An insignificant amount, according to that URL: "I own small amounts (less than $500 worth at time of purchase) of crypto tokens or other crypto assets, which belong to an undisclosed address I use for research purposes. These do not represent a significant portion of my assets, and are used primarily to access token-gated projects and experiment with smart contracts rather than for any attempt to earn a return. If I do somehow end up with more money than I put in as a result, I intend to donate it."
> and is paid by a Filecoin fund
"The fellowship has no strings attached as far as my independence in researching and analyzing the crypto industry, and I am not obligated to do any work relating to Filecoin (nor am I obligated not to). Although my focus at the LIL will not involve Filecoin specifically (unless it independently happens to crop up in my work), I still wish to disclose it as a potential conflict of interest, should it come up."
Yes, thanks for the extended summary, but that's why I included the link.
I'm also doing an experiment with crypto. I bought $100 of BTC and $100 of ETH on paypal in Nov 2020, because well... paypal added that feature. It is now worth a combined $512.39. During the last bull run, it was near $2k. I plan on donating it some day as well! Regardless of your personal view of crypto, I think it would be pretty cool if more people did that.
Edit: of course, getting downvoted. i'll take the full -4 in the hopes that my comment spawns some future donations to charity.
I was unaware that we were back at all time highs in BTC & ETH, or that rugs had been returned to where they were pulled from and failed magic internet money projects that went to 0 had returned to 1.
I agree a lot with what she's saying about press trying to build an image of him as a young kid. But, at the end of the day, regardless of how the press frames things, it isn't like he's going to end up in juvenile hall. He will be tried as an adult.
As someone who's turning 50 soon, 30 seems like several lifetimes ago for me. Age is this weird thing and you only realize it more and more as you get older.
At least since the OJ case I think it's pretty clearly a part of a legal defenses goals to win or at least do damage control in the media for a high profile case, assuming resources to do so.
Even if sequestering worked better than it does, I think there are a lot of other subtle influences from mainstream consensus that affect all the participants in the process.
>I think there are a lot of other subtle influences from mainstream consensus that affect all the participants in the process.
But unlike OJ, political figures and the media higher-ups weren't nearly as personally invested in the outcome of the case.
Sam Bankman-Fraud is unique because he somehow managed to ensnare a good portion of those higher-ups in his scheme, so naturally they really want to do some damage control.
That approach is hierarchical, and it looks like this:
That didn't happen. (It's pretty firmly established that it did.)
And if it did, it wasn't that bad. (It was tens of billions of dollars.)
And if it was, that's not a big deal. (Again, it was tens of billions of dollars.)
And if it is, that's not my fault. <- ("But he's just a kid" rhetoric.)
And if it was, I didn't mean it. (Media has been pivoting harder towards "honest mistake" these days.)
And if I did, you deserved it.
Expect to see the media further pivot towards something resembling "honest mistake" (note that they're doing this already) before settling on "and that's why we need onerous regulation of cryptocurrencies" (which, unfortunately, has a chance of being taken seriously by the government because it affects currently-sitting politicians and not just the people whose dinner parties they attend).
I don't think I've ever read any substantive analysis that thought he was too young to know he was committing fraud. Not saying it never happened, but none of the analysis I've seen is suggesting he shouldn't be tried as an adult.
However, I have seen (and agree with) quite a bit of analysis suggesting that a person in their mid-20's with limited experience in the world of finance should not have been given this much money to work (gamble) with. He didn't just make a lot of money on crypto; he was given a lot of money by VC investors, who should have known better. The emphasis on his youth is, I think, meant to suggest that the investors were not doing their job, which is after all to determine whether a person should be given money to invest, and if so how much. Someone who plays video games during a pitch, unless they are pitching their new video game, should not have been given other people's money.
This comment is peak HN. What a navel-gazing over-analytic way of looking at it. Throw in words like "substantive" to make it sound really thoughtful. I don't think one needs to read any "substantive analysis" to have this impression of the general coverage of SBF in the media.
This is the same thing I've seen in commentary of the situation. His youth is only really brought up in the context that he and many of the people he was working with were founding these companies and getting huge investment to make big bets with the prior experience of some junior roles at Jane Street.
It’s not that anyone is describing his youth in an effort to render him blameless. They are reinforcing this image of him as aloof and practically just out of college in a way that softens public opinion and could lead to lighter sentencing and post-trial public treatment.
Even describing him as “mid-20s” when he was 27 when he started FTX is a deliberate and slightly misleading word choice that reporters use to buttress the version of the story they think will drive clicks. I don’t think reporters are trying to let him off but I think they’re taking the bait on the version of the story his team thinks lands the softest with the general public.
On top of that, the author’s contrast of his treatment to how actually young people of color are treated by the police, legal system and media is totally valid.
