Will SBF face consequences for mismanaging FTX? Don’t count on it

CointelegraphОпубліковано о 2022-11-16Востаннє оновлено о 2022-11-16

Анотація

Lawmakers, regulators and even the institutional media don’t seem to have much interest in faulting SBF for using customer money to trade under the table.

Will former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried be held accountable for his mismanagement of investor funds?

After most of the entities tied to his cryptocurrency exchange became insolvent last week, blockchain analysts concluded the insolvencies came as a partial result of the exchange’s trading house, Alameda Research, burning through nearly $10 billion in cash that technically belonged to FTX customers. To date, the company has declined to elaborate on the contractual details that made the arrangement possible — or legal.

In the aftermath of FTX’s collapse, skeptics have questioned whether the elite — in Washington or elsewhere — will be motivated to investigate the situation with any rigor. Tesla, SpaceX and Twitter CEO Elon Musk suggested in a Nov. 13 tweet that he was among those critics, sharing an image that ties Bankman-Fried — also known as “SBF” — to Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler. Bankman-Fried is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the image notes, where Gensler served as a professor. And he’s been romantically linked to Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, a Stanford graduate whose father, Glenn Ellison, also teaches at MIT.

pic.twitter.com/XpH56PxLgm
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 13, 2022

There are also more serious reasons to wonder who might be interested in holding SBF accountable — like a glowing Nov. 14 interview with SBF published by New York Times writer David Yaffe-Bellany. Noting that SBF had been “compared to titans of finance like John Pierpont Morgan and Warren Buffett,” Yaffe-Bellany says that SBF “did, however, agree with critics in the crypto community who said he had expanded his business interests too quickly across a wide swath of the industry.”

OK, but what about the allegation that Alameda used more than half of FTX’s $16 billion in customer deposits to make failed trades? “He said the size of the position was in the billions of dollars but declined to provide further details,” the Times noted before moving on.

What about new blockchain evidence that indicates Alameda used advanced knowledge of which assets FTX would list in order to inform its purchases? Such “front-running” is a form of insider trading — one that an attorney might argue is illegal. The Times failed to even broach the issue.

Disgraceful reporting by the @nytimes on FTX. It portrays SBF as a charitable entrepreneur who went under and does not mention the words fraud, criminal, substance abuse, friends & family Bahamas KYC racket, hack, stolen funds or wiped servers anywhere.https://t.co/rBJ7O0L4sV
— Alex Krüger (@krugermacro) November 14, 2022

Media infatuation isn’t the only advantage SBF enjoys. As some observers — not the New York Times, but others — have noted, he also holds a degree of political influence accrued from hours spent consorting on Capitol Hill, in addition to the tens of millions he has spent on contributions. His $5.2 million donation to President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign made him its second-largest CEO donor. He gave another $39.8 million to political action committees and candidates primarily affiliated with Democrats in 2022.

Of that figure, $27 million went to a group called Protect our Future. The group reported spending around $24 million directly on candidates’ races — including $250,000 in support of New Jersey’s newly elected Representative Robert Menendez Jr., whose father sits on the Senate Banking Committee and Senate Finance Committee. (As some may recall, a federal jury dropped corruption charges against Menendez Sr. in 2017 after failing to reach a verdict. A Menendez spokesperson said in October that he was facing a new federal probe over similar allegations.)

Perhaps it’s understandable that some observers are wondering whether SBF has faced the appropriate level of regulatory scrutiny — or whether he will in the future. “I want to know how many whistleblower complaints were filed with the SEC tipping them off to FTX’s fraud,” the Blockchain Association’s policy chief, Jake Chervinsky, wrote in a Nov. 15 tweet, before referencing a March 23 meeting between Gensler and SBF. “I want to know how many were filed before FTX met with Chair Gensler’s office to talk about a sweetheart deal. I want to know why our ‘cop on the beat’ was blind to this.”

I want to know how many whistleblower complaints were filed with the SEC tipping them off to FTX's fraud.

I want to know how many were filed before FTX met with Chair Gensler's office to talk about a sweetheart deal.
I want to know why our "cop on the beat" was blind to this.
— Jake Chervinsky (@jchervinsky) November 15, 2022

Helius Labs co-founder Mert Mumtaz made a similar comment in a tweet a day earlier. For context, it came in response to an exchange between Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Barron reporter Tae Kim, who alluded to SBF’s rank in a game called League of Legends. “Apparently, SBF is worse at playing video games than AOC,” Kim tweeted, to which Ocasio-Cortez replied, “VCs [venture capital firms] were impressed by Bronze III??”

