Sam Bankman-Fried Asks Court to Cut Prison Time to 63-78 Months

CoinDeskPolicyPubblicato 2024-02-27Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-02-28

Introduzione

Bankman-Fried's lawyers objected to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) which recommends a sentence of 100 years in prison calling it "grotesque."

Former FTX boss Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), found guilty of fraud last year and due to be sentenced next month, has asked the court for a ‘just' sentence of 63 to 78 months, according to a court filing submitted Tuesday.

Bankman-Fried’s lawyers objected to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), which recommends a sentence of 100 years in prison, calling it “grotesque.”

Advertisement
Advertisement

The lawyers argue that “an appropriate method of arriving at a just sentence" would be to consider an adjusted offense level based on “zero loss," which would lead to “an advisory Guidelines range of 63-78 months.”

The lawyers said when all factors are considered, "Including Sam’s charitable works and demonstrated commitment to others, a sentence that returns Sam promptly to a productive role in society would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing.”

Edited by Parikshit Mishra.

Letture associate

To Those Ordinary People Who Haven't Invested in AI: You Think You're Late, You're Just Lacking Your Own Worldview

**Summary:** The article argues that ordinary investors feeling FOMO over missing the AI investment boom lack not timing, but their own independent worldview. Most people chase "what to buy" based on others' opinions (FOMO, envy) rather than fundamental analysis. This leads to costly mistakes: not knowing when to exit winning trades or cut losses on losing ones. The core solution is to develop a personal, long-term (5-10 year) worldview about societal shifts and technological bottlenecks. For most, building this from scratch (Path A) is too demanding. A practical alternative (Path B) is to follow the **capital expenditures (capex)** and strategic investments of visionary leaders, as their money reveals true conviction more reliably than their words. Five key figures to track for different AI perspectives are highlighted: Jensen Huang (NVIDIA, infrastructure), Elon Musk (Tesla/SpaceX/xAI, capex signals), Sam Altman (OpenAI, commercialization, but beware hype), Dario Amodei (Anthropic, technical/safety focus), and Liang Wenfeng (DeepSeek, efficiency/anti-consensus view). The article details how to read capex signals from hyperscalers' financial reports, NVIDIA's revenue breakdown, and strategic investments. It maps the complete AI产业链 (supply chain) from raw materials/energy to models/applications, explaining value flow and inter-dependencies (e.g., how a model release triggers demand across chips, memory, and optics). Finally, it provides an action plan: secure personal finances first, allocate a limited portfolio percentage (max 25%) to the theme, prefer broad ETFs (like QQQ), use dollar-cost averaging over 6-12 months, and write down strict investment rules beforehand to combat emotional errors during market volatility. The conclusion is that a stable, personally-held worldview enables disciplined, long-term investment far more than chasing short-term trends.

marsbit27 min fa

To Those Ordinary People Who Haven't Invested in AI: You Think You're Late, You're Just Lacking Your Own Worldview

marsbit27 min fa

Microsoft Halts Vibe Coding: "Burning Tokens" Is Now More Expensive Than Employees

Microsoft has halted the widespread internal use of Claude Code, withdrawing licenses from most employees by the end of its fiscal year, June 30, 2026. This reversal comes just six months after actively promoting the AI coding tool to boost productivity via "vibe coding"—where developers describe intent in natural language and let the LLM generate code. The core issue isn't the tool's effectiveness; internal reports suggest employees preferred Claude Code over Microsoft's own Copilot CLI. The problem is financial: the "copilot mode" adds a variable, consumption-based token cost on top of existing employee salaries without a proportional revenue increase. As usage grew, the token bills became unsustainable, leading to what sources describe as a cost-structure failure. Similar overruns have been reported at other firms like Uber. The article contrasts this with the approach of AI-native startups, exemplified by Y Combinator's philosophy. Here, high token consumption is strategic—it replaces, rather than supplements, human labor. Startups operate with tiny teams where AI agents handle work previously done by many, making the high token bill financially viable as it offsets much larger personnel costs. The conclusion is that "vibe coding" isn't dead, but its economics fail within traditional corporate structures that treat AI as a productivity add-on for existing staff. Success requires a foundational shift to an AI-native organization, where processes are built to be "legible to AI," and the company's core knowledge and assets reside in documented, AI-accessible systems rather than solely in employees' minds. The future divide will be between companies that merely add AI tools and those that redesign their organizations around them.

marsbit46 min fa

Microsoft Halts Vibe Coding: "Burning Tokens" Is Now More Expensive Than Employees

marsbit46 min fa

Metrics Ventures Market Watch: The Brewing Storm

In the past month, the market has been actively trading contrasting expectations, balancing global supply chain disruptions fueling re-inflation against both actual and anticipated (Walsh) interest rate hikes. This volatility has impacted commodities and most equities, though tech has temporarily benefited from concentrated short-term liquidity. Fundamentally, as previously analyzed regarding the Strait of Hormuz situation, the US faces deep-seated balance sheet issues beyond what any single Fed chair can resolve. Hypotheses around a figure like Walsh could only materialize if AI fundamentally reshapes production relations. Until then, most non-AI-leading nations (effectively all except the US and China) risk fiscal and monetary policy collapse, rendering the identity of the Fed chair ultimately irrelevant. For crypto assets, there is currently no clear role in these dominant narratives. The market remains strongly capped by the 200-day moving average. While trends may shift from "anything but AI" to "anything but mines," this phase is dominated by the silicon vs. carbon (AI vs. traditional) dichotomy, leaving little room for crypto—though its time will come. **Market Overview & Commentary** The crypto market lacks significant catalysts beyond hype, plagued by low volume and scarce innovation, with clear technical resistance. Currently, crypto struggles for attention as global focus lies elsewhere. Assets like gold, oil, and grains are more direct hedges against supply-chain-driven inflation/stagflation. Bitcoin needs more time for capitulation and consolidation; this reset is expected to last until at least Q4 2026. Looking ahead, three factors will likely drive future market volatility: 1. Whether Walsh repeats the patterns of predecessors like Bassant or Musk, shifting stance into a new policy cycle. 2. The market underestimates the severity of global supply chain damage and the prolonged time needed for repair, which will eventually lead to recognition of acute resource shortages and price swings. 3. AI non-beneficiary, high-inflation nations (e.g., UK, Japan) will face severe fiscal and monetary crises. Rapid AI-driven displacement could trigger a collapse of existing credit and welfare systems. Ultimately, the market may realize that an AI bubble burst could spark contagious sovereign credit crises. The monetary and fiscal responses to such a scenario could serve as the ultimate catalyst for Bitcoin's next major bull run.

marsbit1 h fa

Metrics Ventures Market Watch: The Brewing Storm

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片