and how it was paid for -- whether in cash, with a mortgage or by a third party such as FTX -- a spokesman for the professors said only that Bankman and Fried had been trying to return the property to FTX.
"Since before the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Bankman and Ms. Fried have been seeking to return the deed to the company and are awaiting further instructions," the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate.“ https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-bankman-frieds-...
Seems like the real winner here is coffeezilla. I hadn't heard of him until this disaster, now he's everywhere.
https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/coffeezilla
https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/coffeezilla
I did not know about him before this blow up, but looking into his history, he actually pointed that SBF and FTX is doing Ponzi scheme 7 months ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6nAxiym9oc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6nAxiym9oc
Been following him ever since he collabed with SomeOrdinaryGamers on a deep dive of influencer crypto promotions, and how every one of them in full knowledge promoted scams. He's been at this for a while, and I hope that the stuff he turned up will be enough to build a case against SBF.
He deserves it with his last interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo&t=1s
He collected enough evidence to put SBF in jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo&t=1s
He collected enough evidence to put SBF in jail.
I'm guessing he's spoken to lawyers, and what he says is a result of some locked in strategy. (Though he also seems to be a professional rambler and deflecter.) However, I'm surprised that SBF hasn't played a card like "while I didn't know it at the time, I have now investigated and concluded that..." to (a) show he was sincerely clueless and (b) set the stage for muddying what he knew before and after blowing up.
If I end up in SBF's situation (it can happen to anyone, right?) why should I not use this tactic? Would admitting knowing anything hurt his case, even if the knowledge was gained after leaving the company?
If I end up in SBF's situation (it can happen to anyone, right?) why should I not use this tactic? Would admitting knowing anything hurt his case, even if the knowledge was gained after leaving the company?
His lawyers fired him because he wouldn't shut up. https://futurism.com/the-byte/sam-bankman-fried-lawyers-quit...
Your statements can and will be used againt you, but they will never be used in your favour ("hearsay"). If you have something to say, wait to say it on the stand, in front of a jury. Until then, it will hurt you, and it won't help you.
> I'm guessing he's spoken to lawyers, and what he says is a result of some locked in strategy
I mean he very publicly fired his top-flight law firm and disparaged the advice of lawyers generally very early on in the “keep talking” strategy, so, yes, he has spoken to lawyers...
But while he now has new counsel, I don’t think there is much evidence other than belief that “people notorious for publicly dismissing risk as a valid consideration before having massive fraud empires collapse around their head are not the kind of people to act recklessly and imprudently” supporting the idea that his behavior is part of a carefully planned strategy.
I mean he very publicly fired his top-flight law firm and disparaged the advice of lawyers generally very early on in the “keep talking” strategy, so, yes, he has spoken to lawyers...
But while he now has new counsel, I don’t think there is much evidence other than belief that “people notorious for publicly dismissing risk as a valid consideration before having massive fraud empires collapse around their head are not the kind of people to act recklessly and imprudently” supporting the idea that his behavior is part of a carefully planned strategy.
Both his parents are/were professors at Stanford Law School, so that’s a fair guess.
Indict them too. There’s every indication that they were beneficial participants of the scheme.
(I haven't been paying attention to this case, and had't heard that.)
Is it possible that SBF is throwing himself under the bus to protect parents?
Is it possible that SBF is throwing himself under the bus to protect parents?
> it can happen to anyone, right?
Sure...anyone who's thoroughly unscrupulous and willing to do whatever it takes in pursuit of wealth and power.
If you think that describes everyone, or even a supermajority, then I'd suggest you lay off the Cynicism Flakes for breakfast for a while and get out of what I'd suspect to be a very wealthy bubble.
Sure...anyone who's thoroughly unscrupulous and willing to do whatever it takes in pursuit of wealth and power.
If you think that describes everyone, or even a supermajority, then I'd suggest you lay off the Cynicism Flakes for breakfast for a while and get out of what I'd suspect to be a very wealthy bubble.