I think what happens with white collar crime is that it seems so distant from regular people that they just are not capable of sizing its dimension and impact. Yes this guy stole, misplaced, lost, billions of dollars but... what even is a billion dollar? It's abstract, it's not real. That kind of money just doesn't feel real.
On the contrary, shoplifting, maybe being assaulted at gun point even so that your iPhone is stolen. That feels threatening and real, that's something people have seen or know of someone not too distant that has experienced it. It's easy to understand the gravity of the crime and so it becomes more difficult for people to dismiss it.
But that's public opinion, what's the excuse of educated journalists? SBF has committed some of the most egregious financial crimes in history and he needs to be made responsible.
I think educated journalists correctly intuit that, to their typical reader, this is a funny story of a rich guy who stole from other rich people by badly pretending to be a savvy investor. That doesn't make it OK, but it means moral outrage at him is a lot less interesting to read and stories about his antics are a lot more interesting.
Not in the post-Internet era. It's important to remember that the media was essentially killed by online classifieds and later, google and Facebook. They have only a small fraction of the resources and funding they had compared to 20-25 years ago.
24 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 60.2 ms ] threadShe owns crypto and is paid by a Filecoin fund...
https://www.mollywhite.net/crypto-disclosures
An insignificant amount, according to that URL: "I own small amounts (less than $500 worth at time of purchase) of crypto tokens or other crypto assets, which belong to an undisclosed address I use for research purposes. These do not represent a significant portion of my assets, and are used primarily to access token-gated projects and experiment with smart contracts rather than for any attempt to earn a return. If I do somehow end up with more money than I put in as a result, I intend to donate it."
> and is paid by a Filecoin fund
"The fellowship has no strings attached as far as my independence in researching and analyzing the crypto industry, and I am not obligated to do any work relating to Filecoin (nor am I obligated not to). Although my focus at the LIL will not involve Filecoin specifically (unless it independently happens to crop up in my work), I still wish to disclose it as a potential conflict of interest, should it come up."
I'm also doing an experiment with crypto. I bought $100 of BTC and $100 of ETH on paypal in Nov 2020, because well... paypal added that feature. It is now worth a combined $512.39. During the last bull run, it was near $2k. I plan on donating it some day as well! Regardless of your personal view of crypto, I think it would be pretty cool if more people did that.
Edit: of course, getting downvoted. i'll take the full -4 in the hopes that my comment spawns some future donations to charity.
As someone who's turning 50 soon, 30 seems like several lifetimes ago for me. Age is this weird thing and you only realize it more and more as you get older.
Even if sequestering worked better than it does, I think there are a lot of other subtle influences from mainstream consensus that affect all the participants in the process.
But unlike OJ, political figures and the media higher-ups weren't nearly as personally invested in the outcome of the case.
Sam Bankman-Fraud is unique because he somehow managed to ensnare a good portion of those higher-ups in his scheme, so naturally they really want to do some damage control.
That approach is hierarchical, and it looks like this:
That didn't happen. (It's pretty firmly established that it did.)
And if it did, it wasn't that bad. (It was tens of billions of dollars.)
And if it was, that's not a big deal. (Again, it was tens of billions of dollars.)
And if it is, that's not my fault. <- ("But he's just a kid" rhetoric.)
And if it was, I didn't mean it. (Media has been pivoting harder towards "honest mistake" these days.)
And if I did, you deserved it.
Expect to see the media further pivot towards something resembling "honest mistake" (note that they're doing this already) before settling on "and that's why we need onerous regulation of cryptocurrencies" (which, unfortunately, has a chance of being taken seriously by the government because it affects currently-sitting politicians and not just the people whose dinner parties they attend).
I wonder if that started as “just send donations to mainstream political parties”…
However, I have seen (and agree with) quite a bit of analysis suggesting that a person in their mid-20's with limited experience in the world of finance should not have been given this much money to work (gamble) with. He didn't just make a lot of money on crypto; he was given a lot of money by VC investors, who should have known better. The emphasis on his youth is, I think, meant to suggest that the investors were not doing their job, which is after all to determine whether a person should be given money to invest, and if so how much. Someone who plays video games during a pitch, unless they are pitching their new video game, should not have been given other people's money.
Even describing him as “mid-20s” when he was 27 when he started FTX is a deliberate and slightly misleading word choice that reporters use to buttress the version of the story they think will drive clicks. I don’t think reporters are trying to let him off but I think they’re taking the bait on the version of the story his team thinks lands the softest with the general public.
On top of that, the author’s contrast of his treatment to how actually young people of color are treated by the police, legal system and media is totally valid.
On the contrary, shoplifting, maybe being assaulted at gun point even so that your iPhone is stolen. That feels threatening and real, that's something people have seen or know of someone not too distant that has experienced it. It's easy to understand the gravity of the crime and so it becomes more difficult for people to dismiss it.
But that's public opinion, what's the excuse of educated journalists? SBF has committed some of the most egregious financial crimes in history and he needs to be made responsible.