Mumtaz opined with a reference to Alexey Pertsev, the developer jailed this year for writing the code that enabled the crypto-anonymizing service Tornado Cash. “US politicians when someone writes open-source crypto protocol: straight to jail,” Mumtaz wrote. “US politicians when someone literally defrauds people out of billions while running a drugged out polycule: ‘haha he is bad at league.’”

US politicians when someone writes open-source crypto protocol: straight to jail
US politicians when someone literally defrauds people out of billions while running a drugged out polycule: "haha he is bad at league" pic.twitter.com/h0PX0JLbSj
— mert | Helius (, ⚡) (@0xMert_) November 15, 2022

Of course, there are things that regulators and elected officials could do to prove the skeptics wrong. For example, legislators to whom SBF has a connection — such as the Menendez clan — could recuse themselves from participating in the inevitable congressional hearings related to FTX’s crash.

Secondly, Gensler and other regulators could aggressively —and publicly — investigate the ties between FTX US and FTX’s international operations. They could refrain from disingenuously seizing the moment to target completely unrelated projects in decentralized finance (DeFi) — which are merely bits of code created and sometimes maintained by developers, such as Tornado Cash. The dishonesty inherent to using platforms that fail as an excuse to target their competitors has already led to claims that SBF was a “fed” who intentionally tarnished cryptocurrency. While those claims have mostly been light-hearted to date, it seems nearly certain that they will snowball into real conspiracy theories.

i am not conspiratorially minded, but the fact that SBF is still on the loose and shit posting on twitter,
after committing massive financial crime,
and we see softball media coverage of the event, and Kevin O'Leary saying he might work with him again
WTF IS HAPPENING???
— DCinvestor.eth ⌐◨-◨ (@iamDCinvestor) November 15, 2022

Finally, lawmakers who do take aim at matters related to cryptocurrency and finance could focus on coming up with rules that prevent industry kingpins from using and abusing their customers. That would represent a welcome pivot from the approach taken by congressional Democrats, who have been much more focused on coming up with rules that target the most broke Americans. Take, for example, the Biden administration’s failed proposal to force banks to report data on bank accounts with more than $600 in annual transactions.

We’ll find out soon whether America’s ruling class decides to embrace any of these measures by ejecting SBF from the industry and cracking down on any copycats. But if past is prologue, don’t get your hopes up.

Пов'язані матеріали

Ethereum's Next Stop Glamsterdam: The Core Upgrades You Must Know

The Glamsterdam upgrade, scheduled for late 2026, is a major Ethereum hard fork combining the Amsterdam execution layer and Glasgow consensus layer updates. Its primary goal is not simply increasing throughput but restructuring Ethereum's block production, validation, and resource pricing to enable future scaling. Key technical changes include **EIP-7732 (ePBS)**, which formally enshrines proposer-builder separation into the protocol. This decouples consensus and execution tasks, extending the execution payload propagation window to ~9 seconds. This provides more time for node verification, allowing for safer increases in block capacity (Gas limit) in the future. Another core component is **EIP-7928 (Block-Level Access Lists - BAL)**. It mandates a list of all state accessed within a block, moving this feature from an optional transaction-level (EIP-2930) to a mandatory block-level requirement. This explicit access list enables client optimizations like parallel disk reads and state root computations, paving the way for parallel execution. To manage long-term state growth, **EIP-8037** increases the cost of creating new state (e.g., accounts, storage slots), separating the pricing of permanent database bloat from temporary computation. This allows execution capacity to scale more aggressively without causing state size to explode proportionally. The planned upgrade bundle includes around 10 EIPs categorized into: 1) Core protocol restructuring (ePBS, BAL), 2) Resource pricing adjustments (state costs, calldata costs), and 3) EVM/developer improvements. Several other EIPs, including those potentially improving staker exit liquidity (EIP-8061, EIP-8080), are under consideration. The technical development coincides with significant personnel changes within the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol team. The Foundation's official communications frame this as part of a broader shift towards a "coalition of organizations" working on the Ethereum roadmap, citing new entities like ethlabs and the Ethereum Economic Zone. In summary, Glamsterdam represents a foundational re-engineering of Ethereum's block pipeline and economic model—focusing on ePBS, BAL, and multi-dimensional resource pricing—to prepare the network for sustainable, high-throughput scaling in the years ahead.