> I'm surprised that SBF hasn't played a card like "while I didn't know it at the time, I have now investigated and concluded that..."
unless that's true, it's another way for the prosecution to hang him, because they might be able to prove he _did_ know.
unless that's true, it's another way for the prosecution to hang him, because they might be able to prove he _did_ know.
> while I didn't know it at the time
In a court, under oath, this won’t fly.
In a court, under oath, this won’t fly.
[deleted]
The central issue is whether FTX user funds were used in violation of the terms of service. Whenever that question comes up, the open and honest SBF rolls over and plays dumb. He doesn't have the details. His dashboard didn't show it. He lost track of "important things." He doesn't "know what to tell you."
Everything was an "embarrassing mistake."
SBF's problem is that the only way for FTX to become insolvent is that user funds were being used in violation of the terms of service.
Everything was an "embarrassing mistake."
SBF's problem is that the only way for FTX to become insolvent is that user funds were being used in violation of the terms of service.
There may be more parallels to SBF and Jon Corzine than to Bernie Madoff. SBF and Corzine ran companies that were regulated by the CFTC which requires segmentation of client funds from corporate funds. Both SBF and Corzine failed to provide the appropriate systems and safeguards to prevent the intermingling of client and corporate funds. Only time and evidence will tell if SBF knowingly and intentionally siphoned client funds for nefarious intent. The situation can get more murky if usage/terms of services policies existed for the alt-coins that were used. In Madoffs' case, there was a point that no investments were being made and new money was being used to pay/boost returns of existing clients which doesn't seem to be the case with FTX.
This guy is the classical example of the old saying "Honesty is the key to success. If you can fake that, you have made it.". He is probably working on getting pregnant too.
The original quote is sincerity, but yes.
"The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made." -George Burns
"The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made." -George Burns
I looked it up too. Seems there are a lot of variations on this and nobody really knows exactly where it comes from. I bet the ancient Egyptians already had a saying like this.
The quote that comes to mind for me is from Casino
Ace Rothstein : "Listen, if you didn't know you were being scammed you're too fuckin' dumb to keep this job, if you did know, you were in on it."
Ace Rothstein : "Listen, if you didn't know you were being scammed you're too fuckin' dumb to keep this job, if you did know, you were in on it."
This made me laugh hard, sry for my Spam post XD
He is clearly making himself a scapegoat to protect himself from the wrath of the politically powerful. One thing to burn rich people, quite another to burn politicians who chair the financial services committee.
Anyone who says, “what’s he doing!? He must be stupid or crazy!” is either dishonest ir not very perceptive.
He is throwing himself under the bus in hopes of an eventual pardon or just to avoid pissing off the powers that be, who he helped secure with his kick backs (“contributions”).
But the foolish masses are likely to buy the whole, “he is stupid” narrative.
Clearly, he is not,
Anyone who says, “what’s he doing!? He must be stupid or crazy!” is either dishonest ir not very perceptive.
He is throwing himself under the bus in hopes of an eventual pardon or just to avoid pissing off the powers that be, who he helped secure with his kick backs (“contributions”).
But the foolish masses are likely to buy the whole, “he is stupid” narrative.
Clearly, he is not,
I sort of disagree. He had a money printing operation and somehow wound up blowing half of it on bad bets, losing the rest criminally, and now blabbering without a lawyer. If he's playing 4d chess I'll be amazed to see his endgame working out.
i dont think theres any 4d chess involved, the poster is just saying that what appears to be self effacement is actually alignment with the greater powers that be. the story looks better for them this way. say you're bartending in the trendiest club in town and you spill some drinks on the VIPs. you agree to whatever punishment the VIPs dispense, because you dont want the punishment of the club owner.
So you think he is literally stupid?
Do you know who his parents are? If so, do you think he is really “without a lawyer”?
It’s hard for me to not think you just don’t know the full context. I assume you aren’t being disingenuous, but maybe you just haven’t followed the news closely enough to understand. Or maybe you know something I and others do not. If so, please share the info.
Do you know who his parents are? If so, do you think he is really “without a lawyer”?
