Sam Bankman-Fried

Long article about the last week at FTX as things unraveled.

When senior executives outside Bankman-Fried’s circle pored over spreadsheets, they reached a different conclusion. “It’s not liquidity. It’s ******* solvency. It’s a big, gaping hole in customer assets,” said one top executive, describing the realisation that money FTX promised to safeguard was missing. “It was such an unbelievable shock to the system,” said another former senior executive. As word spread, the leadership fractured into two opposing camps. The “Bahamas team” gathered around Bankman-Fried on the Caribbean island, as he frantically hit the phones, seeking investors. In New York, an opposing group began planning for the worst. Former employees called them “the adults.”
Click to expand...

Mostly for entertainment value, I didn't see much new in there.
 
More charges against SBF, including unlawful political contributions:

SBF’s alleged campaign finance scheme included efforts to keep his contributions to Republicans “dark,” according to the new indictment.

And, the alleged straw donor scheme was coordinated, at least in part, “through an encrypted, auto-deleting Signal chat called ‘Donation Processing,’” according to the indictment.

The document says another unnamed co-conspirator “who publicly aligned himself with conservatives, made contributions to Republican candidates that were directed by Bankman-Fried and funded by Alameda,” the crypto tycoon’s hedge fund.

Again, the document does do not name the alleged second FTX co-conspirator who contributed to Republican candidates.

Ryan Salame, the co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, a subsidiary of FTX, donated more than $20 million to Republicans during the 2022 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets. Salame has not been charged with any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Kind of revealing that he was funding both sides but keeping his contributions to the GOP secret. Makes me think the effective altruism bit was a smokescreen for a guy who was buying influence with both sides in order to maintain the fraud.
 
Brainster said:
More charges against SBF, including unlawful political contributions:



Kind of revealing that he was funding both sides but keeping his contributions to the GOP secret. Makes me think the effective altruism bit was a smokescreen for a guy who was buying influence with both sides in order to maintain the fraud.
Click to expand...

Yes, very interesting. People who donate but want to keep those donations secret, or people who only donate in a strategic manner to both sides make me think they are trying to buy influence. Just more confirmation that it was all smoke and mirrors.
 
Brainster said:
Kind of revealing that he was funding both sides but keeping his contributions to the GOP secret. Makes me think the effective altruism bit was a smokescreen for a guy who was buying influence with both sides in order to maintain the fraud.
Click to expand...

Well, yes.

He played the game of trying to be too big to bring down and didn't quite get there.
 
Sam Bankman-Fried wanted to buy the nation of Nauru to wait out the world's end

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable plan. :boggled:

Sam Bankman-Fried seemed unprepared for the end of his FTX crypto exchange, but he’d certainly started planning for the end of civilization.

According to new court filings, Bankman-Fried had chalked out how he would purchase the island nation of Nauru. Come the great fire or flood, he would move himself and his colleagues in the effective altruism movement into a bunker there, to wait out the apocalypse.

The court filings in a federal bankruptcy court in Delaware, dated July 20, included a memo crafted by an FTX Foundation official and Sam Bankman-Fried’s brother Gabriel Bankman-Fried. It outlined the future survival of FTX and Alameda Research employees and all those who subscribed to the effective altruism concept.

The ultimate strategy, according to the memo, was “to purchase the sovereign nation of Nauru in order to construct a ‘bunker / shelter’ that would be used for some event where 50%-99.99% of people die [to] ensure that most EAs (effective altruists) survive.” The memo also mentioned to plans to develop “sensible regulation around human genetic enhancement, and build a lab there,” noting that perhaps “there are other things it’s useful to do with a sovereign country, too.”
Click to expand...

No word on whether he first tried to buy Greenland.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Explosive shock-collars have been discussed in Billionaire-Bunker-prepper cycles, I kid you not.
Click to expand...
There have been great strides in the field of shock collars; integral audio, GPS, posture control, sleep deprivation, virtual caging at cetera.
And they're no longer limited to locking around the neck......
 
Okay, I've given it some thought, and I think the best example of what a successful post-apocalyptic oligarchy might look like is actually the Wagner Group. Yevgeny Prigozhin looks like a brain-damaged little goblin, but apparently he commands loyalty from his senior staff and his rank and file. Sure, one of his men could shoot him in the back and take his place, but why? The loot's already being divvied up to everyone's satisfaction. The people running the operation are already running it about as well as can be expected. If you like your work, and feel like your boss has your back, why make waves? There's money to be made, gates to be guarded, a community to live in.

But mercenary warlords worth following into a lawless future are a lot less common than jackass one-percenters who have no idea how they'd manage if they didn't have rule of law and the government's monopoly on force to back them up.
 
