The situation with Alameda resembles the Enron scandal more closely than a banking crisis like that of 2008. Portraying Alameda as a typical borrower, while co

The situation with Alameda resembles the Enron scandal more closely than a banking crisis like that of 2008. Portraying Alameda as a typical borrower, while concurrently implementing a code change that singularly permitted them to maintain a negative account balance, is outright fraud. Further, it seems like what you’re arguing is that more people should be prosecuted for banking crises, not that SBF shouldn’t be charged. Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.