It’s hard for me to not think you just don’t know the full context. I assume you aren’t being disingenuous, but maybe you just haven’t followed the news closely enough to understand. Or maybe you know something I and others do not. If so, please share the info.
Obviously it's not useful or realistic to just label someone as "stupid" or "not stupid" (we're not 7 years old here). But I think he handled FTX poorly, and I think he is now handling the fallout poorly. When I say he is blabbing without a lawyer, I'm sure he's spoken to a lawyer, but it's unlikely a lawyer would advise him to speak so much to so many people and he is doing many interviews without a visible lawyer or having a lawyer intervene or represent him instead of speaking for himself. Again, maybe this is an incredibly smart legal strategy somehow, I just doubt that it is.
Is this believable? Has a crack team of Lawyers really told him "definitely run your mouth on every podcast you can on the off chance that this will cause hung juries or mistrials in your future criminal cases" instead of "shut your damn mouth now"??
It might not cause mistrials, but you might influence public perception enough that jurors are more sympathetic. SBF is painting a picture of young altruistic but inexperienced guy, who got too caught up in things and wasn't paying enough attention and allowed mistakes to happen underneath him which he feels really bad about.
If you figure you're probably going to stand for some sort of trial anyway it might not be a bad approach.
If you figure you're probably going to stand for some sort of trial anyway it might not be a bad approach.
Jurors are told to only take into consideration what evidence is presented at trial.
If he admits to crimes during a podcast it's guaranteed jurors will hear it at trial. If he says he a "werry sorry little boy" during the podcast there's zero guarantee the juror will hear it and zero guarantee they'll take it into account at trial.
I'm having a hard time seeing how it's a good approach.
If he admits to crimes during a podcast it's guaranteed jurors will hear it at trial. If he says he a "werry sorry little boy" during the podcast there's zero guarantee the juror will hear it and zero guarantee they'll take it into account at trial.
I'm having a hard time seeing how it's a good approach.
An extreme example going in the opposite direction would be Martin Shkreli. Finding a completely impartial jury was very difficult[1], as even if someone hadn't followed the particulars of the case, they had probably seen headlines or heard opinions from friends and family during small talk, creating a negative overall sentiment that reaches jurors. Finding jurors who can have their perspective not colored at all when many other jurors are dismissed for hating the guy is a tall order.
[1]https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/
[1]https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/
This assumes that the average potential juror knows who SBF is, or what he's done. Yes, the average HN reader, or Twitter user, knows all about crypto and the players, but they do not represent the average U.S. citizen at all, even if the trial was held in SF.
I wonder if he's that unknown to the average citizen now partially thanks to the interviews he's done and the resulting media attention.
For example this Yahoo News article about Caroline Ellison[1] has 1912 comments, which is fairly high engagement for Yahoo.
The top comment is somewhat telling for the layman's reaction: "It doesn't seem most of these people were anywhere near qualified or experienced enough to perform the roles they held."
[1]https://news.yahoo.com/caroline-ellison-one-central-figures-...
For example this Yahoo News article about Caroline Ellison[1] has 1912 comments, which is fairly high engagement for Yahoo.
The top comment is somewhat telling for the layman's reaction: "It doesn't seem most of these people were anywhere near qualified or experienced enough to perform the roles they held."
[1]https://news.yahoo.com/caroline-ellison-one-central-figures-...
Absolutely no chance the average US citizen has heard of SBF or FTX.
Zero chance they saw the superbowl commercial?
I watched it, am plugged into the crypto universe and still have no memory of it. Do we expect people to remember every obscure commercial they saw? Coinbase is another story because the QR code was memorable but I think it's also higher profile than FTX ever was in the US.
I wouldn't expect them to remember it, but I think there's a non zero chance the average US citizen/juror has heard of FTX/SBF, given how heavily they advertised. MLB umpires wore a FTX logo for example, and was to replace American Airlines as the sponsor (FTX Arena) of the Miami heat's stadium.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/11/17/mlb-latest...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/11/17/mlb-latest...
