He changed the explanation that they were given-- originally he was telling people Korean exchanges, later the claim changed to Japan. The replacement wasn't pa

He changed the explanation that they were given-- originally he was telling people Korean exchanges, later the claim changed to Japan. The replacement wasn't particularly credible either (at least not the scale). You can easily find examples of the earlier story on google using the word kimchi: https://www.google.com/search?q=SBF+kimchi https://www.google.com/search?q=SBF+kimchi Of course, newly available disclosures show that they hadn't earned anything from the korean trade at all. If you look at WP history, you'll see that entire article was recently written ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alameda_Research&direction=prev&oldid=1120942076 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alameda_Research&...) and the WP article for SBF himself only goes back to April 2021. The red flag examples I gave were actually quoted from my contemporary correspondence (warning other people off), so I know none of it is tainted by hindsight. Tainted by cynicism, perhaps, but I think cynicism is well justified in this space. In later correspondence I see did cite the SBF wikipedia article on Dec 9 2021 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Bankman-Fried&oldid=1059797906 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Bankman-Fried... ) in a message to someone, "can't say that finding his wikipedia page has made me feel any safer about having funds in ledgerx" and noted that participation in forbes 30 under 30 is a "minor red flag (it's almost excursively paid promotion)", and I noted the text '"sleeps four hours per night" at the age of 29 is almost certainly something LARPing as a superman' and I compared it to other cryptocurrency fantasists like Craig Wright claiming to read 2500 books a year. > Are you making these claims from a "it's impossible to offer this product without being a scam" point of view Impossible to offer without having an extraordinary implosion risk, at least, if not being an outright scam. There was no disclosure around the risks or how it would be contained. Scamcoin casino competitors have had high profile "insurance funds" with somewhat transparent management as an explicit mechanism to address the extreme risk of these levered products. (I think they are also obviously too risky to do business with, and these are risks that should have been covered in any article discussing FTX!). There are ways to create leverage without any implosion risk-- e.g. physically delivered options. But that's a different set of products, and one that sells less well to unsophisticated users in part because the investment risk isn't hidden, because the trades need counterparties instead of being against the house, etc. > This seems like the prototypical example of stuff that you only notice after the fact because hindsight is 20/20. I specifically set apart the elements that I didn't know about at the time. My records show that prior to 2022 on at least a dozen occasions I told people that I communicated with that I thought FTX was fraudulent and that I thought SBF was likely a scammer. Quite explicitly, in fact, in 2021 I wrote: "I don't believe SBF money exists. I think he's a scammer. I'd take a non-trivial bet on it. His claimed origins of his money are more obviously false than madoffs'. maybe he's just a front for iran or something, but whatever the case is he didn't make his money the way he said he did." and "I mean SBF is super redflaggy to begin with. I think he's a scammer, not sure exactly the nature of the scam, but his story of where his sudden wealth came from just doesn't compute." (I would have been more outspoken in public under my name about these concerns, but dealing with one multi-billion dollar lawsuit from a scammer at a time is enough for me! (and, in fact, said as much to friends in private)) So you don't get to chalk my perspective to hindsight, though it's certainly emboldened now by hindsight. :) Now-- could I have gone to press with an expose on that? No. But it's enough that someone could refrain from gushing on support, or could have investigated more carefully. (Or as I did, pulling funds away from potentially exposed entities!) > she was talking about prescription amphetamines aka Adderall. If you've been around people on Adderall and don't recognize that it can easily compromise judgement and result in mania, then I dunno what to say other than congrats on your good fortune. Cryptocurrency is rife with stimulant abusers, however, many of which are on prescriptions yet engage in obviously unwise, reckless, or at least irritating behavior as a result. That kind of message from executive staff is a serious red flag, if not directly showing abuse, and least demonstrating a significant lapse in judgement in choosing to make public such an obviously concerning message. Could you imagine how the public would respond to an equivalent tweet being put out by the CEO of Fidelity? It's not like that tweet of Ellison's is the only public message suggesting substance abuse at FTX/Alameda, e.g. https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/1173351344159117312 https://twitter.com/sbf_ftx/status/1173351344159117312 surely some probing questions would have exposed the situation. Recent comments from former staff certainly suggest as much ( https://preview.redd.it/3fdfqorucyz91.png?width=978&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2882a6443062a62917550c6b1f49c7d7b3973e3 https://preview.redd.it/3fdfqorucyz91.png?width=978&format=p... ). > but if you wrote a piece on this pre-crash There aren't just two options "write a critical piece on thin indications" or "write a gushing promotion piece". The obvious thing to do when there are weak indications of concern is to just say nothing, or to do serious critical research-- had any been done they would most likely have turned up even more reportable information, or at least more negative indication that supported keeping distance. ... or to at least find some random naysayer to quote saying it's suspicious and they're uncomfortable with it.