3 ms·

I took a look at some of the media coverage and found that people are spinning it as being much more friendly to Sam than it actually is. For instance, the link

by bnralt 4y ago

I took a look at some of the media coverage and found that people are spinning it as being much more friendly to Sam than it actually is. For instance, the linked to article portrays Matt Yglesias' article like this: > Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias, court chronicler of the neoliberal status quo, seemed to whitewash his own entanglements by crediting Bankman-Fried’s money with helping Democrats in the 2020 elections – sidestepping the likelihood that the money was effectively embezzled. Here are some excerpts from Yglesias' article[1]: > But the truth appears to be much worse than reckless, even as it’s still not fully clear exactly how much worse (did he and his circle lose the money? did they pocket it?), and for those of us who defended him against some of his critics, a reckoning is due. ** > By betraying his clients — I don’t know whether he “defrauded” or whatever else in a legal sense, but he certainly betrayed them — SBF is leaving many of his causes worse off than they would have been if he’d never invested in them. ** > I did warn that SBF supporting good causes didn’t mean that we should assume his crypto agenda is benign — sincere belief that your wealth benefits humanity can be dangerous...I did not, of course, seriously consider the possibility that he would just steal his clients’ money. And given what we now know, you have to be suspicious about the downstream spending as well. All the official and unofficial EA material emphasizes the importance of integrity and does not encourage people to run scams or break faith with others. But I do think the situation poses some questions that the community as a whole will need to reckon with. Honestly, the effort to paint this as a failure of the mainstream media seems to cover the lionization of Sam Bankman-Fried by many in the crypto community. For instance, Coindesk itself wrote numerous articles painting Sam Bankman-Fried in a positive light. And these were directed at people trying to invest in crypto, unlike Yglesias' article. [1] https://www.slowboring.com/p/some-thoughts-on-the-ftx-implosion https://www.slowboring.com/p/some-thoughts-on-the-ftx-implos...

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
A Coindesk journalist was the one who first broke the story, that's how the public became aware of it in the first place. Only a few days ago Vox published that bizarre interview, basically giving Bankman-Fried yet another platform to spread more lies. The investors in FTX were mainly not crypto people but venture capital firms, newbies and even the often cited public pension fund. As someone who's been in the space since the early Bitcoin days, I don't know a single actual crypto person who was a fan of the likes of SBF, CZ etc even before FTX imploded. It's firms such as Sequoia Capital and Softbank (seriously, they're always in when cash can be burned) that lost millions in FTX, not actual crypto natives for the most part. There is an interview with SBF out there where he quite literally calls the defi tokens he traded a "ponzi". Of course none of the expert investors did due diligence because they were blinded by the bull market hype, with fat dollar signs in their eyes. Now that their "investment" has disappeared the mainstream has made out the culprit as well. Not the scammer, not the gullible tradfi traders, not a system that relied entirely on trust without verification or regulation - no, it's crypto that was the problem of course. If only there were a way that exchanges could be reliably audited. Maybe some kind of decentralized ledger that can't be controlled and falsified by a single dishonest party.
- zztop44 4y ago
  Those are the equity investors in FTX, but it has been reported that there are about a million retail customers owed about 8 billion dollars. You might think they’re not “crypto people” because they sent their coins to a centralised exchange but if that disqualifies you then crypto people are a tiny and unimportant part of the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Make no mistake, real people chose to purchase cryptocurrency and send it to FTX based at least partly on some pretty sophisticated marketing and endorsement from establishment figures. They will almost certainly lose that money. It’s definitely not just VC funds being burned here.
- bnralt 4y ago
  > Only a few days ago Vox published that bizarre interview, basically giving Bankman-Fried yet another platform to spread more lies. Here's the first Vox article that pops up when I type "vox sam bankman fried" into Google[1]: > A week ago, Sam Bankman-Fried was the boy-wonder face of crypto: A 30-year-old who founded one of the biggest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, a celebrated philanthropist worth an estimated $16 billion, and a major Democratic donor who quickly found favor in Washington. By Friday, he was at the center of an epic flameout that left his empire and his image as an uncannily sharp, altruistic billionaire in ruins. > In the annals of crypto disasters, the tale of Bankman-Fried may go down as one of the most jaw-dropping. He resigned from his crypto exchange, FTX, as it collapsed from a domino effect of a surge in customers trying to withdraw their funds, and the company filed for bankruptcy. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Bankman-Fried may have illegally taken about $10 billion in FTX customers’ funds for his trading firm, Alameda Research, whose future is also in peril. And Bankman-Fried is now worth close to nothing. > The downfall of FTX isn’t a typical story of crypto’s volatility or investor risk-taking; it didn’t crumble due to bad luck, but what now appears to be unsustainable layers of deception. Again, people seem to be trying to purposefully spin the mainstream coverage into something it's not. [1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23458837/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-sbf-downfall-explained https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23458837/sam-bankman-fried-ftx...
syl_sau 4y ago
Is this ironic ? You give the example Yglesias, one of the most famous independent journalists in the US, and litterally the first paragraph of your article is about how he turned down SBF's money: > Several months ago, I found myself having a few mocktails and splitting vegan snacks with Sam Bankman-Fried at a restaurant near my house.1 We touched on, among other things, his proposal to create a new publication featuring writers he liked, including me. > I declined, which obviously in retrospect was the right choice. I told him that I like my Substack just fine and make plenty of money, though he was happy to offer more. But I also told him that given the extent to which we agree on a lot of important issues, I thought it was a lot more valuable to these causes for me to maintain credibility by not accepting any of his money.
williamcotton 4y ago
> spinning it as being much more friendly to Sam than it actually is That’s because spinning the notion of “they” being more friendly to Sam implies a shadowy conspiracy, which is much more interesting than other explanations. Cotton’s razor: The most boring explanation is the most likely explanation.

