He seems like a grifter and responsible for presiding over the loss of a boatload of money for investors.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma...
[0] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/crypto-conference-jo...
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/sam-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-08/ftx-crypt...
> Bankman-Fried, known as SBF, threw more money at Democrats this cycle than anyone but George Soros, according to OpenSecrets data. One of his top lieutenants, Ryan Salame, has been bankrolling Republicans at almost the same pace as Steve Schwarzman and Peter Thiel.
There's a good chart of how the company distributed things at https://www.ft.com/content/428c7800-c72d-4c59-9940-4376fea6e...
None of those politicians are gonna stay bought; no more money is coming. There's no reason to think FTX can exert further lobbying pressure; they're cooked.
He was only behind Soros in terms of total dollars to Dems.
His mother started a couple of Dem PACs just 13 days before her son became CEO of FTX (imagine the coincidence!). Her money, as far as it is traceable is also very significant.
... This was I suppose part of his "effective altruism" (if you can say that with a straight face). Instead of downvotes, imagine the comments and rage if he had donated to Trump instead.
That's what his co-CEO was for; he played the same role with Republicans. $15M to a PAC he controlled (https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?committee_id=C00809020&tw...) that donated exclusively to Republican campaigns.
This is also the company that had a round 7 million on their excel sheet for a fund called TRUMPLOSE.
All I’m asking is for your honesty that some people who are looking the other way on this would be appalled. If you aren’t saying that some people would be associating Trump himself to these fraud-derived donations, you just aren’t being honest.
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2022/11/15/analysis-ftxs-tr...
"For those looking for a shadowy tale that involves crypto in the halls of power in D.C., TRUMPLOSE is going to disappoint. It’s not a new world order talisman that shows FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried are complicit in laundering money to the Democratic party through Ukraine donations. Rather, it’s one part of FTX’s prediction market it ran during the 2020 U.S. election."
No one mentioned that. But you’re right. It’s irrelevant that FTX donated to Democrats, Democrats have spent as much on Ukraine since this summer than any full year for the entire US military operation in Afghanistan, and that Zelensky used non-combat US aid funds to invest in FTX.
There is literally nothing there, it’s all true, but it’s not what any conspiracy theorists think it is. I’m glad we have same voices that are here to help us know what to think.
Also, remember Citizens United was about publishing a movie critical of a political candidate just before the election. I'm not sure a world where the government forbids publishing about political candidates is a great alternate reality, either.
He also hasn't been charged with any crimes yet.
For example, the NYT was very pro the Iraq USD argument
More recently, they kept going on about Clinton's emails, while ignoring much larger security breaches from Trump's side
More recently than that, they kept saying coronavirus reinfections would be impossible
They also have been producing an endless string of anti-tech articles, but pro-crypto articles
In each case they had some clear editorial directive: "Bush good", "Clinton emails bad", "Coronavirus immunity persists (whether natural or vax)" "tech bad" "SBF good, crypto exciting"
You might agree or disagree with these positions and so that effects your reading of what I'm writing. But the point is they had an inflexible position on these issues. By contrast, a paper like the FT or the WSJ or the Washington Post generally tends not to have a monolithic party line on the points above, and would reports points on the issues above with nuance, mentioning evidence in favour or against the positions as it came out.
NYT does have some great articles but they're utterly unreliable if you don't have enough background knowledge of an issue to parse their party line.
I think we would be naive to assume anything has improved in the past century.
What a naive assumption.
For example, an article in 2003 pre-invasion skeptical of the WMD claim
An article in 2016 putting the email server in context or comparing it to Trump's own level of scandal
An article this year critical of Sam Bankman Fried
A single article positive on tech in past few years since their editorial position change?
An article from 2020 suggesting immunity might not be permanent for most?
Matt Yglesias deleted his tweet, but he basically said the NYT had a well known inside journalism policy of "never say anything positive about big tech co's": https://twitter.com/kelseytuoc/status/1588231892792328192
Edit: here's some background on the Iraq war stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War
And here's some context on the NYT and Clinton's emails. It's a letter to the editor which cites a comprehensive Columbia Journalism review critique of the NYT on that point: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/opinion/letters/clinton-e...
“ Some of The Times's coverage in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines; and several fine articles by David Johnston, James Risen and others that provided perspective or challenged information in the faulty stories were played as quietly as a lullaby. Especially notable among these was Risen's ''C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports,'' which was completed several days before the invasion and unaccountably held for a week. It didn't appear until three days after the war's start, and even then was interred on Page B10.‘
Nowadays you can link any story but back then position mattered enormously.
Timing too. A key report after the war matters much less
>but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message".
I do not, however, think this is true in the case of the Iraq War. Once we get into quantity rather than mere existence, we have to consider positioning in the case of the print paper. It may as well not have existed given the positioning and delay. The editorial team buried their reporters' work when it didn't agree with their slant
In any case, I would suggest to never trust any news source nowadays and always supplement with your own research.
Edit: His own psychiatrist is giving interviews with the times. This story is so juicy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/technology/ftx-sam-bankma...
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/business/ftx-bankruptcy.h...
I mean, in the speakers panel he is listed along side Mark Zuckerberg, Volodymyr Zelensky, Janet Yellen, etc. Comparing what he did with what he others in the speakers panel have done I get some cognitive dissonance.
The article about his was written AFTER he lost all his investors' money (a few days ago). The prestigious conference where he is speaking is happening in 13 days from now.
Everyone knows this guy was a grifter, he created and ran an exchange from the Bahamas, he didn't invent the iPhone of crypto or something. I see 0 evidence of any Steve Jobs level innovation.
Everyone knows he's a grifter now. Some probably suspected earlier. Some of those probably invested anyways on the idea that they could get out before the collapse.
nobody is giving him money these days