5 ms·

I don't understand this take at all. It's like we're reading different articles. This is the title page of the article: > How Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Empir

I don't understand this take at all. It's like we're reading different articles. This is the title page of the article: > How Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Empire Collapsed > Mr . Bankman-Fried said in an interview that he had expanded too fast and failed to see warning signs. But he shared few details about his handling of FTX customers’ funds." And there's this: "But he would offer only limited details about the central questions swirling around him: whether FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded, Alameda Research. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. are examining that relationship." Of course the New York Times can't accuse him of committing fraud. That hasn't been proven. But I don't see how anyone could miss the implication of this article that something shady may have happened.

rhaway84773 4y ago
Some people don’t seem to understand there’s a difference between a comment thread and a newspaper article. One isn’t better than the other, but they serve different purposes. You see this in political discourse especially, with everyone from the left to the right complaining that the media took a neutral POV towards something that they consider (and probably even is) egregious.
bena 4y ago
The way they're wording it makes it seem like FTX committed a procedural error. And there's no way to word their actions without making it seem dodgy, because it is. The Justice Department and SEC are investigating FTX and Alameda Research for committing fraud. That's entirely true. You can say that. Deliberately not saying some variation of that is shady in and of itself.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Have the Justice Department and SEC publicly named that they are “investigating FTX and Alameda Research for committing fraud”?
  - bena 4y ago
    They don't publicly comment on on-going investigations. But places like the WSJ isn't afraid to link the word fraud to the investigation. Because, that's what the Justice Department does, investigate crimes. https://archive.ph/MZfR1 https://archive.ph/MZfR1
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      Right. Naming fraud is a speculation, but I don’t disagree that an editorial decision has been made here (and questioning why is appropriate).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pdabbadabba 4y ago
  I don't understand the magic of using the word "fraud." Personally, I find this description of the actual alleged offense much more enlightening and equally damning: "FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded." In any case, I'm not really here to argue about whether The NY Times used exactly the right language in describing the situation. I'm reacting more to the claim that The NY Times is somehow covering for SBF here ("daddy and mommy's friends are hard at work") which strikes me as baseless.
- jmull 4y ago
  From the article: "His management of FTX is now the subject of an inquiry by federal prosecutors in New York, who have begun contacting possible witnesses, according to a person familiar with the matter. Others associated with FTX have started reaching out to lawyers for potential representation, said several people briefed on the matter. FTX is being represented in the investigations and the bankruptcy by the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, while lawyers from Paul Weiss are representing Mr. Bankman-Fried. In the interview, Mr. Bankman-Fried declined to discuss the prospect of prison time." I realize it's counter to your narrative so you won't be able to accept it, but there it is.
MrPatan 4y ago
If you want to understand you could have a look at any of the stories about Trump, about anything he's been accused of over the years. Take note of the difference in language used, the choice of words etc. Well, that's different, because in Trump's case it was obvious he did it all. After all, the NYT told us. Or at least, they heavily implied it, even though nothing was proven. Waaaait a minute.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  In fairness, they're heavily implying it here as well. Which is also a problem. In none of these incidents are any of these investigations complete. So even if it is obvious SBF is a crook, or Trump is a crook, it's not right to be out "heavily implying" guilt. Used to be we only did that kind of thing to street criminals on the local news, (and I had a problem with it then). Now we're doing it all the way up to people like DSK and the President of the US. This is bad. CNN/FOX/WSJ/NYTimes/BBC etc are so irresponsible that people have begun to believe this is appropriate journalistic behavior. It's not.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Care to provide any actual examples?
memish 4y ago
You might see the issue if you're familiar with the case of Scott Alexander or how hard they went after the CEOs of Coinbase and Kraken. Why did they get the hit piece treatment but SBF didn't, even now. Neither of them misused and lost billions of dollars of customer funds. SBF unambiguously did. He was even lying about it all the way up until last week, saying that a competitor was going after them with false rumors. Saying FTX is fine. Assets are fine. https://cointelegraph.com/news/ftx-founder-sam-bankman-fried-removes-assets-are-fine-flood-from-twitter https://cointelegraph.com/news/ftx-founder-sam-bankman-fried... Yet they are treating him with kid gloves and using a sympathetic lens. "his ambitions exceeded his grasp"
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  My guess is that SBF would also not be treated with kid gloves if he professed a belief that white people were biologically intellectually superior to black people, re: Scott Alexander. Definitely agree that he is being treated nicely (likely due to being a democratic donor) compared to other crypto folks.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    Do you have a pointer to where Scott Alexander told so?
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      It's pretty clear to me reading what he says that there is sort of a wink, wink nudge nudge black people are intellectually inferior. I think there are screenshots of his emails out there saying it much more explicitly though, don't have them offhand.
      - reducesuffering 4y ago
