Isn't it much more useful to write something which actually tries to answer the question of what happened, albeit with appropriate caveats, than something which doesn't advance the understanding of the reader at all?
Yes, it paints one picture of how the losses could have added up, but I'm looking forward to more exhaustively investigated reports grounded in more than heresay and gossip.
You'll never find rampant drug abuse in the financial industry.
Certainly not on Wall St.
Is it more fun if the shared story has a clear villain or more fun if the shared story has a diffusive, complex relationship between good and bad between not only the characters but also the readers?
This isn't a criminal court.
This piece speculates very strongly about SBF's stimulant usage degradating his cognitive abilities. Eg:
> If the above observations about SBF’s personality and competence are even half true, that would go a great deal toward explaining Alameda’s losses.
The entire article goes into much further depth. But it doesn't even speculate about malice.
> losing all the money accidentally rather than malice (far more likely)
They sound an awful lot like trading / accidental losses than malice to me.
The moment they touched customer funds it became fraud and theft.
This was not accidental. Losing it in trading might have been, but it was trading with stolen funds.
That's different to malice which goes to motivations.
For the greater good of humanity. The most effective altruism.