The article does appear to have a bizarrely light-hearted tone given the magnitude of what transpired:
>"But in a wide-ranging interview on Sunday that stretched past midnight, he sounded surprisingly calm. “You would’ve thought that I’d be getting no sleep right now, and instead I’m getting some,” he said. “It could be worse."
For a self-professed "wide-ranging interview" it actually provides scant if any meaningful details to support the headline of "How Sam Bankman-Fried’s Crypto Empire Collapsed."
Of the few details the editor and author chose to include:
>“You would’ve thought that I’d be getting no sleep right now, and instead I’m getting some,” he said. “It could be worse.”
>“Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing, I would have been able to be more thorough,” he said. “That would have allowed me to catch what was going on on the risk side.”
Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing? This reads like "aw shucks, the phone rang and I got distracted." This can not be taken seriously. Is this meant to answer the "How" in the article's title?
>"Mr. Bankman-Fried’s circle of colleagues was bound by a commitment to effective altruism, a charitable movement that urges adherents to give away their wealth in efficient and logical ways."
So he was a charitable man? Just with other people's money?
And then of course this important bit:
>"He has also found other ways to occupy his time in recent days, playing the video game Storybook Brawl, though less than he usually does, he said. “It helps me unwind a bit,” he said. “It clears my mind.”
Yes the NYTimes included the line about DOJ and SEC, but it fails to mention why these two department are "examining" this man's now "crumbled empire."