In the Book World War Z, Max Brooks has a chapter on a rich guy who build his zombie-proof compound on an island - gets plundered by a mob and his mercs before the zombies even get there.
 
theprestige said:
Okay, I've given it some thought, and I think the best example of what a successful post-apocalyptic oligarchy might look like is actually the Wagner Group. Yevgeny Prigozhin looks like a brain-damaged little goblin, but apparently he commands loyalty from his senior staff and his rank and file. Sure, one of his men could shoot him in the back and take his place, but why? The loot's already being divvied up to everyone's satisfaction. The people running the operation are already running it about as well as can be expected. If you like your work, and feel like your boss has your back, why make waves? There's money to be made, gates to be guarded, a community to live in.

But mercenary warlords worth following into a lawless future are a lot less common than jackass one-percenters who have no idea how they'd manage if they didn't have rule of law and the government's monopoly on force to back them up.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of posting a comment about essentially the same thing. I guess it just doesn't dawn on these rich people that there are some tasks, like exercising the monopoly of violence, that they'll have to do themselves should our current system cease to function.

Interesting that they are thinking practically about end-of-the-world scenarios, but their imagination doesn't extend to the conclusion that maybe their role as "guy who doesn't do anything useful" will cease to be viable.

It's probably not impossible to plan ahead in such a way that the deck is stacked in their favor, but it's not possible to totally eliminate the need for these people to take an active role in their own livelihood.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I was thinking of posting a comment about essentially the same thing. I guess it just doesn't dawn on these rich people that there are some tasks, like exercising the monopoly of violence, that they'll have to do themselves should our current system cease to function.

Interesting that they are thinking practically about end-of-the-world scenarios, but their imagination doesn't extend to the conclusion that maybe their role as "guy who doesn't do anything useful" will cease to be viable.

It's probably not impossible to plan ahead in such a way that the deck is stacked in their favor, but it's not possible to totally eliminate the need for these people to take an active role in their own livelihood.
Click to expand...

I'm struck by a plan to "wait out the apocalypse." It sounds like a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy bit. All it's missing is a plan for stasis where they can all go there and sleep until a new civilization arises to supply them with lemon soaked paper napkins.
 
I like the story (most likely just an urban legend or tall tale) of the guy who saw World War II coming a looked for a safe place to live and see it over. He picked a remote Pacific island called Iwo Jima.
 
shemp said:
Sam Bankman-Fried wanted to buy the nation of Nauru to wait out the world's end

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable plan. :boggled:



No word on whether he first tried to buy Greenland.
Click to expand...

First off, I don't think Nauru is going to be a great place to be as ocean levels rise. Secondly, if he thinks buying a tiny country is going to make him immune from justice I think the USA's response would've been "thats where you are wrong kiddo" as they send in a strike team to arrest him.
 
What was that island that Jeffrey Epstein owned? Not a sovereign nation, but actually better in a way. Private property within a viable nation seems better to me.

Oh, it was actually two islands:

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173956903/jeffrey-epstein-island-sold-st-james

And someone got them for a bargain: $55 million. (seems like a bargain to me, as the asking price had been $125 million and later $110 million)

The islands are called Great St. James and Little St. James, the latter being where Epstein built most of his infrastructure.

I assume that they were sold as a steep discount because potential buyers don't like that the islands are associated with Epstein.

I guess the Islands are part of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and hence U.S. territory.
 
I'm guessing SBF never went much beyond purchasing a couple of houses, if that. Second, isn't that what billionaires do--start buying end of the world insurance because they are the only ones who can?
 
This seems to ignore the idea that when currency no longer matter, the bullet is the currency. You can't buy the loyalty of the people who suddenly have the only currency that matters.
 
Craig4 said:
This seems to ignore the idea that when currency no longer matter, the bullet is the currency. You can't buy the loyalty of the people who suddenly have the only currency that matters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, standing armed guard in front of the vault door where your massive stash of pre-apocalypse goodies are stored is something you'll have to do yourself in these kinds of scenarios, really no way around it unless you can find some kind of non-financial influence to wield over people.
 
Sam just had his bail revoked and straight to the pokey.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/11/1191362886/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-sbf-crypto-fraud

On Friday, the U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan sided with prosecutors and ordered SBF detained, saying the FTX CEO had tried to intimidate witnesses and taint the jury pool.
...
Bankman-Fried's attorneys unsuccessfully argued against his detention on First Amendment grounds, and in separate filings, The New York Times Company and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press suggested the decision to jail the defendant could have a chilling effect on free speech.
Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder who else that may apply to in the near future.? Let's see. What defendant seems to have a hard time controlling himself?
 
