7 ms·

The New York Times did another interview with Bankman-Fried today, very much against the advice of his lawyers. I didn't watch it, but from a tweet summary [1],

The New York Times did another interview with Bankman-Fried today, very much against the advice of his lawyers. I didn't watch it, but from a tweet summary [1], it sounds rather amazingly self-destructive. Getting the lies on the record seems useful? [1] https://twitter.com/edmundlee/status/1597957472761057282 https://twitter.com/edmundlee/status/1597957472761057282

chrchang523 4y ago
We'll see. From my perspective, this could still go either way: he could be put in prison for a long time partly as a consequence of how much is on the record, or he may still be protected regardless of what is on the record.
earthscienceman 4y ago
Why did I just get linked to a tweet of a news article? https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/30/business/sam-bankman-fried-interview https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/30/business/sam-bankman...
- humanistbot 4y ago
  Ridiculous, I have no idea why people do this.
- culanuchachamim 4y ago
  Because in the tweet is the summary
- skybrian 4y ago
  Because I don't have a NYT subscription.
- neonate 4y ago
  https://archive.ph/AxB6G https://archive.ph/AxB6G
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Thanks for breaking that out. If it's only on Twitter, it's invisible to me.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  I'm glad that in the summary, NYT seems to not be buying any of it
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
seydor 4y ago
this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ik497cvvcE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ik497cvvcE
- new2this 4y ago
  Direct interview link, no commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyoGdwVIwWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyoGdwVIwWw
oldgradstudent 4y ago
> very much against the advice of his lawyers According to Sam Bankman-Fried. Not the most reliable source.
- coralreef 4y ago
  What self respecting lawyer would ever advise their client, whom is probably being investigated for criminal charges, to tell their story to the media?
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Prediction: in the next few weeks we will see a story about his lawyers firing their client.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      We already went through one cycle of that: https://cointelegraph.com/news/sbf-s-lawyers-terminate-ftx-representation-due-to-conflicts-of-interest https://cointelegraph.com/news/sbf-s-lawyers-terminate-ftx-r...
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    Can't PR play a big part in high profile and political trials? I feel it can definitely be a strategy to try to put your story out before someone else does. Obviously you're not going to come out and say you're doing this as a PR strategy developed with your legal team, you're going to act like it's a personal risk to yourself to tell your story, which I suppose lends it some credibility in the eyes of some people. Like some of the people in this thread. The man's a con artist. I'm astounded that people still believe anything he says. I suppose I shouldn't be, he must be a very good con man because he managed to steal billions of dollars.
- jandrese 4y ago
  Any lawyer worth their salt would tell their client to not talk to the press. There's literally no upside and unlimited downside.
ratsmack 4y ago
He doesn't sound like the genius kid that the media had made him out to be. He sounds more like a pawn in some scheme where he was chosen to take the fall.
- zeven7 4y ago
  None of what he says makes sense, but it's not because he's dumb. He's clearly trying to go for an ignorance and negligence defense to avoid being accountable for fraud and theft. There's no way he's as dumb as he's pretending though. I don't have half the credentials he does, but it's easy for me to understand (1) how not to take client funds (2) how not to overleverage funds such that a tweet can make $8 billion disappear.
  - kosievdmerwe 4y ago
    There's also the fact that you don't develop a corporate hierarchy as complicated as the FTX and Alameda clusters of companies (something like 130 companies), due to ignorance and naivety.
    - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
      Incorporating in the Bahamas is also a flag for "knows enough to be dangerous".
    - elliekelly 4y ago
      I saw one story where Chamath Palihapitiya said his due diligence team made very simple governance recommendations like “have a board” and “formalize your related-party transactions” and the response from FTX was literally “go fuck yourself”. Given the recent reporting around just how absolutely fucked their records were I can’t help but wonder what on earth they were handing over in response to DDQs? Was it garbage and people invested anyway? Or were they just making shit up whole cloth? Social Capital must have seen something to get their spidey senses tingling about the related-party situation.
- yt-sdb 4y ago
  "Made him out to be"? SBF is actually pretty smart. He's repeatedly demonstrated a high level of mental quickness and numeracy that is common to traders, e.g. doing Fermi approximations during live interviews. And plenty of professors' kids don't get into MIT and then Jane Street. He was privileged, sure, but he's got the raw goods, too. Which is one of many why reasons I don't buy his claims that the root problem was just "risk management". No, he just committed fraud.

