Sam Bankman-Fried's anonymous bail sponsors should be public, judge says
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
The value of course to court is that these two people would help ensure that SBF doesn't vanish, but given that the two individuals are likely very rich I'm not sure how true that is.
There was a villain in Get Smart who had a way of making everybody love him if they looked in his eyes. It's almost as if something like that is going on.
Posted. It’s all “put up.”
Most people don’t have $250mm in cash, but quite a few have that much in assets. The court does better ring-fencing them than forcing a fire sale or jailing SBF with fewer strings to pull.
Well, yes, but no one involved has posted or claimed to have $250M in assets, either.
Yes, they have. They’re under seal with the court. (EDIT: Never mind.)
From [1]:
>>Two non-parent sureties have to sign the bond, pledging amounts approved by the government, by January 5. That means Bankman-Fried must find two non-parent supporters with substantial assets to agree to sign off on the bond and be responsible for up to a specified amount (likely in the hundreds of thousands) if he breaks the terms of the bond.
Those parties might not even be liable for the full $250M, let alone have current access to that much.
[1] Explanation: https://www.serioustrouble.show/p/how-did-sam-bankman-fried-...
[2] Court document: https://www.serioustrouble.show/api/v1/file/fed30a78-b85e-44...
To the best of my knowledge they haven't paid anything yet.
Bail bonds are when you have a company make that promise for you at the cost of you paying 10% of the bond. If you show up to court the bail bondsman makes 10% of the bond and if you don't they have to pay the whole bond amount. There's also a system of bounty hunters that somehow happens if you don't show up, but I don't know how that works.
If you can post bail yourself, you don't actually lose any money assuming you show up to court.
I admittedly don't understand the bail process that well and now realize I understand it even less than I thought I did after this case. At some point I may read into it, hopefully I never need to, but none the less one would unknowingly assume when a bail amount it set, that's what should be covered, at least I did.
Second, in NY (and many places), you aren't responsible for the full amount unless you break certain conditions, like trying to flee.
What was the value of that roughly?
https://www.businessinsider.com/sbf-parents-house-on-leased-...
Well ... not really. It still seems like a farce. Either lower the bail amount, or require meaningful proof that the guarantors have access to anywhere near the ostensible figure.
"Your bail is $X, but we'll set requirements that completely ignore $X" seems comedic at best, or special treatment at worst.
(I know, the courts will "come after" the guarantors for the full $250M. It's still irrelevant to the on-the-ground reality.)
[1] 700/250000 = 0.28% . Actual is 700 + 700? (from anons) + 4000 (house) = 8800/250000 = 3.5%.
The way the US justice system treats the rich vs others really is...
There are no sides anymore it's supporting racists, bigots and misogynists or not.
Because between 2020 and 2022 the world experienced the greatest transfer of wealth between the poor and middle class to the wealthy as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.
Or if you don't like that one we could try...
Because the wealth gap between classes is the greatest it has been since the days of the robber barons and individuals who cannot afford basic medical procedures have to hope an influencer wants clicks and will pay for their surgery so they won't be blind.
Or if you don't like that one we could try...
As the world burns from rampant climate change, one side actively blocks any effort to halt or god forbid repair the damage done while enriching corporations and the 1%. All while the 1% jet set around doing the equivalent damage of entire countries to the climate. In the mean time the youngest generation of Americans, by and large believe they will never be able to own a home or have children.
It wasn’t the virus or the pandemic that caused this. This was caused by societies insane reaction to it. Virtually all second order effects from the pandemic are caused by our reaction not by the virus.
To this end, Republicans benefit greatly from gerrymandered districts. They also introduce legislation that would make it harder for people to vote (and are sometimes successful). There's also the recent trend of not accepting election results.
As such, they are actively fighting against democracy.
https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-ho...
But what really gets me is that you somehow think that an article from April 2022 with such a milquetoast support for you comment as: "Yet the plain reality is that, if [Democrats] had decided not to do any of it, Republicans would not only have retained their existing advantage in the House map, they would have expanded it" leads you to such a smug reaction, especially when, spoiler alert, Republicans still win the house in Nov 2022 with the help of their own redistricting in places like FL, TN, GA, TX.
Yeah, you see Republicans not accepting election results, you see Republicans enacting voter suppression laws, effectively limiting who can vote, and you see Republicans passing a comical redistricting map in Florida, and you weigh all this against Democrats gaining a new seat in growing state like Oregon or whatever, and you're acting like I'm the one another planet for thinking that these are not equal and that there's a problem here?!
That is a straw man made up by those who have a vested interest in dividing us all. 99% of the people you meet are way more moderate than either “side” portrays them.
Most people are just trying to survive and have some fun at the same time.
The real problem is our voting system forces this artificial divide where the candidates of both parties drift into bozoville. It’s hard to run for office and win as a moderate because the fringe ends of the spectrum will attempt to paint that person as being an extremist too, only “the bad kind”.
