Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#71

Post by greenyoda »

hef19898 wrote: post #39
SilverBirch wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with claiming SBF doesn't know the difference between solvency and liquidity, then how come he's figured out which one he needs to claim for his legal defence. If he doesn't know the difference, he wouldn't be so deliberate about claiming one happened not the other.

Maybe he's smart enough to listen to his lawyers. Or maybe he knows the difference. He still seems to be a criminal fraudster and crook, the other questions are secondery concerns mostly driven by curiosity. We'll have to wait for any verdicts and court rulings so to onow what exactly went down, this thing is far from having reaching the end of the beginning.

> Maybe he's smart enough to listen to his lawyers.

I doubt that his lawyers would be happy with him making public statements about his business dealings right now.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#72

Post by maxbond »

notch656a wrote: post #69
maxbond wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, but from the perspective of a prosecutor, it makes sense to let him dig his hole deeper. Every time he lies to the public he further establishes mens rhea. But of course it would take much longer than a month to extradite him anyhow, so the most likely explanation is that they haven't had time to decide if they have enough evidence to extradite him, let alone to do it. (IANAL)

Doesn't take a month to cancel his passport. Wouldn't his stay be illegal at that point and he could easily be deported?

This is total speculation but I think the Bahamian authorities are significantly more friendly to him then US authorities, and whether or not he could continue to stay without a passport would presumably be their call. If they grant him asylum they might refuse to extradite him.

Let him keep his passport and there's every chance he'll just turn up of his own volition to speak at a conference, give an interview, or pitch a new venture.

I don't think a jury would look kindly on playing so dirty with someone who posed no clear threat and didn't even seem to be on the run. And I don't think it would be right to either, until there's enough evidence to bring charges, he's presumed to be an innocent man in the eyes of the law. (We are of course free to come to our own judgement as individuals.)

All he's doing is giving interviews. Even if he's lying through his teeth (as I believe he is) - it's still his 1A right to do so.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#73

Post by SilasX »

maxbond wrote: post #49
swader999 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naw, he paid a lot of politicians, he fine.

It's not clear to me that donating to politicians necessarily buys you clemency (in the absence of explicit quid pro quo), but accepting the premise, I think at a certain point, when your crimes and donations are widely publicized, there's a phase transition where it's more likely to work against you. The politicians can't bare the perception of having been bought, and whatever influence they're able to muster is dir…

Right, I would think that bribing politicians only gets you favors if both a) the favors have sufficient political cover, and b) there is the prospect of further bribes. Neither of those seem true here.

For a), SBF has become a dirty name and politicians don't have cover to do anything blatantly favorable to him.

For b), any money he might have touched is under intense scrutiny, especially if it makes its way to a politician. Ironically, his best hope might be if he had untraceably moved money into cryptocurrency, especially stablecoins.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#74

Post by blamazon »

shkkmo wrote: post #26
blamazon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" -- commonly attributed to Napoleon

That is incredibly bad advice to generalize. Not all mistakes one's "enemy" makes are to one's benefit. Your enemy might make a huge mistake by killing your family in front of a lot of witnesses, doesn't mean you should let him because you want to see him go to jail.

I kinda thought the Napoleon attribution was enough to show I don't think it's a universal truism across all time and scenarios :)

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#76

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

medvezhenok wrote: post #66
divbzero wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who was on the other side of these losing trades? People need to follow the money trail. Where did the money go? There doesn’t have to be another side to the losses. If Alameda / FTX was holding assets that depreciate in value, they would book losses along with everyone else holding the same assets.

Any time someone loses value, someone else gains it (in the short term), short of destruction of physical or knowledge capital (i.e. WWII bombing raids). We mark things in dollars but real value is measured in resources, physical capital, and intangible capital (rather than USD). Unless any of that was lost, the $ value losses just re-accrue to someone else instead. This is different from imaginary value inflating an…

Incorrect.

Value can be created and sent back to ether. It’s not a zero sum closed system.

Let’s look at NFTs, they weren’t ever worth anything but some people thought they were, and counted them like they were, and convinced dumb people to pay for them at these prices, but it was all imaginary. The ones that never sold are just as worthless as the ones that did. The entire market collapsed, the “value” is really just gone, no one “has it”.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#77

Post by zarzavat »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #63
divbzero wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long Term Capital Management [1] is a good example of a company with “good, but illiquid investments” that failed because they made trades that went the wrong way temporarily, ran out of margin, and had to be rescued with a bailout before the trades recovered. Market prices stabilized after the bailout and the rescuers eventually exited the trades with a small profit. I agree with your assessment that Alameda / FTX p…

> I agree with your assessment that Alameda / FTX put customer deposits into “completely inappropriate investments” And what about customers deposits that ended up in $300m+ real-estate in the Bahamas (including some for SBF's parents, which they now said they'd be giving back to FTX: how generous once caught with the hand in the cookie jar)? And what about the $100m or maybe more in political donation? ($40m from SB…

> FTX/Alameda is more Enron than LTCM.

FTX makes even Enron look like saints. FTX took money that wasn’t theirs and spent it. Theft on a massive scale. There’s not even a veneer of legality or deniability.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#78

Post by rsj_hn »

zarzavat wrote: post #77
TacticalCoder wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree with your assessment that Alameda / FTX put customer deposits into “completely inappropriate investments” And what about customers deposits that ended up in $300m+ real-estate in the Bahamas (including some for SBF's parents, which they now said they'd be giving back to FTX: how generous once caught with the hand in the cookie jar)? And what about the $100m or maybe more in political donation? ($40m from SB…

> FTX/Alameda is more Enron than LTCM. FTX makes even Enron look like saints. FTX took money that wasn’t theirs and spent it. Theft on a massive scale. There’s not even a veneer of legality or deniability.

counterpoint: FTX only robbed people doing business with FTX. Enron robbed all of California. Tens of millions of households had to pay sky high electricity bills because of Enron manipulating the electricity market in California. The damage was about $40-50 Billion dollars. FTX owes less than a tenth of that.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#79

Post by kaashif »

divbzero wrote: post #46
TacticalCoder wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FTX actually had a solvency crisis, where he took deposits, put them in completely inappropriate investments (many of which are now worthless, all of which were speculative nonsense) and is now revealed to have done that. Who was on the other side of these losing trades? People need to follow the money trail. Where did the money go? There are people who called the Alameda / FTX scam from day one, before FTX was eve…

> Who was on the other side of these losing trades? People need to follow the money trail. Where did the money go? There doesn’t have to be another side to the losses. If Alameda / FTX was holding assets that depreciate in value, they would book losses along with everyone else holding the same assets.

The point they're making, I think, is that FTX bought various shitcoins from other people in exchange for USD. Value can disappear, but that's not what happened to the actual dollars they spent.

I'm not positive this whole thing was some kind of planned conspiracy, it just seems like idiocy and fraud catching up with them. I don't think any competent fraudster would get caught in such an embarrassing way.

Re: Phone interview with Sam Bankman-Fried [audio]

#80

Post by dehrmann »

lolc wrote: post #8

Too smart by half, this guy just doesn't shut up. Sure plays into the narrative that he's a naive kid. But painful to listen to all the scheming in the pauses of speech.

IANAL, but you can bet a lawyer would have told him to STFU so he doesn't incriminate himself further.
Post reply on HN