6 ms·

(Sentencing Judge Lewis) Kaplan also rejected Bankman-Fried’s claim that he deserves a lighter sentence because many of his victims may be made whole on their l

• FireBeyond 2y ago
  And even more, it was luck and 'fortune' that this is the case now. It's nothing of SBF's doing. They're only able to be made whole because of the market. Crypto could easily have crashed. And then...?
  • s1artibartfast 2y ago
    That's not quite true. Many of the investments did quite good and outperformed alternatives. Investment in anthropic AI would be a good example.
    • echoangle 2y ago
      How does that in any way contradict the comment you’re responding to? They’re saying it was luck, saying it was successful does not mean it wasn’t just luck…
      • s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I was addressing the crypto markets being up portion of the post.
    • FireBeyond 2y ago
      Great. Many of those investments should never have been able to be made in the first place, because they came through fraudulent actions. Sure, those gains can be used to make investors whole. No, SBF shouldn't get any credit for his "foresight" because they can. There was a point within a couple of months of the Madoff collapse where it was shown that if he'd sent out an email to his investors saying, "Here's the deal, we're freezing. No more deposits. No withdrawals for now", and he'd left everything untouched for four years, he would have been in the black. His efforts wouldn't have been right or net-zero if he'd done that, though.
      • s1artibartfast 2y ago
        >Sure, those gains can be used to make investors whole. No, SBF shouldn't get any credit for his "foresight" because they can. I guess this is the point I was getting at, and I disagree with it. Even if you rob and kill 100 children, it doesn't invalidate the foresight. Foreshight on a specific topic is a sperate topic and specific actions can be judged independently. IF SBF a bad person, but also says the sky is blue, that doesnt make it false.
        • FireBeyond 2y ago
          Why should you get more "credit" for stealing[1] from someone to make an investment that turns out to be good, versus stealing from someone to fund strippers and cocaine? You still took the same amount from the person. [1] For clarity, what SBF did is not, I realize, theft. Just an example.
          • s1artibartfast 2y ago
            I have no idea what you mean by "credit". I'm talking about recognition that someone was able to make a correct prediction or calculation. If someone is a mass murderer but invents cold fusion, You can hold both facts to be true. They made a great scientific discovery and that they were a killer. The facts are not in competition. SBF may have had a good read on the market, and a good eye for investments. He may also be a criminal. Humans have multiple dimensions, so both can be true.
• lumost 2y ago
  It's necessary to penalize this behavior, if Fidelity or other fiduciary engaged in similar behavior - the losses could be catastrophic.
• smileysteve 2y ago
  I'm not sure that I agree with this, because that would make most banks thieves. The operating model of a bank is to take depositors money and loan it out at a higher interest rate; Then there are investment banks that "hedge risk" and seek higher return ratios - ie what happened to Bear Stearns in 2008 (a reminder that nobody went to jail for 2008).
  • echoangle 2y ago
    But surely the bank gets permission beforehand?
  • anonuser1234 2y ago
    Except there are laws in place to limit how much can be lent out (Google "federal reserve requirements").
  • Sirizarry 2y ago
    You seem to be missing the concept of consent in your analysis. I’d say it’s pretty foundational.