Sincerely, a pro LGBQT, pro infrastructure, pro choice, anti vaccine mandate, anti-mask, anti-mandate, pro-gun former democrat.
one political party is flirting with authoritarianism, denying election results, pushing bigoted policies, marching with tiki torches, taking away all social safety nets, repealing abortion, refusing to do anything about healthcare insurance or even insulin prices, refusing to take any action on gun violence...oh, and insurrection.
It begs the question, who would want to willingly work with anyone endorsing that party?
In a sane world, we wouldn't have to ask the question. We do not live in a sane world.
Let's be honest here, both major US parties are guilty of these things in common. As for other things, yes they diverge.
(And this framing makes intuitive sense: the politicians least likely to be cryptocurrency aligned lean center-left.)
Edit: Pulling the relevant grafs out:
> “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
> Given that he donated nearly $40 million to Democrats in the 2022 election cycle—and he admitted to giving an equal amount to Republicans—his total political contributions may have actually been around $80 million.
[1]: https://time.com/6241262/sam-bankman-fried-political-donatio...
They were almost entirely about messaging to outside the political class.
As for what advantage it grants him, just wait and see. Marc Rich got a lame duck pardon from President Clinton in exchange for his generous political donations, so maybe Biden will do the same for SBF.
I think these explanations benefit from persona tests: can you think of someone in your life whose political stance is meaningfully affected by either (1) SBF donating massive sums to the DNC (true!), (2) being a scam artist (true!), or (3) potentially having donated equally massive sums to the GOP (maybe!)?
Mine aren't, and I don't think most peoples' are either.
Also, you need to explain why somebody would donate equally to both parties in the first place, when both parties are engaged in a zero-sum game with each other for control of the federal government.
Put another way: we have no special reason to believe that either the DNC or GOP leadership saw SBF as anything more than a convenient piggy bank. SBF in turn probably saw both as insurance, and time will tell on that.
> Also, you need to explain why somebody would donate equally to both parties in the first place, when both parties are engaged in a zero-sum game with each other for control of the federal government.
This is actually pretty easy to rationalize from the EA worldview: if you've convinced yourself that you can maximize good by maximizing your personal wealth (laws and norms be damned), it makes sense to maintain whatever regulatory framework (or lack thereof) enables you to do that. Giving money to both sides is a not unreasonable course of action in that context.
> SBF's political donations are both more evenly distributed than previously reported[1], and seemed targeted more at pacifying potential investigations/regulatory attention than driven by ideological/political concerns.
I don't think he needs this: anybody with more than a passing awareness knows that he's an EA type, and those types infamously cast themselves as "above" the normal political fray. Even before this reporting, I don't think people had strongly held beliefs that SBF's donations to the DNC were anything other than expedient (given that they're the ones in power).
He's an "end justifies the means" type, and that means you can never trust a damn thing he says, ever.
A very large fraction of the population has personal ethics that boil down to some variant of act utilitarianism/consequentialism. SBF is just the most visible and venal form; it's probably an error to assume that such a broadly held ethical position means that its adherents are incapable of not lying.
He may not, but people he donated to would like it. The implication here is that we ought not bother looking any further into his claims that his donations might be some form of corruption funded by conning a large number of people out of billions of dollars because 'both sides' benefited financially therefore it is all awash.
> anybody with more than a passing awareness knows that he's an EA type
He's not any type that you or I can "know" because he is a duplicitous conman. Or, I suppose, he is the duplicitous conman type.
At this point, it's up to your own imagination to determine whether or not he was lying about this particular piece of information. You seem to have decided he must be telling the truth because despite all of the other lies about his business, there isn't a logical reason (to you) that he would put out a statement, with no actual evidence, about making "dark" money donations to the other side prior to making massive public donations to the one side during an election year.
Just like you, I don't know if he's lying or not. I do know that if he has a vested interest in confirming his statements, he most certainly could release further documentation showing he made "dark" money donations. I mostly do not believe him because the lack of effort in proving it and the completely stupid notion of referring to his donations as "dark" money, like somehow I'm supposed to believe there's no paper trail, at all, of his donations. This is absurd.
> “All my Republican donations were dark,” he said, referring to political donations that are not publicly disclosed in FEC filings. “The reason was not for regulatory reasons, it’s because reporters freak the f—k out if you donate to Republicans. They’re all super liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight.”
Whoever is backing him is taking on the risk of SBF jumping bail (and I'd assume the house is under surveillance and he's wearing ankle monitors), in exchange for either silence or valuable goodwill on the tiny off-chance he gets out of this.
https://fsh.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Re...
But the point is that Stanford itself had no input.
So the parents can post their house as collateral.
Non-bail aside: stanford recently changed the terms of those leases so they are only 50 years. This can screw you if you want to retire in your home, but increases housing supply, which is relevant to another HN front page post about zoning.