There's a big difference between "I've seen an FTX commercial/Logo on TV" and "I know who SBF is and what FTX's value prop as a company was" and yet another difference between that and "I know who SBF is, I had money on FTX, I know what Alameda Research was and I know what podcasts SBF has been on lately."
The later group is extremely small and is most likely not going to get called into a jury.
The later group is extremely small and is most likely not going to get called into a jury.
Not sure how you got that impression from the article.
> He repeatedly emphasizes that he’s speaking against his lawyers’ advice (no kidding), because by god he just wants to help.
> He repeatedly emphasizes that he’s speaking against his lawyers’ advice (no kidding), because by god he just wants to help.
He's playing chess you're playing checkers. His lawyers told him to say that too. (according to the 5-heads who think he is doing this on purpose and not out of ego/stupidity.)
This is a ridiculous piece. SBF isn’t some supergenius who is now executing a brilliant plan to avoid prison. He’s a naive idiot who is digging his own grave and will end up behind bars or dead. There is a 0% chance that he steals billions from rich and connected people and manages to skate because he blabs to a few people on social media and tosses a few pennies to some politicians. He stole billions, he’s going to prison if he doesn’t end up dead first.
Or he goes on the run soon and we never see him again. Someone who was fraudulently handling billions surely has a few millions somewhere that isn't accounted for. Other crypto scam artists have disappeared after taking funds. Ruja and Kwon are two I can think of and SBF had access to more money than either.
The article doesn't claim that he is a supergenius. He might be just dumb fuck giving those interviews. But anyway his one and only objective is avoiding jail and I think that is true. He doesn't give a fuck about customers etc, he only does what he does because he wants to avoid jailtime, whether it is dumb or smart is irrelevant.
his parents are not naive idiots and I’m sure they’ve been giving him some form of counsel one way or another
There is no reason to believe that his parents' counsel was "do as many interviews as possible, admit to as much as possible, and try to convince the public you're both a genius and completely ignorant of the basics of running a business", as opposed to the standard legal advice of "shut up and wait and see what the charges and evidence are (and who you can plausibly blame it on)".
I imagine some very clever people advised him on compliance best practises and not gambling customer funds that he wasn't entitled to touch either, but that didn't mean his actions were the outcome of listening to that advice
I imagine some very clever people advised him on compliance best practises and not gambling customer funds that he wasn't entitled to touch either, but that didn't mean his actions were the outcome of listening to that advice
oh my god, his parents are tax attorneys at a top law school, not like George Soros or something. All these responses about his parents indicate to me that a) they don't know what his parents do; b) they don't know what legal academics do; c) they don't know what lawyers do; d) they severely overestimate the social capital some tax professors have.
I would correct the title to "doing everything in persuit to minimize any negative judicial outcome possible".
Maddoff was portrayed as cold hearted criminal and got 100+ years in jail. SBF is trying as hard as he can to paint a different picture for himself. And the media/society are giving him this chance.
Negligence/amateurism is way better image than cold hearted criminal intent.
Maddoff was portrayed as cold hearted criminal and got 100+ years in jail. SBF is trying as hard as he can to paint a different picture for himself. And the media/society are giving him this chance.
Negligence/amateurism is way better image than cold hearted criminal intent.
CoffeZilla got a public statement from SBF that it was business-as-usual to comingle funds between customers using the margin trading product and the savings account product. That's a huge admission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo
Coffeezilla actually crashed his call a third time and managed to get him to accidentally admit to fraud. I imagine that call might even be used in the court case as evidence when it happens
I imagine that, behind the scenes, SBF and Ellison are each lawyering up with the intent to throw the other under the bus. If so, then may they both succeed!
I also suspect that SBF finds it inconceivable that he cannot talk his way out of this situation with the same approach that he used to talk his way into it. He will find, however, that the skepticism is much more overt and widespread than when everything seemed to be going swimmingly.
I also suspect that SBF finds it inconceivable that he cannot talk his way out of this situation with the same approach that he used to talk his way into it. He will find, however, that the skepticism is much more overt and widespread than when everything seemed to be going swimmingly.
As a lawyer, I would say that giving detailed interviews about all of the crime-ing you did is a pretty poor effort at "not going to jail."
"And when those people have requested an interview with Bankman-Fried, he’s turned it down."
The very next quote from SBF: "... I'm not sure that will happen by the 13th. But when it does, I will testify."
This article is contradicting itself.
The very next quote from SBF: "... I'm not sure that will happen by the 13th. But when it does, I will testify."
This article is contradicting itself.
They kind of hint at this but I think it is really a mix of staying out of jail and saving face a bit. I do think he cares about his reputation.
That being said, the notion that he is going to get out of this seems a bit silly to me. So far his best attempt has been to claim that he really just had no idea what was going on. It seems extremely unlikely to me that either: 1) that was in fact the case! or 2) it isn't the case but somehow there isn't any evidence to the contrary!
That being said, the notion that he is going to get out of this seems a bit silly to me. So far his best attempt has been to claim that he really just had no idea what was going on. It seems extremely unlikely to me that either: 1) that was in fact the case! or 2) it isn't the case but somehow there isn't any evidence to the contrary!
Of course, he has a professor father lecturing laws in Stanford university, I guess they had a plan right when the fiasco hits, any move since then must be designed meticulously to avoid being charged, what a shame.
Comparing to SBF, Holmes is nothing.
Comparing to SBF, Holmes is nothing.
Someone else's thesis (quoted at the very end), no analysis, just a bunch of links. Interesting topic so the article is readable by default, but this feels like a seriously low-quality submission. Am I off-base here?
Every time SBF speaks publicly or gives an interview is further proof he is delusional or an idiot because he either hasn’t retained personal legal counsel or is ignoring their advice.
Any lawyer will tell you to shut the F up [1]. No good can come from speaking at this point.
This case is so egregious (ie stealing custodial assets) that he will spend the rest of his life in prison or on the run.
If something is a grey area you might be able to buy your way out politically but this isn’t it.
Classic example: after the Mar-e-Lago raid Trump made statements about how those documents were his and he declassified them. What did this do? It removed the possible defense of not knowing they were there. And he gained what? Nothing. At best it was political points with people who were on his side anyway.
There is nothing smart about SBF talking.
[1]: https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o
Any lawyer will tell you to shut the F up [1]. No good can come from speaking at this point.
This case is so egregious (ie stealing custodial assets) that he will spend the rest of his life in prison or on the run.
If something is a grey area you might be able to buy your way out politically but this isn’t it.
Classic example: after the Mar-e-Lago raid Trump made statements about how those documents were his and he declassified them. What did this do? It removed the possible defense of not knowing they were there. And he gained what? Nothing. At best it was political points with people who were on his side anyway.
There is nothing smart about SBF talking.
[1]: https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o
SBF would be wise to follow some very simple advise: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Everything you do to cover up a crime ends up being a crime, too.
I would love to hear about any actual crimes he committed before wishing he goes to jail. It feels like the mob has already decided he's guilty.
This dude is totally going to prison. He robbed rich people. Elizabeth Holmes is in prison and she stole from investors.
And he is very carefully setting the tone with carefully constructed statements that this ISN'T what he did and it makes me sick. He knows the more he says things like:
"A mistake that I feel pretty embarrassed to have made [is that] I substantially underestimated what the scale of a market crash could look like,”
Or
"I had embarrassingly little knowledge about what was going on,”
The more he can claim the innocent 'i was just to naive and dumb' to have done this on purpose and 'I've learned my lesson' BS that all will be hard to indict without solid evidence. I don't believe for one second what that loser says right now. Cuff him!
He is a sociopath and should be in jail for long time for all the immense harm he caused in running a known Ponzi of literally billions. He is no different than Madoff or Holmes. Acting like a messiah and a fake genius for all these years while full well knowing he and his cohorts were fraudulently offering unrealistic investment returns. Living rich off people's deposits they will never get back.
