12 ms·

You might even say "his ambitions exceeded his grasp" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-crypto-bankruptcy.html https://www.ny

by memish 4y ago

You might even say "his ambitions exceeded his grasp" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankman-fried-crypto-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma...

anonporridge 4y ago
NYT integrity was severely compromised by the piece. They're clearly deeply in bed with this guy and trying to massage the narrative in his favor.
- jmull 4y ago
  This is a weird, bad take, that keeps popping up on every FTX-related story. I don't get it. What do you think this story says? I read it and it just can't be characterized the way you are saying.
  - dahdum 4y ago
    Just repeating what others are saying, but to me it's a remarkable puff piece that presents him as a down-to-earth noble guy that maybe made some mistakes. He's worse than Madoff and these sycophant journalists are still eating out of his palm.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Yes it can? It's a remarkably lenient profile of someone who just stole upwards of $10B from retail investors. We're talking about people's life savings. Their tuition money. The down payment for a house. Here are some choice quotes: > Mr. Bankman-Fried did, however, agree with critics in the crypto community who said he had expanded his business interests too quickly across a wide swath of the industry. He said his other commitments had led him to miss signs that FTX was running into trouble. > “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.” He didn't "miss signs". There was nothing to "catch". He stole billions of dollars from his customers. > 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. How bad a guy can he be? > Mr. Bankman-Fried said he wished “we’d bitten off a lot less.” Bitten off less of his customers' money, he means? > As FTX has crumbled, Mr. Bankman-Fried has been “working constructively with regulators, bankruptcy officials and the company to try to do what’s best for consumers,” he said on Sunday. What a mensch! > 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.” So happy for him. > 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.” What does this even mean? Why include it in the story?
    - klyrs 4y ago
      Like Musk's buyout of twitter, Ye's attempt on Parler, SBF has joined the ranks of avant garde performance artists. Or that's how I'm rationalizing all the popcorn I've been eating, anyway.
    - function_seven 4y ago
      Fun game idea: Read this parent comment, but with s/Bankman-Fried/Madoff/g. See how nuts that sounds? "Oh, Mr. Madoff missed some signs" that his scheme was insolvent. Yeah, NYTimes deserves at least some of the criticism on this piece.
    - tootie 4y ago
      The parts you're critiquing are literally quotes of things he said to the interviewer. I think you're expecting too much of a routine story. The reporter got direct access to SBF which is not easy to do and got him on record speaking to his mistakes which he, unsurprisingly, gave roundabout non-incriminating answers. The rest of the piece is mostly outlining the facts and timeline around the collapse. A journalist isn't going to pass judgment like you want. Certainly not on a case that is still open.
      - jakelazaroff 4y ago
        Okay, but printing those quotes without context is a choice. When biggest financial fraudster since Bernie Madoff tries to give a roundabout non-incriminating answer, the thing to do is print it and also say that what actually happened is FTX "loaned" customer assets to a hedge fund — also operated by himself! — in return for essentially nothing. Not take him at his word that $10B missing was just a whoopsie that happened because he wasn't paying close attention. As for the case being open… I mean, what is the point of a newspaper if they're just going to reprint whatever the authorities say happened? What about the absolutely bonkers balance sheet that FTX released, for example? Matt Levine did a good job breaking it down [1], because that's the job of a journalist: to make otherwise-inaccessible information available to laypeople. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-14/ftx-s-balance-sheet-was-bad https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-14/ftx-s-...
  - trophycase 4y ago
    ???? How do you interview a man who just more or less stole tens of billions of dollars from customers, lied about it repeatedly, is trying to cover up evidence of that, and is arrogantly tweeting while still not being arrested, and not once mention any of that? This garbage reads like "a day in the life of a silicon valley CEO" or something. The dude just perpetrated one of the largest financial frauds in the history of the world. Bernie Madoff level, and this is all the NYT has to say. Totally disgusting to defend the NYT here. Dude said before Congress that they never trade or leverage using customer funds. That was a complete and utter lie. He "testified to Congress and met with regulators" hugely downplays his attempts at regulatory capture via donations and attempted backroom deals (Gary Gensler is implicated in this too). Including the alleged prid pro quo. It mentions his "effective altruism" and "philanthropy" but doesn't mention who his donations are to, or the fact that half of it was just a guise and actually he spent millions on housing in the Bahamas or in New York.