The NYT article was biased. Have you read it? Read the author's other articles and the sharp shift in tone. He is strictly apologetic towards the FTX ponzi sche

The NYT article was biased. Have you read it? Read the author's other articles and the sharp shift in tone. He is strictly apologetic towards the FTX ponzi scheme, the author's behavior is to the level which one could call morally compromised. He has a history of badmouthing other exchanges (e.g. Kraken) while singing the praises of FTX. Appeals to authority are weak compared to facts laid bare. The fact is that the NYT author has made clear biases against other exchanges and overly forgiving of a single exchange guilty of customer theft, which is papered over in his article. This is unusual compared to all other reporting of FTX amongst mainstream jouranlists. There were no articles attempting to humanize Bernie Madoff, this article hides the fact that SBF ran a ponzi scheme, imagine the same with Madoff, it would be shocking. This is shocking. Imagine having the Bernie Madoff subheading, "he had expanded too fast and failed to see warning signs". This is the scale of ludicrousness here. The facts aren't subjective or unclear in any way, FTX didn't have customer deposits, which they claimed to have up even until the very end. When it comes to journalism, this is an unforgivable failure.