Where is his ex girlfriend? The one who actually RAN Alameda. Why are we not hearing about her at all? She should probably be first in cuffs
"A mistake that I feel pretty embarrassed to have made [is that] I substantially underestimated what the scale of a market crash could look like,”
Or
"I had embarrassingly little knowledge about what was going on,”
The more he can claim the innocent 'i was just to naive and dumb' to have done this on purpose and 'I've learned my lesson' BS that all will be hard to indict without solid evidence. I don't believe for one second what that loser says right now. Cuff him!
He is a sociopath and should be in jail for long time for all the immense harm he caused in running a known Ponzi of literally billions. He is no different than Madoff or Holmes. Acting like a messiah and a fake genius for all these years while full well knowing he and his cohorts were fraudulently offering unrealistic investment returns. Living rich off people's deposits they will never get back.
Where is his ex girlfriend? The one who actually RAN Alameda. Why are we not hearing about her at all? She should probably be first in cuffs
how much time should he do, HN? he seemed to willingly avoid thinking of money as real. but we also have a financial system where this could even happen. i feel those 2 factors should be weighed against each other.
Does anyone blame him for doing everything he can to avoid going to jail? The amount of money that has gone missing and the amount of money some of the victims will still have this is almost certainly going to end up with a criminal case.
The worst part is you just know this guy has 100x what any of us have hidden away in defrauded gold bars or whatever and that he will face no consequences for it while a poor person who steals a pack of gum will go to prison for years.
Don't know for sure about SBF, but he legitimately could be what he shows (someone over his head).
I get big cruelty lynch mob or hit-job vibes from TFA author though.
I get big cruelty lynch mob or hit-job vibes from TFA author though.
I still don't know how people could trust someone named BankMan-Fried their money.
>Everything Sam Bankman-Fried is doing is in singular pursuit of not going to jail
That's weird-shouldn't he be doing everything that's possible to go to jail? Everybody would like to go to jail.
That's weird-shouldn't he be doing everything that's possible to go to jail? Everybody would like to go to jail.
If he was actually committed to effective altruism, he should be trying to send himself to jail as an example to others to not do fraud.
A utilitarian effective altruist absolutely should defraud anyone not already on their team.
They precommit to others who are in on the take that 90% of the profit will go to the Cause, and then all that excess that was gonna be wasted on luxury or low-QALY retirement/dying years will instead go to places that generate more utils.
I wouldn't be shocked if a document (or, more likely, testimony in a trial) eventually turns up explicitly saying that.
(To be clear, I think the plan I have described is reprehensible, but that's because I'm not a utilitarian.)
They precommit to others who are in on the take that 90% of the profit will go to the Cause, and then all that excess that was gonna be wasted on luxury or low-QALY retirement/dying years will instead go to places that generate more utils.
I wouldn't be shocked if a document (or, more likely, testimony in a trial) eventually turns up explicitly saying that.
(To be clear, I think the plan I have described is reprehensible, but that's because I'm not a utilitarian.)
And what might we expect the second order effects of “EAs are philosophically committed to fraud” be? Like this only looks rational if you kind of take a first approximation of a dynamical system and call it good.
“Worse than a crime, it’s a mistake”
“Worse than a crime, it’s a mistake”
It only looks rational if you think you can get away with it. People considering it at all are at least somewhat likely to think they can.
Similarly, inside the utilitarian mode of reasoning, it's only a mistake if you get caught.
Similarly, inside the utilitarian mode of reasoning, it's only a mistake if you get caught.
SBF consistently demonstrates some serious next level thinking:
- Next level risk management: don't worry about it
- Next level defense strategy: talk as much as possible
- Next level EA: save the planet by killing the crypto space which is wasting energy
- Next level risk management: don't worry about it
- Next level defense strategy: talk as much as possible
- Next level EA: save the planet by killing the crypto space which is wasting energy
[deleted]
I read the TOS. SBF is deliberately getting people to focus on "e-money" part rather than "digital assets" like crypto.