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      > the dude just perpetrated one of the largest financial frauds in the history of the world. Bernie Madoff level, and this is all the NYT has to say. Totally disgusting to defend the NYT here. What charges have been filed? What has he been convicted of? Comparing him to Madoff is disingenuous. Prior to Madoff being charged, the media was the same... they're not going to print words like "perpetrated one of the largest financial frauds in the world" without charges. The only thing that screams is "defamation lawsuit". To be clear, I have no boat in this race. But calling the NYT out for not making statements that they do not (yet) have the ability to prove is entirely problematic.
      - Bootvis 4y ago
        They could try to ask hard questions and press for answers.
        FireBeyond 4y ago
        What answers do you believe he will provide to the media in the face of an SEC investigation and pending litigation?
  - emehex 4y ago
    From a tweet: Word count NYT's puff piece on SBF: "Fraud": 0 "Enron": 0 "Crime": 0 "Illiquid": 0 "Stolen": 0 "Hidden": 0 "Criminal": 0 "Back door": 0 "He's getting sleep": 1 Source: https://twitter.com/TrungTPhan/status/1592349684471037955 https://twitter.com/TrungTPhan/status/1592349684471037955
    - tootie 4y ago
      "In less than a week, the cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried went from industry leader to industry villain, lost most of his fortune, saw his $32 billion company plunge into bankruptcy and became the target of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department." That's the first paragraph. Literally calls him a "villain" and says he's the target of multiple investigations.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      You are not going to see any media claim that he defrauded investors, committed a crime, stole, when there are no charges filed (yet), let alone convictions. Implying that the NYT is trying to puff him up by avoiding a defamation suit is reaching.
      - nwienert 4y ago
        Completely untrue, they do this stuff all the time. Usually they just interview people in the industry and quote them, or temper with words like alleged. But it’s common.
  - burkaman 4y ago
    I also think it's weird. There's like 8 other NYT articles about FTX this week and I believe all of them mention fraud and/or criminal investigations and/or potential theft of customer funds. Maybe this profile is bad but if NYT as a whole is trying to rescue this guy they're doing a very bad job of it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - nullc 4y ago
    If a lot of people have the impression that the piece is a promotional piece, ... then perhaps that is actually the net effect of the piece.
  - SkyMarshal 4y ago
    I can't help but wonder if the NYTimes article was intentionally designed to be 99% puff piece disguising the 1% of extremely damning information, just to get them direct access to the FTX team so they could get something juicy. Journalists can be sneaky like that sometimes. The 1% of damning info was Caroline's reported admission that Alameda borrowed short-term to make long-term illiquid VC investments, and when those loans got called and Alameda couldn't pay, FTX commingled its customer funds with Alameda to pay them. That was a new bit of info, that NYTimes just casually snuck into the middle of the puff piece without further commentary, but it's quite damning and kinda insane. While all the rubes are complaining about the article being too gentle, the financial crimes prosecutors are adding it to their case files. https://twitter.com/WClementeIII/status/1592289824542949376 https://twitter.com/WClementeIII/status/1592289824542949376
    - MrMan 4y ago
      that is by itself jail worthy
      - SkyMarshal 4y ago
        exactly.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        It's hilarious that SBF is tweeting without the slightest apparent concern of jail nor the fact that he stole $B of deposits by international customers, many of which may have connections to organized crime. The closest comparable person I can think of was Madoff, and he had the leverage that at least most of his customer's money wasn't actually destroyed so his cooperation worth a lot. I honestly don't know that SBF has anything to bargain to the legal system or his angry, often crime involved, customers as it appears he destroyed basically all of their money. I'm not saying he should be terrified, but personally I would feel very terrified I were in that position. I think his best outcome at this point is some form of plea that incudes witness protection program in exchange for un-"hacking" the remaining $600M.
        4y ago
- acchow 4y ago
  NYT can't convict him for crimes until the courts do. Otherwise, they may be sued for libel.
  - postalrat 4y ago
    Are republican leaders immune to this rule or something?
- twblalock 4y ago
