‘Sam? Are you there? ’ The bizarre and brutal final hours of FTX
ft.com
ft.com
While this article is about the end days, I still see almost no publications addressing Sam Trabucco, who suspiciously left Alameda before all this blew up (I suppose it was blowing up internally already). I get the feeling that some of Bankman-Fried's close circle knew what was going on while others just got railroaded by him and were just plain incompetent versus fraudulent and incompetent.
This is an interesting look into just how pervasive the "fail fast and fail until you make it" mode of operation has infiltrated startup culture. While of course not every startup is committing fraud and FTX is a particularly striking example, I do think that it's an internal look into just how incompetent a lot of startups might be.
Amazing what happens when reality ablates the layers of fictitious superiority and genius, and you’ve got lawyers on many continents banging on your door, trying to entice you with soft words to make the only obvious remaining move.
> “Bankman-Fried privately fumed about what he considered “the adults’” broken promises, namely, to consult on fundraising efforts and the appointment of directors. Over email, Bankman-Fried appealed to Ray for a role in the company’s unwinding.”
Amazing. He didn’t even realize the adults were just trying to get the gun out of his hands and that there was no way in hell anyone would let him near anything after they had it.
The one thing that stands out to me, that makes him unlike his contemporaries, is that he seems to be capable of empathy and understanding for those who abandoned FTX and why the thing went the way it did. He has that “maybe I’m the one who is wrong?” moment that others seem to be incapable of.
I’m not suggesting I think he’s innocent, but he seems more like an idiot than a sociopathic fraud.
Indeed, he seems very culpable. He should be treated and prosecuted as an adult. But he is very childish in his actions and behaviour.
As an adult, especially with his background, it's hard to believe he doesn't actually know.
The Law of Goats applies to the rest: whether you know better or not, you’re still making absolutely boneheaded choices.
It’s an incredibly savvy legal strategy and PR move on his part, because if these are just “incompetent kids” then maybe a jury will believe SBF isn’t actually a dangerous sociopath who was caught stuffing billions of dollars into his pockets.
His parents are abetting this pathetic defense and uncritical journalists are amplifying it with puff pieces like this article.
1: Admit to himself that he was incompetent, stupid and greedy. Admit he wasted a huge opportunity. Admit he may well spend the rest of his life in jail. Admit others tried to stop/warn him and he ignored them. Accept that the buck ultimately stops with him. Accept that almost everyone now has to testify against him.
2: Keep pretending nothing happened and everything was overblown and pretend people will eventually realise this despite all evidence and logic.
I see a surprising number of people pick option 2 in this case. And it often works: people get bailed out. Everyone loves an underdog. I don't think it will happen for SBF. But it's a weird mix of flawed and brazen logic and group and individual Psychology and politics...
I’m also not sure why there’s a sense that the crime has to be violent to deserve such a sentence. Imagine if I methodically went house to house, ensuring everyone was safely out of it, and then liquidated the house until there was naught but a hole. And I did that thousands and thousands of times.
Is a life sentence about punishing people for causing harm? Or is it about preventing future harm?
Ironically for SBF, Effective Altruism itself equates such actions with murder (or at least manslaughter). And his actions were culpable too. This was not an accident or a misunderstanding or human error or bad luck. He stole (and squandered) billions.
We already see that calculus in many corporate wrongdoings. It is not beneficial for the rule of law.
He has physically hurt people. There will undoubtedly be a body count which can directly be associated to SBF's actions.
Morally, hurting people is categorically worse than stealing money.
That's also not a fact. It's just something people sometimes agree on. But it's not always a useful crutch.
See the other replies like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34789096 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34788866 They explain what I was trying to express better.
Regarding number 2 - what happens when the money you steal was necessary for someone to survive, or causes such disruption and heartache to enough people, it adds up to more than if someone died?
Right now, things are abstracted enough, we just can't see the actual impact of these large frauds. But it's not uncommon for someone to commit suicide, marriages to end in divorce, kids to be severely impacted (sorry, no College fund for you anymore!), etc.
I Would rather be a victim of violence whose effects disappears after week (i.e. no long-term effects) than victim of theft of money equal to my yearly income.
He have made lots of people losing years of their life. It’s fair for him to lose his.
A number of the victims of Madoff's fraud committed suicide. Sure, Madoff didn't pull the trigger.
But he sure as hell enticed them to put their life savings with him, and when they were retired, had no real prospects of any new income, and were suddenly destitute with no hope of recovery, Madoff sure put them in that utterly hopeless situation, with the same end result as if he had pulled the trigger.
As they say: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.".
Many people are relieved and rightly so, that Madoff spent the remainder of is days and died in prison.
Same for SBF.
Nepotism and "failing upwards" are so widespread that a reasonable person could easily pick #2 even when it is not anywhere near the right answer.
I was somewhat surprised with what seemed to be the lawyers trying to persistently but sweetly beg him to sign the papers. I would have imagined the lawyers using much stronger words, nearing profanity-laced commands, but they seemed like a parent begging a child to eat their supper or put on their coat before going outside.
Hopefully it won't work.
Like he didn't even consider he might be the oddball.
How did no one sniff out the narcissism, or does it get passed off as some kind of savant syndrome?
SBF comes off as an extremely naive and sheltered kid who doesn't understand that committing fraud is still fraud even if you have good intentions.
Please post "this is good for Bitcoin" or another tired joke instead, much more concise.
How "miserable and humorless" you must be, right?
What does it have to do with you at all?
I don't care if you want to be miserable and humorless either, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my responses to you at all?
I'm going to be honest when I say that I'm not quite sure how you can be this confused about this conversation. Like, did you seriously think that me caring if the particular poster appreciated jokes had any bearing on any other joke I ever liked ever? It's beyond me what you think you are getting at. Maybe take a step back and think about this situation instead of trying to get a "slam dunk" on my by using my words back against me.
Then stop posting like a petty 5 year old that's intent on getting a dunk by using a person's words against them in completely nonsensical fashion that literally does not make sense!