He more or less admitted that that was all bullshitting for PR purposes.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
The polycule/testosterone stuff is just speculation. It’s known a number of stimulants were used by him and his top people, unknown if they were abusing them.
Which is a take you could hear from utilitarians, an-prims, and the tiny but not non-existent eco-fascists. It’s definitely one of those I am enlightened/logically superior takes that often reveals more about the person saying it than they think.
Ultimately Sam was admitting that his personal ethics, whatever they may ultimately be, are not what he was espousing. The others involved in the fraud have shown the same.
I don't doubt the sincerity of many in the EA movement, but ultimately it's dependent on and co-opted by a few extremely wealthy individuals. FTX has shown the public that a significant portion of those with power are neither trustworthy nor sincere, and the philosopher-kings of the movement itself are not able or willing to see through the charade.
Insincerity isn't the thing to be worried about. Concentrated utilitarian thinking is itself, to use their terms, an existential risk at least if its combined with significant funding.
My favorite example is that there is a small EA faction that believes-- presumably on the basis of their golden rational analysis, totally unsullied by empirical inputs such as first hand experience-- that wild animals are suffering tremendously and the most efficient way to the reduce total suffering on earth would be to engage in bio-engineering to genocide all the wild animals.
Some greedy capitalist might pollute the earth for gains through indifference, if they speak of charity they might be insincere but mankind is capable of much much worse. Say what you want about non-utilitarian philosophies, but they aren't going to @#$@ rationalize themselves into killing all animal life on earth and sincerely think they're committing the most efficient kindness possible while doing it!
We should regard utilitarianism as an intellectual tool we can use to aid our decisions balanced against other perspectives and considerations and not a uniquely correct philosophy.
This is a cheap trick, you just have a different corporate officer do the Republican donations, as FTX did.
Jocks are masculine men that only care for sports.
When people talk about crypto bros and tech bros that's the whole shtick, they are saying their targets are not defined by technical ability (which is stereotypically attributable to geeks). So pointing out he wasn't really masculine is failing to see the metaphor behind "crypto bro" used as an insult.
Part of the SBF schtick was the "anti-bro" vibes. The intentionally awkward, low social skills presentation is used by some major altcoin promoters too-- but I don't think many people would identify it as "crypto bro" and that's a big part of why its effective.
Edit: upon reflection, maybe he is indeed a crypto bro - nothing in your definition is untrue. Using my analogy above, Crypto Bros are the Script Kiddies of crypto. Apologies.