main conclusions
Bankman-Freid gave a lengthy live interview at the New York Times Dealbook Summit last night Against apparent legal advice, he answered a wide range of questions about the entire disaster Very hard to believe when he says he didn’t know what to expect from someone who was CEO of FTRX and owned 80% of Alameda
There aren’t many live television events that really blow me away. What immediately comes to mind is watching Zinedine Zidane, one of the world’s greatest footballers on the biggest stage of all – the World Cup final – literally headbutting an opposing defender on my television screen sixteen years ago. More recently, I remember watching the Prime Minister of my country (Ireland), Leo Varadkar, speaking live on our national broadcaster about the COVID pandemic, when he announced the first (and at the time, what we believed would also be the last) lock. It will probably be a while before I forget about these historic moments. And I’m sure I’ll remember what I watched for a while too.
Why did Bankman-Fried do the interview?
Sam Bankman-Fried, the discredited CEO of the failed exchange FTX – who I’m totally tired of talking about – last night gave an hour-long interview at the New York Times Dealbook Summit. Why this interview was taking place, I will never know. Bankman-Fried called from the Bahamas, apparently against the advice of “people” – who presumably might work in the legal profession. “I feel I have a duty to speak up and explain what happened,” he said. “I don’t see the good in sitting in a room pretending the outside world doesn’t exist.” “That’s not what I’m focusing on,” was his response when asked if he was concerned about possible criminal liability. As his disastrous DM conversation leaked onto Twitter, I just don’t know why this interview took place. It’s hard to believe anything that comes out of Bankman-Fried’s mouth at this point. And of that Twitter conversation, Bankman-Fried explained by saying that the reporter was a “longtime friend” who he “stupidly forgot” was a reporter. Huh? Last night’s interviewer, Andrew Sorkin, asked him about some of the wild confessions in that DM exchange, which to me betrayed his true character. Bankman-Fried softened his stance a bit, but agreed that he played a “game”, as “we all did”, as far as his image was concerned.
More I read, more I think SBF is a *very* bad guy Showing zero remorse. Lies. Cryptic tweets. Feels like he’s playing a game. Hard to believe these DMs are real (per @KelseyTuoc of Vox’s captivating piece – seems like he thought they were talking in confidence, be candid) pic.twitter.com/sivc7zyYg4
— Dan Ashmore (@DanniiAshmore) November 16, 2022
There were a lot of “from what I understand”, “as far as I know”, and “the details are not clear but”. Despite being CEO of FTX and owning 80% of Alameda, Bankman-Fried has repeatedly stated that he lacks full oversight over certain matters. Call me cynical, but I refuse to believe that a company can borrow billions of dollars (like Genesis, which is now also insolvent) without its 80% owner knowing. He also claimed, again bizarrely, that FTX US might even start allowing withdrawals promptly, and they were fully solvent to his “knowledge”. Are we to believe he really is that out of the loop?
What’s next for Bankman-Fried?
The big question is whether Bankman-Fried will face jail time for her actions. Now most people believe he won’t. Given that he was speaking at a New York Times summit, albeit virtually, I’m not sure what to think. He was visibly nervous throughout the interview. Nervous smiles, spasms, eyes downcast to the floor. Questions about him taking prescription meds in the office left him feeling a bit frazzled, while his comment “I’ve had a bad month” elicited laughs from the audience. The biggest problem, of course, is that we still don’t know how he allowed so many assets to be transferred to Alameda. He’s constantly tried to sidestep some of the more pointed questions about the transfer of funds, and no one is more clear about what happened there – which is probably the key point in deciding whether he’ll face real punishment. To most, it looks like fraud to send client assets to Alameda while smiling on magazine covers and speaking before Congress. And it’s hard to believe that Bankman-Fried didn’t see how big those transfers were, or how crippling the losses at Alameda were. “I wasn’t paying enough attention to positions and positional risk on the exchange and Alameda in particular,” he stumbled. “I substantially underestimated what the scale and speed of the market collapse would be like,” he added. At this point, I’m fed up with Bankman-Fried. What a total embarrassment to the entire industry. The industry has suffered a heavy blow, which is far from over. Let’s hope one day he gets over it.