        His latest words on that type of topic speak for themselves: "This is far enough from my field that I would usually defer to expert consensus, but all the studies I can find which try to assess expert consensus seem crazy. A while ago, I freaked out upon finding a study that seemed to show most expert scientists in the field agreed with Murray's thesis in 1987 - about three times as many said the gap was due to a combination of genetics and environment as said it was just environment. Then I freaked out again when I found another study (here is the most recent version, from 2020) showing basically the same thing (about four times as many say it’s a combination of genetics and environment compared to just environment). I can't find any expert surveys giving the expected result that they all agree this is dumb and definitely 100% environment and we can move on (I'd be very relieved if anybody could find those, or if they could explain why the ones I found were fake studies or fake experts or a biased sample, or explain how I'm misreading them or that they otherwise shouldn't be trusted. If you have thoughts on this, please send me an email). I've vacillated back and forth on how to think about this question so many times, and right now my personal probability estimate is "I am still freaking out about this, go away go away go away". And I understand I have at least two potentially irresolveable biases on this question: one, I'm a white person in a country with a long history of promoting white supremacy; and two, if I lean in favor then everyone will hate me, and use it as a bludgeon against anyone I have ever associated with, and I will die alone in a ditch and maybe deserve it. So the best I can do is try to route around this issue when considering important questions. This is sometimes hard, but the basic principle is that I'm far less sure of any of it than I am sure that all human beings are morally equal and deserve to have a good life and get treated with respect regardless of academic achievement." https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-cult-of-smart https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-cult-o...
bogomipz 4y ago
The article does appear to have a bizarrely light-hearted tone given the magnitude of what transpired: >"But in a wide-ranging interview on Sunday that stretched past midnight, he sounded surprisingly calm. “You would’ve thought that I’d be getting no sleep right now, and instead I’m getting some,” he said. “It could be worse." For a self-professed "wide-ranging interview" it actually provides scant if any meaningful details to support the headline of "How Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Empire Collapsed." Of the few details the editor and author chose to include: >“You would’ve thought that I’d be getting no sleep right now, and instead I’m getting some,” he said. “It could be worse.” >“Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing, I would have been able to be more thorough,” he said. “That would have allowed me to catch what was going on on the risk side.” Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing? This reads like "aw shucks, the phone rang and I got distracted." This can not be taken seriously. Is this meant to answer the "How" in the article's title? >"Mr. Bankman-Fried’s circle of colleagues was bound by a commitment to effective altruism, a charitable movement that urges adherents to give away their wealth in efficient and logical ways." So he was a charitable man? Just with other people's money? And then of course this important bit: >"He has also found other ways to occupy his time in recent days, playing the video game Storybook Brawl, though less than he usually does, he said. “It helps me unwind a bit,” he said. “It clears my mind.” Yes the NYTimes included the line about DOJ and SEC, but it fails to mention why these two department are "examining" this man's now "crumbled empire."
- freejazz 4y ago
  This is literally just describing him, and none of it is generous. I'm not sure why you don't see that but okay. He sounds like a complete idiot according to every single thing you quoted. Is the Times supposed to say "SBF, a complete idiot, thought he would have trouble sleeping, but doesn't"
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    >"This is literally just describing him, and none of it is generous." Yes this is literally "just describing him" which is what makes the article so glaringly bad. Exactly none of these trite details have anything to do with the article's title of "How Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Empire Collapsed." I would argue that the amount of attention spent on such trivial details about "him" instead of actually talking about the "How" of his spectacular failure is quite generous indeed. It's also worth nothing that this piece is in the Technology section of the NYTimes by a journalist who according to his byline "writes about the crypto markets and financial technology." Yet so much of this article would not be out of place in a profile in the Style section.
eternalban 4y ago
This could work and is 100% reporting "news": "But he would offer only limited details about the central questions swirling around him: whether FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded, Alameda Research. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. are examining that relationship. There are some who question this narrative of mistakes made and are calling it a fraud".
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  Who are "some"? That's first thing that jumps out. You have to list all the organizations willing to go on the record calling it fraud. Your added statement doesn't provide any information about additional organizations that consider FTX-Alameda a fraud. It just puts out a nebulous implication that there exist some organizations, somewhere, that are calling it a fraud. In fact, your statement doesn't clarify whether or not these organizations are engaged in investigations. Nor does your statement even make mention of the evidence these organizations gave you to back up their assertions. Only that these, hopefully not totally hypothetical, organizations "question" a narrative. I have to say, this addition by you is actually worse than the statement that NYTimes printed in terms of journalistic quality. I actually hate NYTimes/FOX/CNN/BBC etc for reasons that should be obvious. But what you're doing is going in the opposite direction of where we need to be headed with responsible journalism.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    Disagree. Even in the space of crypto, the community, there are people openly calling this a fraud. That is news. To omit to mention that the crypto community itself is making these claims is to suppress information. If you just read The New York Times on this topic, would you have a clue that there is a storm of controversy and very pointed questions regarding this affair and other 'important people' associated with this affair?
    - bilbo0s 4y ago
      Again, you're saying "the crypto community". So who? "Who?" "What?" "When?" "Where?" "How?" Here's a thought, "Why?" Who specifically? What evidence did they give you? How are they communicating that it's a fraud? Why do they think it's a fraud? Journalistic quality requires you to answer questions. Some answers can be "it's under investigation", but you have to have an answer. You've, again, made a vague reference to something as nebulous as a "community" and you want it to be taken as equally authoritative in nature to the NYTimes' reference to the SEC and the SEC's investigation. It's just not. You have to name the organizations, and layout the actions they're taking.