  It's not a particularly good story, but I wish people would stop with the conspiratorial thinking. There is no evidence that the NYT is "in bed" with the guy or trying to help him -- and no reason to believe it would be in their interest to do that for him. Why would they want to help him? Do you think he is bribing them with his worthless imaginary money? How does the NYT benefit from defending someone who has destroyed his own reputation and lost billions of dollars of customer money? Is it possible the entire thing was a Madoff-style fraud from the beginning? Yes, but that is not the only possibility. No charges have been filed, and all the people who think he should be thrown in jail never mention what laws they think he broke. It's not illegal to be an incompetent failure, and fraud has a specific definition that requires intent and does not cover all instances of simply lying. If the NYT had written an article accusing the guy of crimes, they wouldn't have a basis for doing so. Not yet, anyway. Maybe actual criminal lawbreaking will be discovered, but right now, there is no proof. Should newspapers be accusing people of crimes without proof? People need to put down the pitchforks and torches and wait for the full truth to come out. It's going to take a while.
  - nwiswell 4y ago
    I think people who know / met him just legitimately like him. Nerd charisma, I guess. Matt Levine actually copped to it in his column.
  - tw600040 4y ago
    //Why would they want to help him? Oh let me think. Because they like democrats and he donated to democrats?
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      This such a sad partisan take. Why would the NYT want to help a disgraced person they have no need to be loyal to? It’s not because he’s a Democrat. It’s because he’s any one that isn’t an excessive right wing mega spender (which includes very few names). That spans a lot of people in both parties. Aka centrist capitalists.
- willmadden 4y ago
  No media source has "integrity". They have owners with agendas.
nostromo 4y ago
The Times should be deeply embarrassed by that article. SBF is equal parts Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes but the Times is trying to paint him as an unlucky entrepreneur, down on his luck. The author doesn't even seem to understand that he stole billions from his customers to try and paper over losses from his trading.
- memish 4y ago
  Their coverage generally doesn't seem to understand it. Anything notable missing here? From their "Here’s What to Know" page https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/technology/ftx-binance-crypto-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/technology/ftx-binance-cr... The Aftermath of FTX’s Downfall The sudden collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange has left the crypto industry stunned. Crackdown Begins: Regulators are moving to freeze parts of FTX’s business, while other divisions file for insolvency or prepare to halt operations. Here’s what’s next for the company. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/business/dealbook/ftx-sbf-regulators-crypto-bahamas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/business/dealbook/ftx-sbf... Investors Under Scrutiny: Venture capital firms and investment funds showered nearly $2 billion on FTX with few strings attached. Now, they are facing questions, too. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/technology/ftx-investors-venture-capital.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/technology/ftx-investors-... ‘Effective Altruism’: The fall of FTX dealt a significant blow to the philanthropy movement that is deeply tied to the company’s founder, Sam Bankman-Fried. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/13/business/ftx-effective-altruism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/13/business/ftx-effective-al... Sports Sponsorships: From the naming rights for an N.B.A. arena to patches on M.L.B. umpires’ uniforms, FTX’s collapse puts sponsorship deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars in doubt. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/business/ftx-sports-sponsorships.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/business/ftx-sports-spons...
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  The WSJ has a much more cleared eyed take on SBF/FTX: https://archive.ph/B2t1F https://archive.ph/B2t1F
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Tons of comments, here and elsewhere, that say that NYT should be really embarrassed by this piece. I thought the same after reading snippets posted by others, but after reading the full piece end-to-end, I disagree. I think the article is a fairly straightforward account of what happened. I think there are places that it could have emphasized the fact that "borrowing customer funds" is accurately called theft, but it didn't come across to me as a "puff piece" that people are calling it. For example, I thought this paragraph was pretty informative and actually extremely damning to the people involved - what is described here is clear theft, plain and simple: > Around the time the crypto market crashed this spring, Ms. Ellison explained, lenders moved to recall those loans, the person familiar with the meeting said. But the funds that Alameda had spent were no longer easily available, so the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang. With that one statement I don't see in any way how SBF, Ellison, Singh and Wang avoid lengthy prison terms.

