Sam Bankman-Fried Lambasted by Prosecutor Right Before Jurors Begin Deciding His Fate: 'He Thought He Could Fool the World'

CoinDeskPolicyPublicado a 2023-11-01Actualizado a 2023-11-02

Resumen

A verdict in the SBF trial could come before the end of Thursday – on the first anniversary of the CoinDesk scoop that caused his empire to crumble.

Twelve New Yorkers will start deliberating FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's fate on Thursday, and a verdict could come later in the day – the first anniversary, coincidentally, of the CoinDesk scoop that spurred former crypto mogul's downfall.

Promising customers that their "assets are safe" and then taking that money and spending it on yourself and your companies, "is not a 'reasonable businesses decision,'" Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon said of Bankman-Fried's behavior during the government's final appeal to jurors on Thursday – invoking a phrase used by Bankman-Fried's defense attorney in his closing argument a day earlier. "That is fraud."

10

The jurors will soon be dispatched to do their duty – reviewing the seven fraud and conspiracy charges Bankman-Fried faces – after Judge Lewis Kaplan finishes reading instructions to them. The government's core argument is that Bankman-Fired misused billions of dollars worth of funds belonging to users of his FTX crypto exchange, siphoning them to businesses, political candidates and real estate ventures via Alameda Research, his crypto trading shop.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Bankman-Fried broke a "sacred, unbreakable rule" when dealing with FTX customer money, Sassoon told the jury as she wrapped up the U.S. Department of Justice's case against the disgraced crypto founder: "Your money is your own," she said. "It's not for others to use."

Sassoon's rebuttal was the last time the jury in Bankman-Fried's trial will hear from lawyers before they begin their deliberations.

She used her final remarks to jurors to poke holes in the closing statement of defense attorney Mark Cohen, who appealed to the jury on Wednesday to consider whether a real fraudster would agree to an interview on "Good Morning America" just days after he was accused of committing crimes.

Bankman-Fried's post-collapse media blitz "was part of an effort to present himself as reliable," Sassoon said.

SingleQuoteLightGreenSingleQuoteLightGreen
He still thought he could fool the world.
SingleQuoteLightGreenSingleQuoteLightGreen
Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon

As for why the FTX founder continued to pay back lenders in his crypto empire's final days – rather than hoard customer funds for himself – the prosecutor said that Bankman-Fried didn't plan to "run with the money" and risk being exposed. Even after Nov. 7, the day she said FTX collapsed, "he still thought he could fool the world," she said.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The defense argument that most incensed Sassoon, according to her, was Cohen's statement to the jury that the government's star witnesses – top FTX and Alameda executives Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang and Nishad Singh – were incentivized to lie when testifying.

"That's outrageous," Sassoon said loudly, calling it a "desperate and unsupported accusation."

Again and again, she told the jury that Bankman-Fried's testimony and the defense's arguments don't make sense. "You know that it's a made-up story," she said. "You should reject it."

Regarding perhaps the defense's favorite argument, that FTX didn't have a risk manager and thus Bankman-Fried didn't know what he was getting himself into, Sassoon said it proved the opposite of what defense  lawyers claimed: "That's not a defense, it was a strategy."

"The defendant knew what he was doing was wrong, and that's why he didn't hire a chief risk officer," she told the jury.

"Don't fall for his lies," she concluded her statement. "Find him guilty."

Nikhilesh De contributed reporting.

Edited by Nick Baker.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Coming

"Glue Finance founder argues Ethereum's current price underperformance stems from its 'unfinished machine' status. Despite record usage and settlement value in 2026, ETH remains below its 2021 peak because the protocol's continued development creates a dependency on the Ethereum Foundation for guidance and fixes. Key issues include centralized L2 sequencers, governance-based freezes (as seen with Arbitrum), state bloat, a vulnerable public mempool, and looming quantum computing threats. This 'dependency discount' prevents ETH from accruing the 'ossification premium' that markets award to immutable, trustless systems like Bitcoin. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed escape paths: a 'war mode' shift towards centralization for speed (which would sacrifice Ethereum's core value), or simply replacing the EF with another governing body. The only solution is the 'Manhattan Plan' or 'Lean Ethereum': a concerted, accelerated effort to complete and then *freeze* the protocol's neutral core. This involves finalizing critical upgrades in consensus (Lean Consensus), scaling (targeting 1 trillion gas/sec), quantum resistance (leanXMSS signatures), and full ZK-provable execution. The goal is to pass the 'walk-away test'—where Ethereum could run forever, neutrally, without the EF. Success would transform Ethereum into the first programmable, quantum-resistant, immutable global settlement layer, flipping its current discount into a unique 'eternity premium' that surpasses Bitcoin's. Failure—stagnation or trading neutrality for speed—would relegate it to being a slower, less trustworthy competitor."

marsbitHace 5 min(s)

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Coming

marsbitHace 5 min(s)

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

Glue Finance founder argues that Ethereum's current price underperformance, despite high on-chain activity, stems from its incomplete state and lingering dependency on central stewards like the Ethereum Foundation. The core thesis is that the market is discounting ETH not for lack of use, but because the protocol remains a "machine under construction." Key unresolved issues include centralized L2 sequencers with limited escape hatches, state bloat, vulnerable public mempools, and the looming quantum computing threat. This perpetual "work-in-progress" status forces reliance on a small group of maintainers, undermining the network's promise of credible neutrality and immutability. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed paths: a "wartime mode" of centralizing for speed (surrendering Ethereum's unique value) or merely replacing the Foundation with another governing entity. The only solution is to complete and then "freeze" the protocol's neutral core through a focused "Manhattan Project" dubbed "Lean Ethereum." This project aims to bundle critical upgrades—consensus layer overhaul, massive scaling via ZK-proofs, quantum resistance, and statelessness—into a decisive push to finalize the base layer. Once the core rules are cryptographically solidified and beyond anyone's control (passing the "walk-away test"), Ethereum would shed its dependency discount and earn a "rigidity premium" for its credible neutrality and programmability, potentially surpassing Bitcoin's valuation. The race is between completing this hardening and the risks of protocol capture or stagnation.

链捕手Hace 6 min(s)

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

链捕手Hace 6 min(s)

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片