Foresight News5 хв тому

Ethereum's Next Stop Glamsterdam: The Core Upgrades You Must Know

Foresight News5 хв тому

The Ethereum Foundation Has Split?! An In-depth Look at Ethlabs' "Bright Future"

"Ethereum Foundation Splits? Understanding Ethlabs and Its 'Bright Future'" Former Ethereum Foundation members Ansgar Dietrichs, Barnabé Monnot, Caspar Schwarz-Schilling, Josh Rudolf, and Julian Ma have announced the launch of Ethlabs, an independent non-profit research and development lab. Announced on June 22nd, the initiative comes amidst discussions about the need for new organizational structures within the Ethereum ecosystem, a point highlighted by Bankless founder David Hoffman. Ethlabs' mission is to establish Ethereum as the foundational settlement layer for the global economy. The organization positions itself as a bridge connecting frontline developers, applications, and user needs with the core protocol. It aims to translate real-world demands into protocol improvements, industry standards, and deployable products. The founding team brings significant expertise: Dietrichs and Monnot are highly cited researchers in areas like Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) and MEV, while Schwarz-Schilling, Rudolf, and Ma contribute backgrounds in economic modeling, consensus research, and applied cryptography. Initial supporters include BitMine, a major corporate ETH treasury; Sharplink, another treasury firm; and Consensys founder Joe Lubin in a personal capacity. Community backers include figures like Uniswap's Hayden Adams and Base's Jesse Pollak. The timing coincides with internal Ethereum Foundation discussions about "spinout" projects. While Ethlabs and the Foundation share research interests like MEV mitigation, Ethlabs frames its role not as a competitor but as part of a shift from a "single-core coordination model" to a "multi-R&D entity collaboration model." It views Ethereum as a public project belonging to all builders, with Ethlabs as one node in a broader governance network. Ultimately, Ethlabs represents an organizational evolution within the maturing Ethereum ecosystem. The key question is whether multiple research bodies can collaborate effectively to advance Ethereum as a competitive global settlement infrastructure.

Odaily星球日报9 хв тому

The Ethereum Foundation Has Split?! An In-depth Look at Ethlabs' "Bright Future"

Odaily星球日报9 хв тому

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

"A Short Seller's Dire Prediction: AI Boom Fading, US Stocks to Peak by Q3 with 30-50% Decline" Prominent macro investors Jeffrey Gundlach and Felix Zulauf warn that the AI-driven market rally is nearing its end, forecasting a major US stock market correction of 30-50%, potentially beginning as early as Q3. Their analysis points to alarming parallels with historical market tops, citing extreme concentration in the top AI-related stocks within the S&P 500. Zulauf's bearish thesis hinges on unsustainable capital expenditure trends among major cloud companies, negative free cash flow emergence, and soaring semiconductor prices. Gundlach highlights dangerous parallels to the 1999 tech bubble peak. A key divergence from conventional wisdom is Gundlach's view that long-term Treasury yields will not fall meaningfully even during a recession, due to America's structurally out-of-control fiscal deficits and soaring interest costs. He warns this could force the government into yield curve control or even a sovereign debt restructuring. Both investors express severe concerns about the opaque private credit market, drawing parallels to the pre-2008 financial crisis environment. They allege widespread rating inflation, misrepresented credit quality, liquidity illusions, and fraudulent asset valuations within this sector. The analysis links the AI boom and private credit crisis through financing costs. They argue that as AI companies' cash flows weaken and they seek funding, a high and sticky long-term interest rate environment will severely stress lower-rated corporate borrowers, exposing cracks in credit markets. Finally, they predict a regime shift where the US dollar weakens and US equities underperform global markets, marking the end of their long dominance. The stage is set for a significant market reversal.

marsbit17 хв тому

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

marsbit17 хв тому

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

**Title: Why Isn't DeFi Insurance Being Bought?** DeFi insurance, which promised automated, unbiased payouts via smart contracts, has failed to gain traction. The core issue is economic: high premiums severely erode the yields that attract users to DeFi in the first place. For example, insuring a USDC deposit on Aave V3 could cost 1.5–2.5% of the annual yield, leaving a net return barely above a savings account. For riskier platforms like Maple Finance or Ethena, premiums can even turn net yields negative. Consequently, users often forgo insurance, as it nullifies their profit motive. The market also suffers from structural flaws. First, DeFi risks are highly correlated (e.g., an oracle failure can impact multiple protocols simultaneously), unlike the independent risks in traditional insurance. This makes large-scale events potentially catastrophic for insurers. Second, the total capital in DeFi insurance pools (e.g., Nexus Mutual's ~$81.5M) is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions in total value locked (TVL), creating a massive capacity gap. A single major hack could drain the entire industry's reserves. Furthermore, the governance model where tokenholders vote on claims creates a conflict of interest, incentivizing them to deny payouts to protect their own funds. As a result, the sector is shrinking. While pioneers like Nexus Mutual are pivoting to preventative measures (bug bounties) and seeking external capital via reinsurance, the fundamental problems remain. DeFi insurance represents a public good—its stability benefits the entire ecosystem—but without a mechanism to share costs, a "tragedy of the commons" ensues where no one is willing to pay, leaving the system vulnerable.

marsbit31 хв тому

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

marsbit31 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片