by bnralt 4y ago

trompetenaccoun 4y ago

A Coindesk journalist was the one who first broke the story, that's how the public became aware of it in the first place. Only a few days ago Vox published that bizarre interview, basically giving Bankman-Fried yet another platform to spread more lies. The investors in FTX were mainly not crypto people but venture capital firms, newbies and even the often cited public pension fund. As someone who's been in the space since the early Bitcoin days, I don't know a single actual crypto person who was a fan of the likes of SBF, CZ etc even before FTX imploded. It's firms such as Sequoia Capital and Softbank (seriously, they're always in when cash can be burned) that lost millions in FTX, not actual crypto natives for the most part. There is an interview with SBF out there where he quite literally calls the defi tokens he traded a "ponzi". Of course none of the expert investors did due diligence because they were blinded by the bull market hype, with fat dollar signs in their eyes. Now that their "investment" has disappeared the mainstream has made out the culprit as well. Not the scammer, not the gullible tradfi traders, not a system that relied entirely on trust without verification or regulation - no, it's crypto that was the problem of course. If only there were a way that exchanges could be reliably audited. Maybe some kind of decentralized ledger that can't be controlled and falsified by a single dishonest party.

zztop44 4y ago
Those are the equity investors in FTX, but it has been reported that there are about a million retail customers owed about 8 billion dollars. You might think they’re not “crypto people” because they sent their coins to a centralised exchange but if that disqualifies you then crypto people are a tiny and unimportant part of the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Make no mistake, real people chose to purchase cryptocurrency and send it to FTX based at least partly on some pretty sophisticated marketing and endorsement from establishment figures. They will almost certainly lose that money. It’s definitely not just VC funds being burned here.
bnralt 4y ago
> Only a few days ago Vox published that bizarre interview, basically giving Bankman-Fried yet another platform to spread more lies. Here's the first Vox article that pops up when I type "vox sam bankman fried" into Google[1]: > A week ago, Sam Bankman-Fried was the boy-wonder face of crypto: A 30-year-old who founded one of the biggest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, a celebrated philanthropist worth an estimated $16 billion, and a major Democratic donor who quickly found favor in Washington. By Friday, he was at the center of an epic flameout that left his empire and his image as an uncannily sharp, altruistic billionaire in ruins. > In the annals of crypto disasters, the tale of Bankman-Fried may go down as one of the most jaw-dropping. He resigned from his crypto exchange, FTX, as it collapsed from a domino effect of a surge in customers trying to withdraw their funds, and the company filed for bankruptcy. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Bankman-Fried may have illegally taken about $10 billion in FTX customers’ funds for his trading firm, Alameda Research, whose future is also in peril. And Bankman-Fried is now worth close to nothing. > The downfall of FTX isn’t a typical story of crypto’s volatility or investor risk-taking; it didn’t crumble due to bad luck, but what now appears to be unsustainable layers of deception. Again, people seem to be trying to purposefully spin the mainstream coverage into something it's not. [1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23458837/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-sbf-downfall-explained https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23458837/sam-bankman-fried-ftx...

syl_sau 4y ago

Is this ironic ? You give the example Yglesias, one of the most famous independent journalists in the US, and litterally the first paragraph of your article is about how he turned down SBF's money: > Several months ago, I found myself having a few mocktails and splitting vegan snacks with Sam Bankman-Fried at a restaurant near my house.1 We touched on, among other things, his proposal to create a new publication featuring writers he liked, including me. > I declined, which obviously in retrospect was the right choice. I told him that I like my Substack just fine and make plenty of money, though he was happy to offer more. But I also told him that given the extent to which we agree on a lot of important issues, I thought it was a lot more valuable to these causes for me to maintain credibility by not accepting any of his money.

williamcotton 4y ago

> spinning it as being much more friendly to Sam than it actually is That’s because spinning the notion of “they” being more friendly to Sam implies a shadowy conspiracy, which is much more interesting than other explanations. Cotton’s razor: The most boring explanation is the most likely explanation.