NYT integrity was severely compromised by the piece. They're clearly deeply in bed with this guy and trying to massage the narrative in his favor.
Why would they want to help him? Do you think he is bribing them with his worthless imaginary money? How does the NYT benefit from defending someone who has destroyed his own reputation and lost billions of dollars of customer money?
Is it possible the entire thing was a Madoff-style fraud from the beginning? Yes, but that is not the only possibility. No charges have been filed, and all the people who think he should be thrown in jail never mention what laws they think he broke. It's not illegal to be an incompetent failure, and fraud has a specific definition that requires intent and does not cover all instances of simply lying.
If the NYT had written an article accusing the guy of crimes, they wouldn't have a basis for doing so. Not yet, anyway. Maybe actual criminal lawbreaking will be discovered, but right now, there is no proof. Should newspapers be accusing people of crimes without proof?
People need to put down the pitchforks and torches and wait for the full truth to come out. It's going to take a while.
Oh let me think. Because they like democrats and he donated to democrats?
It’s because he’s any one that isn’t an excessive right wing mega spender (which includes very few names). That spans a lot of people in both parties. Aka centrist capitalists.
I don't get it. What do you think this story says? I read it and it just can't be characterized the way you are saying.
Here are some choice quotes:
> Mr. Bankman-Fried did, however, agree with critics in the crypto community who said he had expanded his business interests too quickly across a wide swath of the industry. He said his other commitments had led him to miss signs that FTX was running into trouble.
> “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.”
He didn't "miss signs". There was nothing to "catch". He stole billions of dollars from his customers.
> 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.
How bad a guy can he be?
> Mr. Bankman-Fried said he wished “we’d bitten off a lot less.”
Bitten off less of his customers' money, he means?
> As FTX has crumbled, Mr. Bankman-Fried has been “working constructively with regulators, bankruptcy officials and the company to try to do what’s best for consumers,” he said on Sunday.
What a mensch!
> 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.”
So happy for him.
> Shortly before the interview, Mr. Bankman-Fried had posted a cryptic tweet: the word “What.” Then he had tweeted the letter H. Asked to explain, Mr. Bankman-Fried said he planned to post the letter A and then the letter P. “It’s going to be more than one word,” he said. “I’m making it up as I go.”
> So he was planning a series of cryptic tweets? “Something like that.”
> But why? “I don’t know,” he said. “I’m improvising. I think it’s time.”
What does this even mean? Why include it in the story?
See how nuts that sounds? "Oh, Mr. Madoff missed some signs" that his scheme was insolvent.
Yeah, NYTimes deserves at least some of the criticism on this piece.
As for the case being open… I mean, what is the point of a newspaper if they're just going to reprint whatever the authorities say happened? What about the absolutely bonkers balance sheet that FTX released, for example? Matt Levine did a good job breaking it down [1], because that's the job of a journalist: to make otherwise-inaccessible information available to laypeople.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-11-14/ftx-s-...
> Alameda had accumulated a large “margin position” on FTX, essentially meaning it had borrowed funds from the exchange, Mr. Bankman-Fried said. “It was substantially larger than I had thought it was,” he said. “And in fact the downside risk was very significant.” He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details.
We know the size of the positions! The Financial Times reported on Friday (as news) that FTX held $900M in assets against $9B in liabilities [1]. And that was before the balance sheet was released!
Why is it important to run this quote? Why allow him to spin the story like this? Why let him present it as a mistake? Why not include actual numbers? These are all choices the NYT is making that frame SBF in a positive light.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/f05fe9f8-ca0a-48d5-8ef2-7a4d813af...
"the company used FTX customer funds to make the payments. Besides her and Mr. Bankman-Fried, she said, two other people knew about the arrangement: Mr. Singh and Mr. Wang.
"The meeting was previously reported by The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Singh did not respond to a request for comment, and Mr. Wang could not be reached. According to a person familiar with FTX’s finances, the exchange lent as much as $10 billion to Alameda."
