Has he? From what I've seen, he backpedaled almost immediately. Everyone just seems pissed at him for taking $15M to be a spokesperson, but the moment FTX imploded he was calling for regulation and saying that no investors will be touching crypto exchanges till then.
If he's actually been supporting SBF, I'd be curious to know.
Watch his testimony before Congress about FTX. He says in no uncertain terms that the cause of the collapse was Binance. He's also stated early on in the collapse that he would back SBF again. He's a paid shill.
Have you watched the testimony? I encourage you to watch it. It's not just that he said those things, it's that he omitted much of the rest.
As a third party observer his responses were just absolutely baffling. Whenever blame was pointed at Sam he seemed to say some variation "we need more data" or "we need <my brand> of regulation" or deflecting to Binance/CZ while not giving Binance the same benefit of "we need more data" that he gave to Sam.
I've come to question if O'Leary is to SBF as Jeffry Picower was to Madoff. An entity who perhaps secretly knew but can never be proven to know and just looks like another victim.
Because he was concerned they were insolvent and were using customer funds to cover trading losses and buy penthouses.
Turns out they were insolvent and using customer funds to cover trading losses and buying penthouses.
Unless CZ held a gun to SBFs head and made him lever up, lose billions then double down, take customer funds to the casino and try to win back $10billion then its kinda hard to blame CZ.
Isn't SBF responsible for Kevin losing a decent chunk of money?
How can you support somebody who loses you money? Does Kevin really believe SBF did it all on accident/got in over his head/didn't know he messed up until it was too late?
As far as I can see, SBF paid Kevin to be a spokesman for FTX, and he lost that money when FTX went down. I don't think he had personal investments in FTX beyond his reputation.
Another request by The Associated Press, Bloomberg L.P., The Financial Times Ltd., CNBC LLC, Reuters News & Media Inc., Dow Jones & Co., Inc., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, Insider, Inc., and WP Company LLC, publisher of The Washington Post (collectively, the “News Organizations”).
The press moves faster than the justice system and based on the facts that were public, their willingness to toss him softballs caused many people to rightfully question their journalistic integrity, simple as that.
There are many other newsworthy things for which they didn’t wait for all the facts to come out before they publish stories. Waiting for the facts to come in is an excuse.
Yeah I thought that was interesting. But are there counter examples to the trend? SBF-hostile media that aren’t on the list, or SBF-friendly media that are?
I disagree. There was one NYT article that seemed a little too soft that everyone jumped on, and like 10 other NYT articles published at the same time that were completely normal. Here's a list of them if you're curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33609850
Not curious, but thank you. While you may be right in regard to the ratio, the problem of that 1 and human psychology has damage done. Also, dealbook interview?! That trumps all the other articles, IMHO.
One has to remember that journalism is 50%+ access. All those hard hitting journalists just didn't get access, so clearly there's a place for both approaches in journalism.
From the list, the WP stands out as not concentrating on financial coverage. Neither does NYT. AP and Reuters are general coverage, but with fairly solid business interests.
CNN, ABC, Fox, USA Today are all missing, from national news, but I'm not sure I'd expect them to get into this. Fox Business should be on the list, but redundant to WSJ.
But at some point I imagine the list of parties becomes cumbersome. Maybe it was just the first six to click on the discord invite.
They don't know. If they found out (via a leak, not via doing something explicitly illegal themselves like hacking), they would be allowed to publish the name even with the current court order. Basic 1st amendment precedent.
Kinda odd that they care so much then - like it's probably just some rich friends of SBF who were happy to put money up for an old friend, but didn't want their names plastered all over the news.
That’s exactly what’s at the core of the request — if it was some rich friends of SBF, maybe they’d be happy to gift him the money — but the requirement is that the invidividuals providing the sureity be sufficiently at arm’s length that they would be able to influence him not to flee - so that they could get their money back.
For all we know at this point, they could be co-conspirators.
I wonder how often such motions pass. It's obvious CoinDesk wants it so they can plaster the names on their website for views, so how does this weigh against a reasonable measure of privacy? These people haven't done anything illegal by signing sureties.
