4 ms·
Can you link to anyone defending him? The Michael Lewis book was a character study. I can’t think of a single person who defends what happened.
by monero-xmr 3y ago
Can you link to anyone defending him? The Michael Lewis book was a character study. I can’t think of a single person who defends what happened.
- maxbond 3y agoHe describes it as a "letter to the jury" (which I interpret as an statement of intention to reframe the popular understanding of what happened - presumably Lewis knows that jurors aren't supposed to read editorials about the case & is speaking figuratively) and casts SBF in a sympathetic light while casting aspersions on the executives executing the bankruptcy. Like GP mentioned, it glosses over the red flags and such to present a different narrative of Lewis' choosing. I think it's fair to characterize Lewis as carrying water. It's also a character study, sure, but there's no contradiction there.
- dxf 3y agoMatt Levine's take on _Going Infinite_: "Many of the reviews that I have read of the book complain that Lewis does not sufficiently explain that Bankman-Fried is Guilty and Bad, Actually, but that is not the book that he wanted to write... If you want to read a moral condemnation of crypto theft, you can get that anywhere. You go to Michael Lewis for character and story. Also, reading those reviews you would think that the book is a defense of Bankman-Fried, but it is actually quite damning."
- benjaminwootton 3y agoI saw a few clips of an interview with Lewis here - https://youtu.be/B2z8ikGLRh8?si=pqF-jUI4SeWsI4Fg https://youtu.be/B2z8ikGLRh8?si=pqF-jUI4SeWsI4Fg The interviewer maybe edits for effect, but Lewis seems very biased towards SBF.
- bitcharmer 3y agoHave you watched 60 minutes with Michael Lewis? He's openly defending SBF