Specifically "generalised withdrawals" which are later referred to "as usual". SBF also admits to "fungibility between buckets" across TOS lines and they didn't want to spend the days of the crash "frantically coding up a new way of withdrawals". To finance and law nerds: did he actually just admit to fraud here?
This is a nitpick, but it's strange to me that the video title is "I Accidentally got SBF to Admit to Fraud," when the video starts with a discussion of how he studied SBF's interviews & strategized a line of questioning that would be maximally damaging. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done so (I'm pretty ambivalent, I think this is an important question but I'm uncomfortable with the spectacle here and the calls for SBF's head), just that it's weird to present it at an accident.
It would make much more sense for it to be "I got SBF to accidentally admit to fraud", which makes me wonder if it's a mistake
That would make sense, I think you're right
SBF admits here that, despite TOS assurance thar customer funds do not get lent out, they go into a general pool which seems to have been used for any sort of purpose whatever. SBF obfuscates what those purposes are exactly, but admits that whatever they are, they have caused the general pool to become empty. Not a lawyer but this is probably illegal.
Really impressed with Coffeezilla on this one. Have watched him for a while but this was really well done investigative interviewing. He prepared, studied and ended up getting the info he wanted to. Nice work coffee!
I don't know if courts would hold this conversation as evidence, but SBF's words are pretty damning. Congratulations to Coffeezilla for his careful study of the situation and very good execution of his plan. He was rather excited to have a chance to pin SBF down in their previous conversation, but this time he nailed it.