> The simplest explanation is usually true. A billionaire enabler of Sam's was willing to put up $250M in collateral because Sam spilling on him would cost him

> The simplest explanation is usually true. A billionaire enabler of Sam's was willing to put up $250M in collateral because Sam spilling on him would cost him far more that $250M. But whether SBF is out on bail doesn't affect what comes out at trial. If you're saying that SBF is effectively extorting those other individuals, on threat of revealing their secrets, then their pretty dumb extortion victims, since nothing stops SBF from continuing to demand massive investments of their money such as this one.