Not everything bad is illegal. This guy screwed a lot of people over, bailing him out (especially considering the price tag) was bullshit and the public deserves to know who thinks he should be out living a normal live and is willing to fork over the cash for it.
Nah they place all sorts of restrictions that have nothing to do with helping show up at trial. For instance they may require you not use weed or an occasional glass of wine even though there's basically no material effect of such use on your showing up.
The order is rarely against intoxication but rather consumption. Consuming a glass of wine and not getting intoxicated would violate many of these orders.
Are those restrictions common in cases that don't allegedly involve intoxication? For the most part, the federal restrictions I've seen usually have a purported connection to the criminal activity.
And also ensuring that the party does not collude with accomplices to hide money and/or evidences. I'm not totally confident the bail's terms would keep SBF from doing that.
This is a non-sequitur. The definition of what bail is and why does not address any point in my comment. It’s just a condescension allowing you to pretend you’re right about something without pushing back against my point.
The guy had a huge bail and it was paid by third parties. People have a right to know who.
I am saying he’s not guilty of any crimes yet (though he likely will be soon).
Beyond reasonable restrictions to his behavior (monitoring to make sure he isn’t actively committing further crimes), he does have the right to live a normal life. That’s why we have trials and sentence people after the conviction (in other words, the punishment doesn’t even start until we decide it’s fair, that’s a cornerstone of our system).
You are implying that he is avoiding a punishment, which he is not.
You can argue in general cash bail creates bad incentives and is inherently unfair (I agree), but that’s a separate argument and is best discussed relative to all cases not just this one.
I think you're not addressing the original point again, at least as I understood it.
What you're saying is spot on of course, but they're not asking for the people in question to be put on trial. They just want the names of the people to be unsealed.
57 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadIf he's actually been supporting SBF, I'd be curious to know.
As a third party observer his responses were just absolutely baffling. Whenever blame was pointed at Sam he seemed to say some variation "we need more data" or "we need <my brand> of regulation" or deflecting to Binance/CZ while not giving Binance the same benefit of "we need more data" that he gave to Sam.
I've come to question if O'Leary is to SBF as Jeffry Picower was to Madoff. An entity who perhaps secretly knew but can never be proven to know and just looks like another victim.
Because he was concerned they were insolvent and were using customer funds to cover trading losses and buy penthouses.
Turns out they were insolvent and using customer funds to cover trading losses and buying penthouses.
Unless CZ held a gun to SBFs head and made him lever up, lose billions then double down, take customer funds to the casino and try to win back $10billion then its kinda hard to blame CZ.
How can you support somebody who loses you money? Does Kevin really believe SBF did it all on accident/got in over his head/didn't know he messed up until it was too late?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.59...
Which is hardly novel, the only difference is so many have been bought up for propaganda rather than as a money making business.
CNN, ABC, Fox, USA Today are all missing, from national news, but I'm not sure I'd expect them to get into this. Fox Business should be on the list, but redundant to WSJ.
But at some point I imagine the list of parties becomes cumbersome. Maybe it was just the first six to click on the discord invite.
https://ia801508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...
Same day:
https://ia801508.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5...
Or do they not know at all?
For all we know at this point, they could be co-conspirators.
Disagree. There are plenty of correlations between intoxication and appearing at a certain place at a certain time in a condition of sound mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome
Society has decided that for most people, low-level intoxication is no big deal, but I’d argue it is for people accused of crimes.
Even one beer could make fleeing just appealing enough.
The guy had a huge bail and it was paid by third parties. People have a right to know who.
Beyond reasonable restrictions to his behavior (monitoring to make sure he isn’t actively committing further crimes), he does have the right to live a normal life. That’s why we have trials and sentence people after the conviction (in other words, the punishment doesn’t even start until we decide it’s fair, that’s a cornerstone of our system).
You are implying that he is avoiding a punishment, which he is not.
You can argue in general cash bail creates bad incentives and is inherently unfair (I agree), but that’s a separate argument and is best discussed relative to all cases not just this one.
What you're saying is spot on of course, but they're not asking for the people in question to be put on trial. They just want the names of the people to be unsealed.
The only end this would serve is to give people a circus while they wait for the trial.