Curious if the bail revocation means the 250 million bond is forfeit. The whole point of bond is to provide financial incentive to make sure the bondee obeys their release conditions, which clearly didn't work here.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Curious if the bail revocation means the 250 million bond is forfeit. The whole point of bond is to provide financial incentive to make sure the bondee obeys their release conditions, which clearly didn't work here.
Click to expand...

The bond is to increase the probability the defendant shows up in court, including if/when the judge revokes bail. That probability is now close to unity.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Curious if the bail revocation means the 250 million bond is forfeit. The whole point of bond is to provide financial incentive to make sure the bondee obeys their release conditions, which clearly didn't work here.
Click to expand...

I wonder too. Most news reports don't seem to explicitly say that.

marting said:
The bond is to increase the probability the defendant shows up in court, including if/when the judge revokes bail. That probability is now close to unity.
Click to expand...

But not only that the defendant shows up in court. Also that the defendant obeys their release conditions while out on bail, like not tampering with witnesses or engaging in other illegal activities. So I could see some or all of it being forfeit. I'm guessing that the final disposition of that money has yet to be determined, but the court will maintain custody of it until the trial is over, at which point some sort of final disposition will be made.

In the (unlikely) event that he is found not guilty of all charges, can they still keep the bail money? Wouldn't that be some kind of extra-judicial punishment?
 
Puppycow said:
I wonder too. Most news reports don't seem to explicitly say that.



But not only that the defendant shows up in court. Also that the defendant obeys their release conditions while out on bail, like not tampering with witnesses or engaging in other illegal activities. So I could see some or all of it being forfeit. I'm guessing that the final disposition of that money has yet to be determined, but the court will maintain custody of it until the trial is over, at which point some sort of final disposition will be made.

In the (unlikely) event that he is found not guilty of all charges, can they still keep the bail money? Wouldn't that be some kind of extra-judicial punishment?
Click to expand...

Bail has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has to do with complying with the rule of law. A bail jumper who is tracked down, brought to trial, and acquitted of the original charge is still guilty of jumping bail.

And what "extrajudicial punishment"? Is that supposed to mean something, here? You seem to be using it as a shorthand for some argument for or against the practice. I'd rather you just make the argument, instead of throwing around jargon.

Meanwhile, here's my argument.

On the one hand, it's a contract. Say you contract with an internet service provider to receive internet service in exchange for regular monthly payments. If you stop making the payments, the service provider doesn't have to go to court and get a judge's ruling on the matter; they can just summarily cut off your service, per the terms of the contract. Is that "extrajudicial punishment"? If so, clearly the term connotes actions that are good and just. There's no reason to bring it up.

On the other hand, bail is ordered by a judge. The determination of whether the bail conditions have been met is made by the court. So while it may be punishment, I doubt very much that it would be in any sense "extrajudicial".
 
Opening statements:
Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire was ‘built on lies,’ US prosecutor says

Assistant US Attorney Thane Rehn painted a picture of a villainous, greedy businessman whose boundless appetite for wealth and power led him to steal billions of dollars in customer funds.
Click to expand...
“Sam didn’t defraud anyone,” [his lawyer] told jurors, arguing that his client acted in good faith throughout the rise and fall of his startups.
Click to expand...
"Mistakes were made" but it wasn't fraud.
As for the mistakes that led to FTX’s and Alameda’s undoing, Cohen argued that Bankman-Fried and his colleagues, like many entrepreneurs, were “building the plane as they were flying it.” But as the crypto industry flailed in 2022, they were about to fly into “a perfect storm.”
Click to expand...

"Building the plane as they were flying it" sounds irresponsible at a minimum. I don't think someone responsible for an actual plane crash could get away with that as a defense. If the plane isn't ready to fly, you don't take off.

Another part of his defense seems to be that Ellison didn't hedge her bets like he told her to. But that's a bit like saying I lent the money to a problem gambler who lost it. You weren't supposed to lend out the money in the first place.
 
My 'goto' guy for all things crypto scam has been following this, he's done a number of videos since it first came to light.

Here's his latest vid from a few weeks ago
He's bound to follow the trial as well.

 
Coffeezilla reviews Michael Lewis's new book on SBF, as well as his 60 Minutes interview promoting the book. He's not a fan. Lewis is the author of Moneyball, The Blind Side, and The Big Short. He also seems to be a big apologist for SBF.
 
Puppycow said:
Coffeezilla reviews Michael Lewis's new book on SBF, as well as his 60 Minutes interview promoting the book. He's not a fan. Lewis is the author of Moneyball, The Blind Side, and The Big Short. He also seems to be a big apologist for SBF.
Click to expand...

Seems to be Lewis' SOP with subjects of his books. It generates a great level of access, but not always objective or even truthful tomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom