SBF:正被“江湖旧怨”们连番攻击

Odaily星球日报Published on 2022-12-11Last updated on 2022-12-11

Abstract

Terra崩盘与三箭破产的幕后黑手?

过去几天,FTX 创始人 SBF 再遭攻讦。

Terra 创始人 Do Kwon 以及三箭资本(3AC)创始人 Zhu Su 相继发文对 SBF 进行声讨,指责其是 Terra 崩盘与三箭破产的幕后黑手;币安创始人赵长鹏(CZ)披露了 FTX 与币安背后的股权纠纷。

此外,Zhu Su 还发文称 SBF 全资拥有加密媒体 The Block,SBF 是他们许多“独家新闻”的唯一来源,并负责把控新闻方向。最终,The Block 首席执行官 Michael McCaffrey 因未能披露曾从 Alameda Research 获得贷款引咎辞职。

(1 )Terra 崩盘与三箭破产的幕后黑手

12 月 8 日,Do Kwon 援引《纽约时报》长文指责 Alameda 是做空 UST 的始作俑者。

“我认为现在是时候让 Genesis Trading 披露他们是否在崩溃前不久向 SBF 或 Alameda 提供了 10 亿美元的 UST——从 LFG 手上购买时宣称是“参与 Terra DeFi 生态系统的兴趣”——而不是为脱锚攻击提供弹药。”

根据 Do Kwon 所说,SBF/Alameda 曾从 Genesis Trading 手中借入 10 亿 UST 砸入市场,促使 UST 率先脱锚;而后,SBF/Alameda 又从包括 Voyager 在内的众多机构手中借了数量众多的 BTC(10 位数),疑似做空 BTC 从而降低 LFG 的资产储备价值,最终推动 Terra& UST 崩盘进入死亡螺旋。

Do Kwon 补充说, 2021 年 2 月 UST 的大幅货币紧缩是就是由 Alameda 引起的,他们在 MIM 危机期间于几分钟内出售了 5 亿枚 UST,最终抽干 Curve 上的池子。

三箭资本(3AC)创始人 Zhu Su 也在第一时间站出来声援 Do Kwon,“有人问‘为什么你和 Do Kwon 在 FTX 崩溃后马上回来,这是为了转移你们自己的问题吗?’我回复道,Do Kwon 一直在不断地开发 Luna Classic + Luna 2 ,而且还没有超过一周的 Twitter 休息时间。”

Zhu Su 表示,可能很多人持有这样一种观点——无论如何,Luna 都会失败,到底是不是 Alameda/FTX 和关联方精心策划的攻击根本不重要;这实际上涉及到一个基本的白帽与黑帽的争论,如果您认为某些东西存在设计缺陷,你可以尝试帮助修复它,而不是作为行业领导者去攻击并破坏它,这是最悲观的事情。“也许在某个世界,Alameda 参加了早期的 Luna 融资而不是错过它,就不会视其为仇敌。”

此外,Zhu Su 也极力为自己证明,表示 3AC 破产是因为被 SBF 猎杀。“从 7 月份彭博社的采访开始,我就坚定地说我们被猎杀了。这是事实,但它却不合时宜,以至于我的顾问都不想让我说出来,因为可能被视为「转移视线」。8 月,有几篇长文被主要出版社压制未发,因为编辑们担心遭到报复,失去采访 SBF 的机会。当时不断有人吹捧 SBF 是加密世界的摩根大通或者 Vanderbilt(美国工业家、慈善家)。”

针对 Zhu Su 的言论,SBF 只是简单地回复了一条推文,表示缺少证据,只是对方的臆测。“今年我犯了很多大错误。但这不是其中之一。没有证据,因为它没有发生。拜托,拜托,管好你自己的事。”不过,SBF 并没有回复 Do Kwon 的质疑。

Zhu Su 回复 SBF 称:“你怎么会知道?你不是说你不知道 Alameda 发生的事情吗?没关系,我们可以让司法部(DoJ)决定。”

最后,Zhu Su 补充说,“当我讨论 SBF/FTX/Alameda 如何猎杀包括我们自己在内的客户时,我不是在抱怨。监管机构和检察官会做他们的工作。我已经向前看了。恰恰相反,我认为加密货币交易行业的大部分痛苦是活该的。”

(2 )币安与 FTX 股权纠纷

12 月 9 日,CZ 发文介绍了币安与 FTX 股权纠纷的细节。CZ 表示,作为 FTX 的早期投资者,币安对 Alameda/SBF 越来越不满意,并最终在 1.5 年前(2021 年 7 月)启动了退出程序。“当我们决定退出作为投资者行列时,SBF 非常生气,他对多个币安团队成员发起了一系列攻击性的长篇大论,包括威胁要「竭尽全力让我们付出代价」——我们仍然有这些短信。”

CZ 补充说,自那之后,SBF 开始“投资”身居高位的朋友——从媒体到政策制定者,再到名人(如 Kevin O'Leary )。“他利用这些网络来操纵舆论,包括攻击我和业内其他人。我的种族是这些攻击的焦点。下周的参议院听证会上可能继续重复这些攻击。”

对此,SBF 发推作出回应称:“关于退股一事,你(CZ)没必要再撒谎了。是我们发起的股权收购谈判,我们决定这么做是因为这对我们的业务很重要。虽然我很不喜欢你的‘谈判’策略,但我还是选择了这么做。你曾威胁我们说如果不再加 7500 万美元,就在最后一分钟退出谈判。我们同意了,因为我们不想让币安出现在我们的股东名单上。”

