4 ms·

> He's just been found guilty of fraud on multiple counts, so clearly the whole "Effective altruism" was just a image he was trying to present, while acting com

by ajross 3y ago

> He's just been found guilty of fraud on multiple counts, so clearly the whole "Effective altruism" was just a image he was trying to present, while acting completely against it in private. I don't think that's right. In his head, it wasn't fraud. He was moving money around to backstop losses, sure, and OK, technically it wasn't his. But it was all going to be OK in the end and no one would know. No one was going to lose any money, so no fraud. QED. In the real world, criminals don't think they're criminals. Everyone's got a good reason for doing what they do.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bitcharmer 3y ago
I can only buy this logic if one of the following is true: 1) SBF is an crook 2) SBF is an idiot
- TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
  I agree. Given his professional history I believe the first option is likely. At the same time, he clearly isn’t that smart. He left an enormous trail of evidence in his wake, and his fraud wasn’t even that sophisticated.
  - tickerticker 3y ago
    He was smart enough to get into MIT. Probably not as smart as Goethe.
notahacker 3y ago
I think the key thing is that everything he's ever said and done (including the stuff that harmed only Sam Bankman Fried as well as the stuff that benefited him and the stuff that was illegal and lost his customers money) screams gambling addict. Its debatable whether the EA stuff was rationalisation of those impulses or reputation laundering, but he was quite explicit about the fact that his idea of "saving humanity" involved making massive financial bets whilst dismissing the idea of hedging against the downsides even in fawning interviews published by VCs that had invested in him. In that respect, his public image was entirely in keeping with the sort of person that wouldn't be bothered by a few regulations about customer funds, because what if he could double them by ignoring the regulation?...

by ajross 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bitcharmer 3y ago

I can only buy this logic if one of the following is true: 1) SBF is an crook 2) SBF is an idiot

TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
I agree. Given his professional history I believe the first option is likely. At the same time, he clearly isn’t that smart. He left an enormous trail of evidence in his wake, and his fraud wasn’t even that sophisticated.
- tickerticker 3y ago
  He was smart enough to get into MIT. Probably not as smart as Goethe.

notahacker 3y ago

I think the key thing is that everything he's ever said and done (including the stuff that harmed only Sam Bankman Fried as well as the stuff that benefited him and the stuff that was illegal and lost his customers money) screams gambling addict. Its debatable whether the EA stuff was rationalisation of those impulses or reputation laundering, but he was quite explicit about the fact that his idea of "saving humanity" involved making massive financial bets whilst dismissing the idea of hedging against the downsides even in fawning interviews published by VCs that had invested in him. In that respect, his public image was entirely in keeping with the sort of person that wouldn't be bothered by a few regulations about customer funds, because what if he could double them by ignoring the regulation?...