by memish 4y ago

anonporridge 4y ago

NYT integrity was severely compromised by the piece. They're clearly deeply in bed with this guy and trying to massage the narrative in his favor.

jmull 4y ago
This is a weird, bad take, that keeps popping up on every FTX-related story. I don't get it. What do you think this story says? I read it and it just can't be characterized the way you are saying.
- dahdum 4y ago
  Just repeating what others are saying, but to me it's a remarkable puff piece that presents him as a down-to-earth noble guy that maybe made some mistakes. He's worse than Madoff and these sycophant journalists are still eating out of his palm.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Yes it can? It's a remarkably lenient profile of someone who just stole upwards of $10B from retail investors. We're talking about people's life savings. Their tuition money. The down payment for a house. Here are some choice quotes: > Mr. Bankman-Fried did, however, agree with critics in the crypto community who said he had expanded his business interests too quickly across a wide swath of the industry. He said his other commitments had led him to miss signs that FTX was running into trouble. > “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.” He didn't "miss signs". There was nothing to "catch". He stole billions of dollars from his customers. > 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. How bad a guy can he be? > Mr. Bankman-Fried said he wished “we’d bitten off a lot less.” Bitten off less of his customers' money, he means? > As FTX has crumbled, Mr. Bankman-Fried has been “working constructively with regulators, bankruptcy officials and the company to try to do what’s best for consumers,” he said on Sunday. What a mensch! > 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.” So happy for him. > 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.” What does this even mean? Why include it in the story?
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Like Musk's buyout of twitter, Ye's attempt on Parler, SBF has joined the ranks of avant garde performance artists. Or that's how I'm rationalizing all the popcorn I've been eating, anyway.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    Fun game idea: Read this parent comment, but with s/Bankman-Fried/Madoff/g. See how nuts that sounds? "Oh, Mr. Madoff missed some signs" that his scheme was insolvent. Yeah, NYTimes deserves at least some of the criticism on this piece.
  - tootie 4y ago
    The parts you're critiquing are literally quotes of things he said to the interviewer. I think you're expecting too much of a routine story. The reporter got direct access to SBF which is not easy to do and got him on record speaking to his mistakes which he, unsurprisingly, gave roundabout non-incriminating answers. The rest of the piece is mostly outlining the facts and timeline around the collapse. A journalist isn't going to pass judgment like you want. Certainly not on a case that is still open.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Okay, but printing those quotes without context is a choice. When biggest financial fraudster since Bernie Madoff tries to give a roundabout non-incriminating answer, the thing to do is print it and also say that what actually happened is FTX "loaned" customer assets to a hedge fund — also operated by himself! — in return for essentially nothing. Not take him at his word that $10B missing was just a whoopsie that happened because he wasn't paying close attention. As for the case being open… I mean, what is the point of a newspaper if they're just going to reprint whatever the authorities say happened? What about the absolutely bonkers balance sheet that FTX released, for example? Matt Levine did a good job breaking it down [1], because that's the job of a journalist: to make otherwise-inaccessible information available to laypeople. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-14/ftx-s-balance-sheet-was-bad https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-14/ftx-s-...
- trophycase 4y ago
  ???? How do you interview a man who just more or less stole tens of billions of dollars from customers, lied about it repeatedly, is trying to cover up evidence of that, and is arrogantly tweeting while still not being arrested, and not once mention any of that? This garbage reads like "a day in the life of a silicon valley CEO" or something. The dude just perpetrated one of the largest financial frauds in the history of the world. Bernie Madoff level, and this is all the NYT has to say. Totally disgusting to defend the NYT here. Dude said before Congress that they never trade or leverage using customer funds. That was a complete and utter lie. He "testified to Congress and met with regulators" hugely downplays his attempts at regulatory capture via donations and attempted backroom deals (Gary Gensler is implicated in this too). Including the alleged prid pro quo. It mentions his "effective altruism" and "philanthropy" but doesn't mention who his donations are to, or the fact that half of it was just a guise and actually he spent millions on housing in the Bahamas or in New York.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    > the dude just perpetrated one of the largest financial frauds in the history of the world. Bernie Madoff level, and this is all the NYT has to say. Totally disgusting to defend the NYT here. What charges have been filed? What has he been convicted of? Comparing him to Madoff is disingenuous. Prior to Madoff being charged, the media was the same... they're not going to print words like "perpetrated one of the largest financial frauds in the world" without charges. The only thing that screams is "defamation lawsuit". To be clear, I have no boat in this race. But calling the NYT out for not making statements that they do not (yet) have the ability to prove is entirely problematic.
    - Bootvis 4y ago
      They could try to ask hard questions and press for answers.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        What answers do you believe he will provide to the media in the face of an SEC investigation and pending litigation?