SBF 最后表示:”你我都知道,除非我们选择回购你的股份,否则你甚至没有权利退股,因为许多代币和股权当时仍处于锁定状态。”

也正是这次退股过程的不愉快,才有了上个月 Binance 抛售 FTT,最终引爆 FTX 流动性不足的暗雷,百亿市值的加密帝国轰然倒塌。

(3 )掌控媒体,操纵舆论

12 月 10 日,The Block CEO Michael McCaffrey 曾从 Alameda 获得 4300 万美元贷款的事被公之于众。

根据 Michael 推文, 2021 年初 The Block 陷入困境,他当时正在评估是出售、合并还是重组。2021 年 2 月,当他从 SBF 为其控股公司获得 1200 万美元贷款时,唯一的选择是重组。此后,其又获得 1500 万美元贷款用于资助日常运营。今年早些时候,再次获得 1600 万美元用于在巴哈马购置个人房产。

由于隐瞒了这些贷款信息,Michael McCaffrey 也于昨天辞职,由首席营收官 Bobby Moran 接任首席执行官一职,并且 McCaffrey 还将辞去公司董事会的职务,McCaffrey 仍是 The Block 的大股东。

Michael 补充说,The Block 其他人对此事毫不知情,因为他不想相关贷款影响到 The Block 对 SBF 及其公司报道的客观性。他还表示自己“从未试图影响 FTX、Alameda 或 SBF 的报道。”

不过,Zhu Su 却发推反驳称,The Block 是由 SBF 全资拥有(言外之意是 McCaffrey 是代持股份),并且 SBF 是他们许多“独家新闻”的唯一来源,SBF 负责把控整个新闻编辑的方向。

目前,SBF 尚未对此事发文回应。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

What is $BITCOIN

DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): A Comprehensive Analysis Introduction to DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a blockchain-based project operating on the Solana network, which aims to combine the characteristics of traditional precious metals with the innovation of decentralized technologies. While it shares a name with Bitcoin, often referred to as “digital gold” due to its perception as a store of value, DIGITAL GOLD is a separate token designed to create a unique ecosystem within the Web3 landscape. Its goal is to position itself as a viable alternative digital asset, although specifics regarding its applications and functionalities are still developing. What is DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) is a cryptocurrency token explicitly designed for use on the Solana blockchain. In contrast to Bitcoin, which provides a widely recognized value storage role, this token appears to focus on broader applications and characteristics. Notable aspects include: Blockchain Infrastructure: The token is built on the Solana blockchain, known for its capacity to handle high-speed and low-cost transactions. Supply Dynamics: DIGITAL GOLD has a maximum supply capped at 100 quadrillion tokens (100P $BITCOIN), although details regarding its circulating supply are currently undisclosed. Utility: While precise functionalities are not explicitly outlined, there are indications that the token could be utilized for various applications, potentially involving decentralized applications (dApps) or asset tokenization strategies. Who is the Creator of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? At present, the identity of the creators and development team behind DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) remains unknown. This situation is typical among many innovative projects within the blockchain space, particularly those aligning with decentralized finance and meme coin phenomena. While such anonymity may foster a community-driven culture, it intensifies concerns about governance and accountability. Who are the Investors of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN)? The available information indicates that DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) does not have any known institutional backers or prominent venture capital investments. The project seems to operate on a peer-to-peer model focused on community support and adoption rather than traditional funding routes. Its activity and liquidity are primarily situated on decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as PumpSwap, rather than established centralized trading platforms, further highlighting its grassroots approach. How DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) Works The operational mechanics of DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) can be elaborated on based on its blockchain design and network attributes: Consensus Mechanism: By leveraging Solana’s unique proof-of-history (PoH) combined with a proof-of-stake (PoS) model, the project ensures efficient transaction validation contributing to the network's high performance. Tokenomics: While specific deflationary mechanisms have not been extensively detailed, the vast maximum token supply implies that it may cater to microtransactions or niche use cases that are still to be defined. Interoperability: There exists the potential for integration with Solana’s broader ecosystem, including various decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. However, the details regarding specific integrations remain unspecified. Timeline of Key Events Here is a timeline that highlights significant milestones concerning DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN): 2023: The initial deployment of the token occurs on the Solana blockchain, marked by its contract address. 2024: DIGITAL GOLD gains visibility as it becomes available for trading on decentralized exchanges like PumpSwap, allowing users to trade it against SOL. 2025: The project witnesses sporadic trading activity and potential interest in community-led engagements, although no noteworthy partnerships or technical advancements have been documented as of yet. Critical Analysis Strengths Scalability: The underlying Solana infrastructure supports high transaction volumes, which could enhance the utility of $BITCOIN in various transaction scenarios. Accessibility: The potential low trading price per token could attract retail investors, facilitating wider participation due to fractional ownership opportunities. Risks Lack of Transparency: The absence of publicly known backers, developers, or an audit process may yield skepticism regarding the project's sustainability and trustworthiness. Market Volatility: The trading activity is heavily reliant on speculative behavior, which can result in significant price volatility and uncertainty for investors. Conclusion DIGITAL GOLD ($BITCOIN) emerges as an intriguing yet ambiguous project within the rapidly evolving Solana ecosystem. While it attempts to leverage the “digital gold” narrative, its departure from Bitcoin's established role as a store of value underscores the need for a clearer differentiation of its intended utility and governance structure. Future acceptance and adoption will likely depend on addressing the current opacity and defining its operational and economic strategies more explicitly. Note: This report encompasses synthesised information available as of October 2023, and developments may have transpired beyond the research period.

411 Total ViewsPublished 2025.05.13Updated 2025.05.13

What is $BITCOIN

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片