3 ms·

He also donated $39M to political campaigns this year, likely winning him some favors from powerful people. Not to say it would protect him from criminal charge

He also donated $39M to political campaigns this year, likely winning him some favors from powerful people. Not to say it would protect him from criminal charges; but it's not unfeasible to think it could knock him down a few slots on the extradition priority list.

iudqnolq 4y ago
This is commonly repeated, but if you game out the incentives it doesn't hold up. Instead, politicians tend to sacrifice the worst criminal donors (see Madoff) to avoid scrutiny of the whole system. A politician wants to maximize future donations. SBF won't donate in the future, and other donors won't stick up for him. So why should politicians continue to deliver? A deep sense of fairness?
- netheril96 4y ago
  > So why should politicians continue to deliver? If the politicians protect SBF to any extent, they signal to potential donors how useful a donation can be. Some of the rich will start donating or increasing their donations to get the same "get-out-of-jail-or-have-sentence-reduced" card.
  - fbdab103 4y ago
    I think it is a tacit agreement among white-crime - don't get too big. So long as you can stay out of the spotlight, you are probably fine. SBF was evidently way too greedy and far too public. This crash is spreading to the entire crypto economy and has a chance to bring it all down. Someone is going to be the sacrificial lamb, and there are few targets as juicy.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      Also on certain level you have to have at least some level of plausible deniability for fraud committed. That is have enough players involved in it. Madoff failed this. And if even fraction of what SBF has done is true. Yep, he is also going away. As this has entered outright territory of fraud.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    You're not buying a get-out-of-jail card, since that's not actually valuable to most people. You're buying influence over laws and regulations that directly impact your ability to make money, which has much greater value to most donors.
- oarabbus_ 4y ago
  I explicitly stated this would not protect him from any criminal charges. What I suggested was, extradition is a lengthy and involved process to initiate, and requires many coordination challenges for both countries. There's limited resources and SBF is not the only individual authorities are seeking to extradite, and I don't think it's far-fetched to think his political contributions reduce his chance of appearing on the Interpol Top 10 most wanted list. I could be wrong but it seems reasonable to me. And I don't necessarily agree the incentives don't hold up. Why would SBF have gotten the idea to donate millions of (his customers' and investors') dollars to political campaigns? Every top political donor does so for lobbying power and to win favor with politicians as the primary factor.

iudqnolq 4y ago

This is commonly repeated, but if you game out the incentives it doesn't hold up. Instead, politicians tend to sacrifice the worst criminal donors (see Madoff) to avoid scrutiny of the whole system. A politician wants to maximize future donations. SBF won't donate in the future, and other donors won't stick up for him. So why should politicians continue to deliver? A deep sense of fairness?

netheril96 4y ago
> So why should politicians continue to deliver? If the politicians protect SBF to any extent, they signal to potential donors how useful a donation can be. Some of the rich will start donating or increasing their donations to get the same "get-out-of-jail-or-have-sentence-reduced" card.
- fbdab103 4y ago
  I think it is a tacit agreement among white-crime - don't get too big. So long as you can stay out of the spotlight, you are probably fine. SBF was evidently way too greedy and far too public. This crash is spreading to the entire crypto economy and has a chance to bring it all down. Someone is going to be the sacrificial lamb, and there are few targets as juicy.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    Also on certain level you have to have at least some level of plausible deniability for fraud committed. That is have enough players involved in it. Madoff failed this. And if even fraction of what SBF has done is true. Yep, he is also going away. As this has entered outright territory of fraud.
- qeternity 4y ago
  You're not buying a get-out-of-jail card, since that's not actually valuable to most people. You're buying influence over laws and regulations that directly impact your ability to make money, which has much greater value to most donors.
oarabbus_ 4y ago
I explicitly stated this would not protect him from any criminal charges. What I suggested was, extradition is a lengthy and involved process to initiate, and requires many coordination challenges for both countries. There's limited resources and SBF is not the only individual authorities are seeking to extradite, and I don't think it's far-fetched to think his political contributions reduce his chance of appearing on the Interpol Top 10 most wanted list. I could be wrong but it seems reasonable to me. And I don't necessarily agree the incentives don't hold up. Why would SBF have gotten the idea to donate millions of (his customers' and investors') dollars to political campaigns? Every top political donor does so for lobbying power and to win favor with politicians as the primary factor.