Skip to main content

Overshadowed by Trump, Sam Bankman-Fried nonetheless gets his trial




Early this month, as Donald Trump made a point of showing up, unnecessarily, for the first three days of his civil trial in Manhattan, and with the press treating it with all the fanfare they have treated his four criminal indictments, Sam Bankman-Fried also went on trial. 

The SBF trial is criminal and it is very likely to put SBF in prison, perhaps for a very long time. Furthermore, since SBF was in his heyday, not TOO long ago, a billionaire whiz-kid at the very top of the cryptocurrency food chain, this trial in other circumstances would itself be a top-tier spectacle. At least as spectacular as would be the civil trial of a billionaire old-man in the middle of the reality-television food chain.

SBF ran both a crypto exchange (with some bank-like characteristics)  and a hedge fund, known as FTX and as Alameda Research, respectively. I admit having written confused things about this in the recent past. In this very blog, I once referred to Alameda Research as FTX's "data-crunching arm." Here is a correction: IT WAS NOT THAT. The name, with its reference to "research," was it seems a deliberate act of misdirection. Alameda was a hedge fund, and one that at times took money deposited (with the illusion of safety) with FTX.  

Making speculative bets with someone else's chips is a crime IF you have acquired possession of that money by telling that someone else that his money is safe because you're keeping it as cash in a vault or investing it all in US Treasuries. Since such lies generally involve telecommunications, they all get classified into the broad term "wire fraud" by US federal law enforcement.  

One of the specific factual disputes is somewhat fancier, involving the details of programming.  (I still call it "programming" rather than "coding". That is a generational thing.) Prosecutors contend that SBF intentionally created a backdoor in the FTX coding that eased the flow of money between his exchange and the hedge fund, allowing the latter to access funds on account with the former.  

Here is an intriguing point about the fall of SBF. Michael Lewis has written a book about it. The author of Flash Boys, Blind Side, The Big Short, and Moneyball has in his time given odd pop-cultural cachet to a variety of arcane debates: about high speed trading, Michael Oher's home life, financial derivatives, the quantitative study of baseball, and more. The bit about Michael Oher has come back and bit him of late, but he has great success and carved out a distinct pop-cultural space. 

Now he is on the case of cryptocurrencies with the brief history of FTX and Alameda. 

I will find out what he is saying about it and report back. The book is called Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon.    




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more