chrchang523 4y ago

We'll see. From my perspective, this could still go either way: he could be put in prison for a long time partly as a consequence of how much is on the record, or he may still be protected regardless of what is on the record.

earthscienceman 4y ago

Why did I just get linked to a tweet of a news article? https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/30/business/sam-bankman-fried-interview https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/30/business/sam-bankman...

humanistbot 4y ago
Ridiculous, I have no idea why people do this.
culanuchachamim 4y ago
Because in the tweet is the summary
skybrian 4y ago
Because I don't have a NYT subscription.
neonate 4y ago
https://archive.ph/AxB6G https://archive.ph/AxB6G
JohnFen 4y ago
Thanks for breaking that out. If it's only on Twitter, it's invisible to me.
raverbashing 4y ago
I'm glad that in the summary, NYT seems to not be buying any of it

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

seydor 4y ago

this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ik497cvvcE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ik497cvvcE

new2this 4y ago
Direct interview link, no commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyoGdwVIwWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyoGdwVIwWw

oldgradstudent 4y ago

> very much against the advice of his lawyers According to Sam Bankman-Fried. Not the most reliable source.

coralreef 4y ago
What self respecting lawyer would ever advise their client, whom is probably being investigated for criminal charges, to tell their story to the media?
- maxbond 4y ago
  Prediction: in the next few weeks we will see a story about his lawyers firing their client.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    We already went through one cycle of that: https://cointelegraph.com/news/sbf-s-lawyers-terminate-ftx-representation-due-to-conflicts-of-interest https://cointelegraph.com/news/sbf-s-lawyers-terminate-ftx-r...
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Can't PR play a big part in high profile and political trials? I feel it can definitely be a strategy to try to put your story out before someone else does. Obviously you're not going to come out and say you're doing this as a PR strategy developed with your legal team, you're going to act like it's a personal risk to yourself to tell your story, which I suppose lends it some credibility in the eyes of some people. Like some of the people in this thread. The man's a con artist. I'm astounded that people still believe anything he says. I suppose I shouldn't be, he must be a very good con man because he managed to steal billions of dollars.
jandrese 4y ago
Any lawyer worth their salt would tell their client to not talk to the press. There's literally no upside and unlimited downside.

ratsmack 4y ago

He doesn't sound like the genius kid that the media had made him out to be. He sounds more like a pawn in some scheme where he was chosen to take the fall.

zeven7 4y ago
None of what he says makes sense, but it's not because he's dumb. He's clearly trying to go for an ignorance and negligence defense to avoid being accountable for fraud and theft. There's no way he's as dumb as he's pretending though. I don't have half the credentials he does, but it's easy for me to understand (1) how not to take client funds (2) how not to overleverage funds such that a tweet can make $8 billion disappear.
- kosievdmerwe 4y ago
  There's also the fact that you don't develop a corporate hierarchy as complicated as the FTX and Alameda clusters of companies (something like 130 companies), due to ignorance and naivety.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    Incorporating in the Bahamas is also a flag for "knows enough to be dangerous".
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    I saw one story where Chamath Palihapitiya said his due diligence team made very simple governance recommendations like “have a board” and “formalize your related-party transactions” and the response from FTX was literally “go fuck yourself”. Given the recent reporting around just how absolutely fucked their records were I can’t help but wonder what on earth they were handing over in response to DDQs? Was it garbage and people invested anyway? Or were they just making shit up whole cloth? Social Capital must have seen something to get their spidey senses tingling about the related-party situation.
yt-sdb 4y ago
"Made him out to be"? SBF is actually pretty smart. He's repeatedly demonstrated a high level of mental quickness and numeracy that is common to traders, e.g. doing Fermi approximations during live interviews. And plenty of professors' kids don't get into MIT and then Jane Street. He was privileged, sure, but he's got the raw goods, too. Which is one of many why reasons I don't buy his claims that the root problem was just "risk management". No, he just committed fraud.