Hacker News Reader

Comment by brakmic | Hacker News Reader

Why is this guy still talking in public?

Narcissism/delusions of grandeur. I suspect he honestly believes he's the smartest person out there and that he can talk his way out of this.

He's smarter than a lot of people think. He may very well be the smartest in the room despite appearing dumb.

The problem is even a smart person dressed as a clown will be recognized as a clown. At some point you can claim not to be wearing clown clothes until you are blue in the face but no matter how dumb the person is you're talking to they won't believe it. He must hope he can convince 1 in 12 people he is not a clown.

He's clearly not that smart. Smart people listen when their lawyer tells them to STFU.

Because he will get a fat book and movie deal.

He's trying to influence the jury pool.

My uncle, grandma, etc aint reading this.

No, but they will likely see topline coverage in big media - and then their takeaway of that topline may well be “SBF wrote a blog saying FTX was solvent and administrators could refund customers but haven’t”

You might be right. I've talked to both sides of my family and realized I was in a tech bubble and no one knew who the hell the guy was though. I doubt the average 35+ y/o person outside of tech even knows what FTX or SBF is.

I don’t know - here in the U.K. it’s getting fairly significant coverage on BBC, Sky News etc. The Today Programme on Radio 4 (which is the “definitive” establishment news programme) has been covering it quite a lot.

I bet a lot more people can be explained fraud faster than they can be explained crypto.

SBF may have hit a ceiling of punishment. What are they going to do? Add another lifetime jail sentence? Another billion dollars he cannot possible repay?

Can you do book/movie deals while you're in a US jail? In the UK it would be proceeds of crime and confiscated.

IANAL but my understanding is that there is a law that allows the victim to sue for the proceeds. My understanding is also that if you have sophisticated legal isolation to protect the funds (say your parents are Stanford lecturer lawyers), it's effectively unenforceable.

First amendment means he can speak about it and it would castrate news companies if third party entities could not profit from reporting on crime.

This actually looks like a lawyer wrote it. It’s very calibrated.

What about the post makes you say that? That wasn't my impression at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com