Y'all got tricked by focusing on the wires and fiat currency path. The TOS make it clear that's all play money. Only digital assets appear to be protected by TOS. Coffeezilla managed to lock him down on that by using the correct terminology and asset classes, but most of the interviewers did not.
Based on the TOS customers agree to, it's not clear to me there was ever any agreement Alemeda couldn't bet the farm using customer fiat as collateral. Digital Assets appear to only apply to non-fiat digital assets -- the TOS seperately defined fiat balance as 'e-money' with significantly weaker as far as I can tell protections.
That is to pin him on fraud it may be necessary to show those that delivered crypto outside of the margin / borrowing TOS had their money stolen. I think Coffeezilla got him to admit this, but even then I think he may have weasled out of it by only talking about dollars which don't appear to be protected by the contract. He is crafting a very carefully executed story where he tricks you into thinking you have a 'gotcha' but all he did was admit to stuff customers agreed to in TOS; and thus you see the real intelligence of SBF as a master of redirection shining.
Y'all got tricked by focusing on the wires and fiat currency path. The TOS make it clear that's all play money. Only digital assets appear to be protected by TOS. Coffeezilla managed to lock him down on that by using the correct terminology and asset classes, but most of the interviewers did not.
Based on the TOS customers agree to, it's not clear to me there was ever any agreement Alemeda couldn't bet the farm using customer fiat as collateral. Digital Assets appear to only apply to non-fiat digital assets -- the TOS seperately defined fiat balance as 'e-money' with significantly weaker as far as I can tell protections.
That is to pin him on fraud it may be necessary to show those that delivered crypto outside of the margin / borrowing TOS had their money stolen. I think Coffeezilla got him to admit this, but even then I think he may have weasled out of it by only talking about dollars which don't appear to be protected by the contract. He is crafting a very carefully executed story where he tricks you into thinking you have a 'gotcha' but all he did was admit to stuff customers agreed to in TOS; and thus you see the real intelligence of SBF as a master of redirection shining.
Here is coffeezilla's third session with SBF, in which he seems to get SBF to admit that customer's funds were commingled in violation of the terms of service. People who did not sign up for anything risky nonetheless lost their digital assets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_jPzBZSIo
That is a great interview. But it turns out Coffeezilla got tricked here by letting SBF turn back to the fiat funds.
SBF did not admit to fraud. The TOS specifically defines 'e-money' separately from digital assets. As soon as customers liquidated their digital assets to withdraw real money, they were no longer protected by the digital asset part of the TOS. The comingling of fiat / e-money is not disallowed by the TOS. Only comingling of digital assets was prohibited.
Coffeezilla was so close to pinning SBF here but by letting him wiggle out by dropping the digital assets and focus on comingling of e-money during withdrawals (which was not protected) SBF escape again. That is by liquidating the digital assets by the TOS, FTX was then allowed to commingle their e-money and the 'fungible' withdrawal process was not against TOS. Coffezilla should have pinned down SBF about digital asset withdrawals instead of fiat withdrawals. If he had forced SBF to admit BTC, ETH, etc withdrawals were comingled then he would have had a fraud admission, and actually Coffee started out with that before SBF quite quite genuise-ly redirected to fiat withdrawals.
I think this was a carefully crafted redirection by SBF to trick Coffee into thinking he got his 'gotcha' while SBF again escaped.
SBF did not admit to fraud. The TOS specifically defines 'e-money' separately from digital assets. As soon as customers liquidated their digital assets to withdraw real money, they were no longer protected by the digital asset part of the TOS. The comingling of fiat / e-money is not disallowed by the TOS. Only comingling of digital assets was prohibited.
Coffeezilla was so close to pinning SBF here but by letting him wiggle out by dropping the digital assets and focus on comingling of e-money during withdrawals (which was not protected) SBF escape again. That is by liquidating the digital assets by the TOS, FTX was then allowed to commingle their e-money and the 'fungible' withdrawal process was not against TOS. Coffezilla should have pinned down SBF about digital asset withdrawals instead of fiat withdrawals. If he had forced SBF to admit BTC, ETH, etc withdrawals were comingled then he would have had a fraud admission, and actually Coffee started out with that before SBF quite quite genuise-ly redirected to fiat withdrawals.