- emehex 4y ago
  From a tweet: Word count NYT's puff piece on SBF: "Fraud": 0 "Enron": 0 "Crime": 0 "Illiquid": 0 "Stolen": 0 "Hidden": 0 "Criminal": 0 "Back door": 0 "He's getting sleep": 1 Source: https://twitter.com/TrungTPhan/status/1592349684471037955 https://twitter.com/TrungTPhan/status/1592349684471037955
  - tootie 4y ago
    "In less than a week, the cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried went from industry leader to industry villain, lost most of his fortune, saw his $32 billion company plunge into bankruptcy and became the target of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department." That's the first paragraph. Literally calls him a "villain" and says he's the target of multiple investigations.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    You are not going to see any media claim that he defrauded investors, committed a crime, stole, when there are no charges filed (yet), let alone convictions. Implying that the NYT is trying to puff him up by avoiding a defamation suit is reaching.
    - nwienert 4y ago
      Completely untrue, they do this stuff all the time. Usually they just interview people in the industry and quote them, or temper with words like alleged. But it’s common.
- burkaman 4y ago
  I also think it's weird. There's like 8 other NYT articles about FTX this week and I believe all of them mention fraud and/or criminal investigations and/or potential theft of customer funds. Maybe this profile is bad but if NYT as a whole is trying to rescue this guy they're doing a very bad job of it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- nullc 4y ago
  If a lot of people have the impression that the piece is a promotional piece, ... then perhaps that is actually the net effect of the piece.
- SkyMarshal 4y ago
  I can't help but wonder if the NYTimes article was intentionally designed to be 99% puff piece disguising the 1% of extremely damning information, just to get them direct access to the FTX team so they could get something juicy. Journalists can be sneaky like that sometimes. The 1% of damning info was Caroline's reported admission that Alameda borrowed short-term to make long-term illiquid VC investments, and when those loans got called and Alameda couldn't pay, FTX commingled its customer funds with Alameda to pay them. That was a new bit of info, that NYTimes just casually snuck into the middle of the puff piece without further commentary, but it's quite damning and kinda insane. While all the rubes are complaining about the article being too gentle, the financial crimes prosecutors are adding it to their case files. https://twitter.com/WClementeIII/status/1592289824542949376 https://twitter.com/WClementeIII/status/1592289824542949376
  - MrMan 4y ago
    that is by itself jail worthy
    - SkyMarshal 4y ago
      exactly.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      It's hilarious that SBF is tweeting without the slightest apparent concern of jail nor the fact that he stole $B of deposits by international customers, many of which may have connections to organized crime. The closest comparable person I can think of was Madoff, and he had the leverage that at least most of his customer's money wasn't actually destroyed so his cooperation worth a lot. I honestly don't know that SBF has anything to bargain to the legal system or his angry, often crime involved, customers as it appears he destroyed basically all of their money. I'm not saying he should be terrified, but personally I would feel very terrified I were in that position. I think his best outcome at this point is some form of plea that incudes witness protection program in exchange for un-"hacking" the remaining $600M.
      - 4y ago
acchow 4y ago
NYT can't convict him for crimes until the courts do. Otherwise, they may be sued for libel.
- postalrat 4y ago
  Are republican leaders immune to this rule or something?
twblalock 4y ago
It's not a particularly good story, but I wish people would stop with the conspiratorial thinking. There is no evidence that the NYT is "in bed" with the guy or trying to help him -- and no reason to believe it would be in their interest to do that for him. Why would they want to help him? Do you think he is bribing them with his worthless imaginary money? How does the NYT benefit from defending someone who has destroyed his own reputation and lost billions of dollars of customer money? Is it possible the entire thing was a Madoff-style fraud from the beginning? Yes, but that is not the only possibility. No charges have been filed, and all the people who think he should be thrown in jail never mention what laws they think he broke. It's not illegal to be an incompetent failure, and fraud has a specific definition that requires intent and does not cover all instances of simply lying. If the NYT had written an article accusing the guy of crimes, they wouldn't have a basis for doing so. Not yet, anyway. Maybe actual criminal lawbreaking will be discovered, but right now, there is no proof. Should newspapers be accusing people of crimes without proof? People need to put down the pitchforks and torches and wait for the full truth to come out. It's going to take a while.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  I think people who know / met him just legitimately like him. Nerd charisma, I guess. Matt Levine actually copped to it in his column.
- tw600040 4y ago
  //Why would they want to help him? Oh let me think. Because they like democrats and he donated to democrats?
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    This such a sad partisan take. Why would the NYT want to help a disgraced person they have no need to be loyal to? It’s not because he’s a Democrat. It’s because he’s any one that isn’t an excessive right wing mega spender (which includes very few names). That spans a lot of people in both parties. Aka centrist capitalists.
willmadden 4y ago
No media source has "integrity". They have owners with agendas.