I'm just calling for some critical thinking here! I get it, everyone's angry. But you don't have to let it turn your brain off.
I mean... it's an interview... with the guy at the center of all of it.
How is it not newsworthy to put him on the record? Where's the lack of integrity in that?
Anyone on SBF's side would try to get him to shut completely up. Instead the NYTs has made him feel comfortable and got him talking. He's going to hang himself with his words. They will be quote from this, using it against him at trial and sentencing, because there will be plenty of private communications counter to this, which shows a conscious effort to deceive.
Getting mad at the NYT over FTX is just weird.
> "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."
Not "Bankman-Fried CLAIMS his circle of colleagues were bound by a commitment to effective altruism" The article isn't reporting the claim Bankman-Fried makes about himself. As written, the journalist is the one making this claim. That's far over the line. This man stole billions of dollars and the New York Times is asserting that he's an altruist.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that SBFs interest in EA was legitimate, irrespective of him defrauding his customers. Even if that isn’t the case, interest in the subject of EA still accurately describes his circle of colleagues.
I don't think professional journalists make this sort of mistake by accident, and if they did, it shouldn't have gotten past the editors.
There is no mistake here. You’re seemingly very upset by your own misinterpretation of this section of the article.
Beyond what it says in that snippet, SBF did publicly pledge to give away the vast majority of his wealth. He was outspoken about his belief in Effective Altruism.
You can certainly argue he scamming the others in the EA community with a false pledge and commitment to EA principles? But this aspect of the article was completely accurate.
Word count NYT's puff piece on SBF:
"Fraud": 0 "Enron": 0 "Crime": 0 "Illiquid": 0 "Stolen": 0 "Hidden": 0 "Criminal": 0 "Back door": 0 "He's getting sleep": 1
Source: https://twitter.com/TrungTPhan/status/1592349684471037955
That's the first paragraph. Literally calls him a "villain" and says he's the target of multiple investigations.
The 1% of damning info was Caroline's reported admission that Alameda borrowed short-term to make long-term illiquid VC investments, and when those loans got called and Alameda couldn't pay, FTX commingled its customer funds with Alameda to pay them.
That was a new bit of info, that NYTimes just casually snuck into the middle of the puff piece without further commentary, but it's quite damning and kinda insane. While all the rubes are complaining about the article being too gentle, the financial crimes prosecutors are adding it to their case files.
The closest comparable person I can think of was Madoff, and he had the leverage that at least most of his customer's money wasn't actually destroyed so his cooperation worth a lot. I honestly don't know that SBF has anything to bargain to the legal system or his angry, often crime involved, customers as it appears he destroyed basically all of their money. I'm not saying he should be terrified, but personally I would feel very terrified I were in that position.
I think his best outcome at this point is some form of plea that incudes witness protection program in exchange for un-"hacking" the remaining $600M.
Most mortals start sweating bullets if they steal a candybar, or at most a car.
This garbage reads like "a day in the life of a silicon valley CEO" or something. The dude just perpetrated one of the largest financial frauds in the history of the world. Bernie Madoff level, and this is all the NYT has to say. Totally disgusting to defend the NYT here.
Dude said before Congress that they never trade or leverage using customer funds. That was a complete and utter lie.
He "testified to Congress and met with regulators" hugely downplays his attempts at regulatory capture via donations and attempted backroom deals (Gary Gensler is implicated in this too). Including the alleged prid pro quo.
It mentions his "effective altruism" and "philanthropy" but doesn't mention who his donations are to, or the fact that half of it was just a guise and actually he spent millions on housing in the Bahamas or in New York.
What charges have been filed?
What has he been convicted of?
Comparing him to Madoff is disingenuous. Prior to Madoff being charged, the media was the same... they're not going to print words like "perpetrated one of the largest financial frauds in the world" without charges. The only thing that screams is "defamation lawsuit". To be clear, I have no boat in this race. But calling the NYT out for not making statements that they do not (yet) have the ability to prove is entirely problematic.
He's worse than Madoff and these sycophant journalists are still eating out of his palm.