rhaway84773 4y ago

Some people don’t seem to understand there’s a difference between a comment thread and a newspaper article. One isn’t better than the other, but they serve different purposes. You see this in political discourse especially, with everyone from the left to the right complaining that the media took a neutral POV towards something that they consider (and probably even is) egregious.

bena 4y ago

The way they're wording it makes it seem like FTX committed a procedural error. And there's no way to word their actions without making it seem dodgy, because it is. The Justice Department and SEC are investigating FTX and Alameda Research for committing fraud. That's entirely true. You can say that. Deliberately not saying some variation of that is shady in and of itself.

germinalphrase 4y ago
Have the Justice Department and SEC publicly named that they are “investigating FTX and Alameda Research for committing fraud”?
- bena 4y ago
  They don't publicly comment on on-going investigations. But places like the WSJ isn't afraid to link the word fraud to the investigation. Because, that's what the Justice Department does, investigate crimes. https://archive.ph/MZfR1 https://archive.ph/MZfR1
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    Right. Naming fraud is a speculation, but I don’t disagree that an editorial decision has been made here (and questioning why is appropriate).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pdabbadabba 4y ago
I don't understand the magic of using the word "fraud." Personally, I find this description of the actual alleged offense much more enlightening and equally damning: "FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded." In any case, I'm not really here to argue about whether The NY Times used exactly the right language in describing the situation. I'm reacting more to the claim that The NY Times is somehow covering for SBF here ("daddy and mommy's friends are hard at work") which strikes me as baseless.
jmull 4y ago
From the article: "His management of FTX is now the subject of an inquiry by federal prosecutors in New York, who have begun contacting possible witnesses, according to a person familiar with the matter. Others associated with FTX have started reaching out to lawyers for potential representation, said several people briefed on the matter. FTX is being represented in the investigations and the bankruptcy by the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, while lawyers from Paul Weiss are representing Mr. Bankman-Fried. In the interview, Mr. Bankman-Fried declined to discuss the prospect of prison time." I realize it's counter to your narrative so you won't be able to accept it, but there it is.