nostromo 4y ago

The Times should be deeply embarrassed by that article. SBF is equal parts Bernie Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes but the Times is trying to paint him as an unlucky entrepreneur, down on his luck. The author doesn't even seem to understand that he stole billions from his customers to try and paper over losses from his trading.

memish 4y ago
Their coverage generally doesn't seem to understand it. Anything notable missing here? From their "Here’s What to Know" page https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/technology/ftx-binance-crypto-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/technology/ftx-binance-cr... The Aftermath of FTX’s Downfall The sudden collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange has left the crypto industry stunned. Crackdown Begins: Regulators are moving to freeze parts of FTX’s business, while other divisions file for insolvency or prepare to halt operations. Here’s what’s next for the company. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/business/dealbook/ftx-sbf-regulators-crypto-bahamas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/business/dealbook/ftx-sbf... Investors Under Scrutiny: Venture capital firms and investment funds showered nearly $2 billion on FTX with few strings attached. Now, they are facing questions, too. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/technology/ftx-investors-venture-capital.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/technology/ftx-investors-... ‘Effective Altruism’: The fall of FTX dealt a significant blow to the philanthropy movement that is deeply tied to the company’s founder, Sam Bankman-Fried. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/13/business/ftx-effective-altruism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/13/business/ftx-effective-al... Sports Sponsorships: From the naming rights for an N.B.A. arena to patches on M.L.B. umpires’ uniforms, FTX’s collapse puts sponsorship deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars in doubt. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/business/ftx-sports-sponsorships.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/business/ftx-sports-spons...
next_xibalba 4y ago
The WSJ has a much more cleared eyed take on SBF/FTX: https://archive.ph/B2t1F https://archive.ph/B2t1F

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Tons of comments, here and elsewhere, that say that NYT should be really embarrassed by this piece. I thought the same after reading snippets posted by others, but after reading the full piece end-to-end, I disagree. I think the article is a fairly straightforward account of what happened. I think there are places that it could have emphasized the fact that "borrowing customer funds" is accurately called theft, but it didn't come across to me as a "puff piece" that people are calling it. For example, I thought this paragraph was pretty informative and actually extremely damning to the people involved - what is described here is clear theft, plain and simple: > Around the time the crypto market crashed this spring, Ms. Ellison explained, lenders moved to recall those loans, the person familiar with the meeting said. But the funds that Alameda had spent were no longer easily available, so the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang. With that one statement I don't see in any way how SBF, Ellison, Singh and Wang avoid lengthy prison terms.