I think this was a carefully crafted redirection by SBF to trick Coffee into thinking he got his 'gotcha' while SBF again escaped.
truth777(4)
On which ground would SBF be prosecuted?
From what I understand, dealing only with unregulated crypto assets mean he didn’t have any obligation on how he invested those (nor provide any safety guards for his investors).
From what I understand, dealing only with unregulated crypto assets mean he didn’t have any obligation on how he invested those (nor provide any safety guards for his investors).
You don't get a free pass on fraud just because it's crypto, or any other unregulated asset. SBF and his company lied about how they were handling customer assets.
He collected American VC money, which means wire fraud, etc. BUT his book keeping was so shitty he didn't even know it was fraud and thus lacks mens rea
He wont be going to jail, the fact that he's still walking around free is proof enough. He defrauded people out of billions but w/e I guess
Elizabeth Holmes and Jeffrey Skilling were free for years following the collapse of their schemes.
His girlfriend fled and he is outside of the US. I'm not sure why you think that is proof.
Can we stop with the obsession over this dude / FTX / crypto? I know that's like asking Reddit to stop making everything a joke, but here's hoping maybe we're mature enough to stop gossiping and praying for someone's downfall. Life is too short to spend your time obsessed with negativity.
This site is far from being overrun with FTX stories, and .. why shouldn't stories of massive fraud be talked about? It's easy to ignore - there's plenty of other stuff to read about
He won't go to jail. He is a member of the upper crust of our aristocracy, and we live under some kind of feudal/monarchic system nowadays.
I'm normally with you on the whole "rich people don't go to jail" thing, but I think this is a misread of this situation. He's in no way a member of the upper crust of our aristocracy – he had money, but he hadn't yet traded some of that money for power.
He currently has no money, and he ripped off a lot of people with money. He'll go to jail.
He currently has no money, and he ripped off a lot of people with money. He'll go to jail.
He was new rich and old rich will never skip a chance to slap down the new rich to keep them in their place.
[deleted]
It is very unclear how much money he has under his control.
Bernie Madoff was arrested so quickly because he confessed directly to FBI agents, after confessing to his sons who contacted the FBI:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/there-is-no-innocent-expla...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/there-is-no-innocent-expla...
He is not a member of the upper crust - he was trying to muscle his way in but he went down in flames. I swear there are a lot of bot like comments that come through here without thinking.
If they can prove it was fraud he'll be going to jail. Depends how smart they were and how well they covered their tracks.
If they can prove it was fraud he'll be going to jail. Depends how smart they were and how well they covered their tracks.
Given that Caroline Ellison supposedly told the whole hedge fund she and 3 other people knew about the FTX customer funds being transferred, I dont think they did a decent job, that is a lot of potential witnesses.
Let's say that he does go to jail, but it takes 5 years. What would you conclusion be at that time?
People with money don't go to jail so long as they one of a few things are true
1) They still have money (he doesn't seem to have so much anymore)
2) They already traded money for power so people feel they owe him favors (no indication of this)
3) He didn't screw over other rich people (seems he did screw over other rich people)
The third one in particular is important. Messing with other rich people's money is far and away the easiest way to get yourself thrown in jail despite any wealth you might have.
1) They still have money (he doesn't seem to have so much anymore)
2) They already traded money for power so people feel they owe him favors (no indication of this)
3) He didn't screw over other rich people (seems he did screw over other rich people)
The third one in particular is important. Messing with other rich people's money is far and away the easiest way to get yourself thrown in jail despite any wealth you might have.
Yep. "Don't screw over important investors" seems to be the key rule that Madoff, Holmes and now SBF have broken.
He is 100% going to jail.
red19(1)
In the meantime, I suggest that you consider whether you would reevaluate your priors in any meaningful way if, as I expect, SBF is ultimately prosecuted.