MrPatan 4y ago

If you want to understand you could have a look at any of the stories about Trump, about anything he's been accused of over the years. Take note of the difference in language used, the choice of words etc. Well, that's different, because in Trump's case it was obvious he did it all. After all, the NYT told us. Or at least, they heavily implied it, even though nothing was proven. Waaaait a minute.

bilbo0s 4y ago
In fairness, they're heavily implying it here as well. Which is also a problem. In none of these incidents are any of these investigations complete. So even if it is obvious SBF is a crook, or Trump is a crook, it's not right to be out "heavily implying" guilt. Used to be we only did that kind of thing to street criminals on the local news, (and I had a problem with it then). Now we're doing it all the way up to people like DSK and the President of the US. This is bad. CNN/FOX/WSJ/NYTimes/BBC etc are so irresponsible that people have begun to believe this is appropriate journalistic behavior. It's not.
freejazz 4y ago
Care to provide any actual examples?

memish 4y ago

You might see the issue if you're familiar with the case of Scott Alexander or how hard they went after the CEOs of Coinbase and Kraken. Why did they get the hit piece treatment but SBF didn't, even now. Neither of them misused and lost billions of dollars of customer funds. SBF unambiguously did. He was even lying about it all the way up until last week, saying that a competitor was going after them with false rumors. Saying FTX is fine. Assets are fine. https://cointelegraph.com/news/ftx-founder-sam-bankman-fried-removes-assets-are-fine-flood-from-twitter https://cointelegraph.com/news/ftx-founder-sam-bankman-fried... Yet they are treating him with kid gloves and using a sympathetic lens. "his ambitions exceeded his grasp"

whimsicalism 4y ago
My guess is that SBF would also not be treated with kid gloves if he professed a belief that white people were biologically intellectually superior to black people, re: Scott Alexander. Definitely agree that he is being treated nicely (likely due to being a democratic donor) compared to other crypto folks.
- laserlight 4y ago
  Do you have a pointer to where Scott Alexander told so?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    It's pretty clear to me reading what he says that there is sort of a wink, wink nudge nudge black people are intellectually inferior. I think there are screenshots of his emails out there saying it much more explicitly though, don't have them offhand.
    - reducesuffering 4y ago
      His latest words on that type of topic speak for themselves: "This is far enough from my field that I would usually defer to expert consensus, but all the studies I can find which try to assess expert consensus seem crazy. A while ago, I freaked out upon finding a study that seemed to show most expert scientists in the field agreed with Murray's thesis in 1987 - about three times as many said the gap was due to a combination of genetics and environment as said it was just environment. Then I freaked out again when I found another study (here is the most recent version, from 2020) showing basically the same thing (about four times as many say it’s a combination of genetics and environment compared to just environment). I can't find any expert surveys giving the expected result that they all agree this is dumb and definitely 100% environment and we can move on (I'd be very relieved if anybody could find those, or if they could explain why the ones I found were fake studies or fake experts or a biased sample, or explain how I'm misreading them or that they otherwise shouldn't be trusted. If you have thoughts on this, please send me an email). I've vacillated back and forth on how to think about this question so many times, and right now my personal probability estimate is "I am still freaking out about this, go away go away go away". And I understand I have at least two potentially irresolveable biases on this question: one, I'm a white person in a country with a long history of promoting white supremacy; and two, if I lean in favor then everyone will hate me, and use it as a bludgeon against anyone I have ever associated with, and I will die alone in a ditch and maybe deserve it. So the best I can do is try to route around this issue when considering important questions. This is sometimes hard, but the basic principle is that I'm far less sure of any of it than I am sure that all human beings are morally equal and deserve to have a good life and get treated with respect regardless of academic achievement." https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-cult-of-smart https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-cult-o...

