4 ms·

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

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-...
  - tootie 4y ago
    There's tons of context in the article. It lists everything they did wrong. That Bloomberg piece is very much an opinion column and says so at the top.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      It's simply untrue that there is context. Let's just take one example: > Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange, Mr. Bankman-Fried said. “It was substantially larger than I had thought it was,” he said. “And in fact the downside risk was very significant.” He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details. We know the size of the positions! The Financial Times reported on Friday (as news) that FTX held $900M in assets against $9B in liabilities [1]. And that was before the balance sheet was released! Why is it important to run this quote? Why allow him to spin the story like this? Why let him present it as a mistake? Why not include actual numbers? These are all choices the NYT is making that frame SBF in a positive light. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af558 https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af...
MichaelCollins 4y ago
This one is particularly egregious: > "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." Not "Bankman-Fried CLAIMS his circle of colleagues were bound by a commitment to effective altruism" The article isn't reporting the claim Bankman-Fried makes about himself. As written, the journalist is the one making this claim. That's far over the line. This man stole billions of dollars and the New York Times is asserting that he's an altruist.
- ninth_ant 4y ago
  It’s fairly well established that SBF had strong ties in the EA community long before FTX. The infamous now-deleted profile by sequoia goes into this in more detail. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that SBFs interest in EA was legitimate, irrespective of him defrauding his customers. Even if that isn’t the case, interest in the subject of EA still accurately describes his circle of colleagues.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    It would be fine to say that Bankman-Fried associated with or publicly endorsed the EA movement, those are both accurate statements of fact. The NYTimes is going further, saying he was actually "bound to a commitment", elevating Bankman-Fried's claim of sincere altruistic motive to a fact. I don't think professional journalists make this sort of mistake by accident, and if they did, it shouldn't have gotten past the editors.
    - ninth_ant 4y ago
      In the snippet you quoted, it said his circle of colleagues were bound to that commitment, which is an accurate summary. SBFs connections to the EA community seem to be pretty foundational to his success. There is no mistake here. You’re seemingly very upset by your own misinterpretation of this section of the article. Beyond what it says in that snippet, SBF did publicly pledge to give away the vast majority of his wealth. He was outspoken about his belief in Effective Altruism. You can certainly argue he scamming the others in the EA community with a false pledge and commitment to EA principles? But this aspect of the article was completely accurate.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jmull 4y ago
> What does this even mean? Why include it in the story? I mean... it's an interview... with the guy at the center of all of it. How is it not newsworthy to put him on the record? Where's the lack of integrity in that? Anyone on SBF's side would try to get him to shut completely up. Instead the NYTs has made him feel comfortable and got him talking. He's going to hang himself with his words. They will be quote from this, using it against him at trial and sentencing, because there will be plenty of private communications counter to this, which shows a conscious effort to deceive. Getting mad at the NYT over FTX is just weird.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

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-...
- tootie 4y ago
  There's tons of context in the article. It lists everything they did wrong. That Bloomberg piece is very much an opinion column and says so at the top.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    It's simply untrue that there is context. Let's just take one example: > Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange, Mr. Bankman-Fried said. “It was substantially larger than I had thought it was,” he said. “And in fact the downside risk was very significant.” He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details. We know the size of the positions! The Financial Times reported on Friday (as news) that FTX held $900M in assets against $9B in liabilities [1]. And that was before the balance sheet was released! Why is it important to run this quote? Why allow him to spin the story like this? Why let him present it as a mistake? Why not include actual numbers? These are all choices the NYT is making that frame SBF in a positive light. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af558 https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af...

MichaelCollins 4y ago

This one is particularly egregious: > "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." Not "Bankman-Fried CLAIMS his circle of colleagues were bound by a commitment to effective altruism" The article isn't reporting the claim Bankman-Fried makes about himself. As written, the journalist is the one making this claim. That's far over the line. This man stole billions of dollars and the New York Times is asserting that he's an altruist.

ninth_ant 4y ago
It’s fairly well established that SBF had strong ties in the EA community long before FTX. The infamous now-deleted profile by sequoia goes into this in more detail. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that SBFs interest in EA was legitimate, irrespective of him defrauding his customers. Even if that isn’t the case, interest in the subject of EA still accurately describes his circle of colleagues.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  It would be fine to say that Bankman-Fried associated with or publicly endorsed the EA movement, those are both accurate statements of fact. The NYTimes is going further, saying he was actually "bound to a commitment", elevating Bankman-Fried's claim of sincere altruistic motive to a fact. I don't think professional journalists make this sort of mistake by accident, and if they did, it shouldn't have gotten past the editors.
  - ninth_ant 4y ago
    In the snippet you quoted, it said his circle of colleagues were bound to that commitment, which is an accurate summary. SBFs connections to the EA community seem to be pretty foundational to his success. There is no mistake here. You’re seemingly very upset by your own misinterpretation of this section of the article. Beyond what it says in that snippet, SBF did publicly pledge to give away the vast majority of his wealth. He was outspoken about his belief in Effective Altruism. You can certainly argue he scamming the others in the EA community with a false pledge and commitment to EA principles? But this aspect of the article was completely accurate.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jmull 4y ago

> What does this even mean? Why include it in the story? I mean... it's an interview... with the guy at the center of all of it. How is it not newsworthy to put him on the record? Where's the lack of integrity in that? Anyone on SBF's side would try to get him to shut completely up. Instead the NYTs has made him feel comfortable and got him talking. He's going to hang himself with his words. They will be quote from this, using it against him at trial and sentencing, because there will be plenty of private communications counter to this, which shows a conscious effort to deceive. Getting mad at the NYT over FTX is just weird.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]