3 ms·
tl;dw: It's hard to get SBF to admit to fraud involving Alameda because he can fall back on the excuse that he wasn't the CEO and didn't know what was happening
by vgel 4y ago
tl;dw: It's hard to get SBF to admit to fraud involving Alameda because he can fall back on the excuse that he wasn't the CEO and didn't know what was happening (even though there's every chance he actually did). So the youtuber hit him with a more targeted question: if FTX guarantees deposits are not traded, why were deposits not able to be withdrawn -- where did they go? He gets SBF to admit that they were commingling regular deposits with funds from customers doing riskier things like margin trading, and during the run those riskier users withdrew funds that should have been deposits that were set aside in a separate pool. That exposed regular depositors to risk contrary to what was laid out in the TOS. SBF gets mad and lashes out.
- whimsicalism 4y agoSeems like he has been admitting this constantly, don't think this is a new scoop.
- etothepii 4y agoCoffeeZilla has done a really great job of following up with this line of questioning but on a technical point I am not sure that this gets him where he thinks it does. From what I have seen I do not think that FTX held itself out to formally be a "segregated accounts company" and the example CoffeeZilla uses of a bank is a bad example because that is exactly how banks operate. i.e. the problem with FTX was that they informally held themselves out to be a segregated accounts company but formally operated like a bank on a first-come-first-served basis.