bogomipz 4y ago

The article does appear to have a bizarrely light-hearted tone given the magnitude of what transpired: >"But in a wide-ranging interview on Sunday that stretched past midnight, he sounded surprisingly calm. “You would’ve thought that I’d be getting no sleep right now, and instead I’m getting some,” he said. “It could be worse." For a self-professed "wide-ranging interview" it actually provides scant if any meaningful details to support the headline of "How Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Empire Collapsed." Of the few details the editor and author chose to include: >“You would’ve thought that I’d be getting no sleep right now, and instead I’m getting some,” he said. “It could be worse.” >“Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing, I would have been able to be more thorough,” he said. “That would have allowed me to catch what was going on on the risk side.” Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing? This reads like "aw shucks, the phone rang and I got distracted." This can not be taken seriously. Is this meant to answer the "How" in the article's title? >"Mr. Bankman-Fried’s circle of colleagues was bound by a commitment to effective altruism, a charitable movement that urges adherents to give away their wealth in efficient and logical ways." So he was a charitable man? Just with other people's money? And then of course this important bit: >"He has also found other ways to occupy his time in recent days, playing the video game Storybook Brawl, though less than he usually does, he said. “It helps me unwind a bit,” he said. “It clears my mind.” Yes the NYTimes included the line about DOJ and SEC, but it fails to mention why these two department are "examining" this man's now "crumbled empire."

freejazz 4y ago
This is literally just describing him, and none of it is generous. I'm not sure why you don't see that but okay. He sounds like a complete idiot according to every single thing you quoted. Is the Times supposed to say "SBF, a complete idiot, thought he would have trouble sleeping, but doesn't"
- bogomipz 4y ago
  >"This is literally just describing him, and none of it is generous." Yes this is literally "just describing him" which is what makes the article so glaringly bad. Exactly none of these trite details have anything to do with the article's title of "How Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Empire Collapsed." I would argue that the amount of attention spent on such trivial details about "him" instead of actually talking about the "How" of his spectacular failure is quite generous indeed. It's also worth nothing that this piece is in the Technology section of the NYTimes by a journalist who according to his byline "writes about the crypto markets and financial technology." Yet so much of this article would not be out of place in a profile in the Style section.

eternalban 4y ago

This could work and is 100% reporting "news": "But he would offer only limited details about the central questions swirling around him: whether FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded, Alameda Research. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. are examining that relationship. There are some who question this narrative of mistakes made and are calling it a fraud".

bilbo0s 4y ago
Who are "some"? That's first thing that jumps out. You have to list all the organizations willing to go on the record calling it fraud. Your added statement doesn't provide any information about additional organizations that consider FTX-Alameda a fraud. It just puts out a nebulous implication that there exist some organizations, somewhere, that are calling it a fraud. In fact, your statement doesn't clarify whether or not these organizations are engaged in investigations. Nor does your statement even make mention of the evidence these organizations gave you to back up their assertions. Only that these, hopefully not totally hypothetical, organizations "question" a narrative. I have to say, this addition by you is actually worse than the statement that NYTimes printed in terms of journalistic quality. I actually hate NYTimes/FOX/CNN/BBC etc for reasons that should be obvious. But what you're doing is going in the opposite direction of where we need to be headed with responsible journalism.
- eternalban 4y ago
  Disagree. Even in the space of crypto, the community, there are people openly calling this a fraud. That is news. To omit to mention that the crypto community itself is making these claims is to suppress information. If you just read The New York Times on this topic, would you have a clue that there is a storm of controversy and very pointed questions regarding this affair and other 'important people' associated with this affair?
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    Again, you're saying "the crypto community". So who? "Who?" "What?" "When?" "Where?" "How?" Here's a thought, "Why?" Who specifically? What evidence did they give you? How are they communicating that it's a fraud? Why do they think it's a fraud? Journalistic quality requires you to answer questions. Some answers can be "it's under investigation", but you have to have an answer. You've, again, made a vague reference to something as nebulous as a "community" and you want it to be taken as equally authoritative in nature to the NYTimes' reference to the SEC and the SEC's investigation. It's just not. You have to name the organizations, and layout the actions they're taking.