5 ms·

SBF publicly lied about this and called it a hack. If it was all aboveboard why would he have done that?

by parkingrift 4y ago

ABeeSea 4y ago
Because he is a liar and a con-artist?
TheNorthman 4y ago
You're assuming SBF is a rational agent, which if he was, he wouldn't be in this position.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  Sure, but that’s just handwaving away the question. He made an effort to reach out to a journalist and reinforced the hack narrative.
- dahdum 4y ago
  He’s rational, he’s just using a different set of ethics. In the Vox interview he says he’s trying to win a jurisdictional battle with Delaware, this just part of that fight.
  - VLM 4y ago
    Something I've been thinking about WRT SBF and online ethics, is if someone's true devotion is to preserving shareholder value, etc, if you know "interesting things" have happened and been covered up for a long time, lying on twitter to people who mostly are uninvolved and don't care, might be seen as a legal obligation, not a character flaw. He had an "out" which was the companies business model was to purchase regulations from politicians intended to put all his competitors out of business, that process seemed to be going VERY well, and if he could have held out another half year, maybe two years... he likely would have been very successful. So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors. Certainly his investors would have made more money if he hadn't gotten caught than how it turned out, and being a criminal organization he can't be honest about that on Twitter.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      There is no reason to believe FTX was going to succeed via regulatory capture. SBF wasn’t a rational thinker. The establishment sucks but it doesn’t mean SBF was competent and had a realistic out. He didn’t. He is an out of control sociopath.
    - lancesells 4y ago
      > So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors. Please point me to this law.
viscanti 4y ago
That "interview" that he's been trying to walk back ever since, seems more like the work of a sociopath attempting to change the public narrative. Instead of people talking about all the fraud, he's hoping they'll be arguing about if he's actually woke or fake woke.
sigmar 4y ago
Did SBF ever say it was a hack? I only saw admins on telegram call it a hack and ftx's US general counsel say it was a hack[1]. [1] second paragraph here: https://www.wired.com/story/ftx-hack-theft-crypto-tracing/ https://www.wired.com/story/ftx-hack-theft-crypto-tracing/
- parkingrift 4y ago
  He did. He directly said it was a hack in an interview with Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
  - sigmar 4y ago
    oh, missed that. thanks
- daniel-cussen 4y ago

SBF publicly lied about this and called it a hack. If it was all aboveboard why would he have done that?

ABeeSea 4y ago

Because he is a liar and a con-artist?

TheNorthman 4y ago

You're assuming SBF is a rational agent, which if he was, he wouldn't be in this position.

parkingrift 4y ago
Sure, but that’s just handwaving away the question. He made an effort to reach out to a journalist and reinforced the hack narrative.
dahdum 4y ago
He’s rational, he’s just using a different set of ethics. In the Vox interview he says he’s trying to win a jurisdictional battle with Delaware, this just part of that fight.
- VLM 4y ago
  Something I've been thinking about WRT SBF and online ethics, is if someone's true devotion is to preserving shareholder value, etc, if you know "interesting things" have happened and been covered up for a long time, lying on twitter to people who mostly are uninvolved and don't care, might be seen as a legal obligation, not a character flaw. He had an "out" which was the companies business model was to purchase regulations from politicians intended to put all his competitors out of business, that process seemed to be going VERY well, and if he could have held out another half year, maybe two years... he likely would have been very successful. So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors. Certainly his investors would have made more money if he hadn't gotten caught than how it turned out, and being a criminal organization he can't be honest about that on Twitter.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    There is no reason to believe FTX was going to succeed via regulatory capture. SBF wasn’t a rational thinker. The establishment sucks but it doesn’t mean SBF was competent and had a realistic out. He didn’t. He is an out of control sociopath.
  - lancesells 4y ago
    > So he is legally obligated as an officer of his company to lie on twitter to keep the charade running long enough to pay off for the investors. Please point me to this law.

viscanti 4y ago

That "interview" that he's been trying to walk back ever since, seems more like the work of a sociopath attempting to change the public narrative. Instead of people talking about all the fraud, he's hoping they'll be arguing about if he's actually woke or fake woke.

sigmar 4y ago

Did SBF ever say it was a hack? I only saw admins on telegram call it a hack and ftx's US general counsel say it was a hack[1]. [1] second paragraph here: https://www.wired.com/story/ftx-hack-theft-crypto-tracing/ https://www.wired.com/story/ftx-hack-theft-crypto-tracing/

parkingrift 4y ago
He did. He directly said it was a hack in an interview with Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
- sigmar 4y ago
  oh, missed that. thanks
daniel-cussen 4y ago