Several reports – & SBF in recent statements – have identified $2.1B to $3B as the cost of buying out others' stake in FTX, primarily Binance (an early investor

Several reports – & SBF in recent statements – have identified $2.1B to $3B as the cost of buying out others' stake in FTX, primarily Binance (an early investor). That was true traditional but not publcly-traded equity, not FTT tokens (though perhaps FTT tokens were accepted as part or most of the payment value out). Now, by structuring these as "loans" to SBF, for him alone to increase his (already overwhemling) majority control, meant he'd unethically levered up the enterprise into a "heads SBF wins even more, tails everyone else loses everything" precariousness. Losers at risk from such an arrangement would include, and eventually now have included, customers with custodial funds that should never have been at any risk at all - but were so commingled across purposes & entities under SBF's shoddy self-dealing & criminally-negligient management that they were de facto contributors to these unwise sweetheart insider loans. So at least $2.1B, & perhaps up to ~$3B, of this "loaned" value (in cash & other tokens) may have made its way to Binance, and thus we wouldn't expect it to be in SBF's current pockets. It was still taken inappropriately, though. And, the magnitudes further make SBF's claims of not knowing the details of either Alamedas or FTX's balance sheets not credible. Honest people generally don't send $3B of value through themselves, to elsewhere, without at least some sense of the stocks & flows involved. However, perhaps after those loans, the large venture investments into FTX are reported to have sent around $300M cash (of the raised funds) to SBF. He's also described that as repaying him for acts like buying out Binance with personal funds, almost as if he hadn't been loaned billions from FTX to do that. That money looks instead more like a VC's willingness, in a suitably hot deal, to let the founder take some value out to have more-diversified wealth. I'd expect the debtors to especially chase that cash money, to see where it landed, for possible recovery by SBF's victims. Another missing question from recent interviews: when SBF does his, "I've got nothing, now" or "maybe $100k" act, ask him: why hasn't he declared bankruptcy? He borrowed ~$3B from FTX/Alameda-related entities, in order to lever-up further into FTX. If he presumably per the debtors-in-management team still owes his associated-entities $3B+, and has "nothing", he should be in bankruptcy. SBF is a very smart person with a now-documented history, during his ascent, of blatant misrepresentations about weighty matters & a flexible view of ethics. When such a person claims "oops, I kept poor records & didn't manage the staff or complicated legal entities I'd chosen & didn't pay close attention", but then slowly & vaguely describes past actions in the most self-exonerating ways possible, the presumption should be that the post-fall accounts are retroactive fabulations. The character 'hapless-Sam' is just as much a self-aggrandizing fiction as the character 'hyperethical-and-hypercompetent-Sam' was. And even if fully true, "I was a reckless gambler bad with math even when I was selling people on the idea I'd hedged out all the gambles and was brilliant at math" only helps explain, but does not excuse, criminal deception.