I'm glad to see the parents getting some scrutiny here because it sounds like FTX probably wouldn't have been successful without them. But it also wouldn't have been this widespread without Sequoia, and this part really got me:
> No one in Silicon Valley likes to think of themselves as privileged. Ayn Rand-reading VCs and entrepreneurs tend to bristle at the suggestion that their decisions are anything other than a product of calculated reasoning. Yet the valley’s knee-jerk elitism is so blindingly obvious that it seems almost beside the point to bring up. Investors overwhelmingly favor companies run by White men, often hailing from a tiny group of elite colleges, while shunning anyone who deviates from their superficial sense of what a successful founder should look, talk and act like. Some openly discriminate against founders over the age of 30, against founders with an accent and against anyone who comports themselves as if they’re not already rich. God help you if you show up to a pitch meeting wearing a suit.
When the money becomes so detached from reality as to think that people over the age of 30 aren't capable of building products, you know stuff like this is going to keep happening. So much of the stupid stuff SBF did reads as pure inexperience wrapped around an untouchable genius persona. The fact that FTX ran on Quickbooks and had zero internal financial controls really just shows how little due diligence Sequoia really did when they were vetting SBF.
FTX couldn't have been such a colossal disaster without the Sequoia funding, but they'll plead ignorance and move on to fund the next major 20-something fraud without thinking twice about it.
The percentage doesn't matter. FTX basically laundered its reputation through Sequoia. Sequoia gave them legitimacy to go out and be a huge player and tell investors and the celebrities that endorsed them "we're not like the other guys."
> Bankman-Fried's parents named owners of $16.4 mln vacation home
They're strategy to claim they were merely supportive parents is undermined by the multimillion dollar properties they bought with money from their son.
If my son was running a billion dollar crypto company and I was a lawyer, I'd certainly ask the right questions to make sure he wasn't getting himself in over his head and had protections in place.
But maybe the multimillion dollar property calmed any concern they might have had
If SBF can pass the scrutiny of multiple journalists, investors and hedge funds then I don't think he'd have any issue with someone with a legal background.
SBF is a lot of things but he's most certainly a good speaker and persuader, as most swindlers tend to be.
Bankman specifically extracted 10M by creating a tax-friendly scheme: SBF would increase his own loan from 250 to 260M from Alameda, donate it to his dad, cancel the loan later while offsetting with a charity donation to his mother.
Why did Bankman father do it ? He was humiliated by his 200k a year salary at FTX US and commanded his son pay him more.
Bankman was employed by FTX and akin to a cofounder. Hardler an innocent granpa receiving a windfall by surprise from a diligent son committing crimes in secret...
No matter what your parenting style some kids are gonna group up and do whacky stuff. Training someone to be ethical is definitely part of the parenting job but not fool proof!
A+. Kids come out with their own personalities which will grow and change in response to events. You can provide some of the events but not all. You can't really control how they change in response to those events. The idea that a child is a tabula rasa, fully shaped by the parent, is harmful to parents and children.
It literally says in the article that the mother was a promoter of consequentialism which excuses any act, no matter how dastardly, so long as you believe the end justifies the means. If she lacked a moral compass it's of no surprise her son didn't have one either.
I’ve read a substantial part of the essay now, and I think you’re reading to much into that. The crimes she cites are quite different, and I doubt she would implying “moving past blame” for something like her son did.
While reading this I found myself to be envious of the leg up some people can get owing to the circumstances of their birth. However, I was also disgusted by the use of term "nepo baby" to condemn this entire class of people.
It seems to me the parents were basically good people who just couldn't see their son's psychopathy for what it was. After all parents' inability to view their children without bias is a trope that has been repeated throughout history.
That said, the philosophy of - as the article put it - the ends justify the means can only inevitably lead to these outcomes. Whether free will is an illusion or not, it is pure hubris to think that our knowledge alone can guide us to absolute good for the greatest number of people. We simply cannot process the entire system, and morality is a helpful heuristic here. The specifics of moral code should always be up for discussion, but to use some outdated part of the code to dismiss the whole is just rash.
No read the new indictment of his parents: they were not good people and they funneled money out. The best they did was because the end justified the means, but some of their money extraction out of Alameda clients was pure greed.
Jung brought into psychology the notion that things tend to turn into their opposite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiodromia) as well as the concept of the (psychological) shadow.
The question raised in the article of how could such "deeply ethical people" be "so close to such a massive ethical lapse", is less paradoxical in this light. The same phenomenon shows up with the Effective Altruism movement, and of course lots of other things that present themselves as extremely good.
36 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 196 ms ] thread> No one in Silicon Valley likes to think of themselves as privileged. Ayn Rand-reading VCs and entrepreneurs tend to bristle at the suggestion that their decisions are anything other than a product of calculated reasoning. Yet the valley’s knee-jerk elitism is so blindingly obvious that it seems almost beside the point to bring up. Investors overwhelmingly favor companies run by White men, often hailing from a tiny group of elite colleges, while shunning anyone who deviates from their superficial sense of what a successful founder should look, talk and act like. Some openly discriminate against founders over the age of 30, against founders with an accent and against anyone who comports themselves as if they’re not already rich. God help you if you show up to a pitch meeting wearing a suit.
When the money becomes so detached from reality as to think that people over the age of 30 aren't capable of building products, you know stuff like this is going to keep happening. So much of the stupid stuff SBF did reads as pure inexperience wrapped around an untouchable genius persona. The fact that FTX ran on Quickbooks and had zero internal financial controls really just shows how little due diligence Sequoia really did when they were vetting SBF.
FTX couldn't have been such a colossal disaster without the Sequoia funding, but they'll plead ignorance and move on to fund the next major 20-something fraud without thinking twice about it.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-bankman-frieds-...
> Bankman-Fried's parents named owners of $16.4 mln vacation home
They're strategy to claim they were merely supportive parents is undermined by the multimillion dollar properties they bought with money from their son.
At the time, by all appearances, their son was a very successful entrepreneur.
Considering SBF himself still doesn't believe he did anything wrong, it's entirely possible he made his family believe it.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-ftx-ceo-says-unprecedented...
If my son was running a billion dollar crypto company and I was a lawyer, I'd certainly ask the right questions to make sure he wasn't getting himself in over his head and had protections in place.
But maybe the multimillion dollar property calmed any concern they might have had
SBF is a lot of things but he's most certainly a good speaker and persuader, as most swindlers tend to be.
Why did Bankman father do it ? He was humiliated by his 200k a year salary at FTX US and commanded his son pay him more.
After I had kids, I would guess it's 80% personality.
That is not consequentialism at all. Consequentialism is just the opposite: what matters is the consequences of your actions, not what you believe.
You may not owe "elite pricks" better but you owe this community better if you're posting to it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/barbara-fried-beyond-blam...
"The philosophy of personal responsibility has ruined criminal justice and economic policy. It’s time to move past blame." - Barbara H. Fried
And I think it’s a quite interesting essay!
It seems to me the parents were basically good people who just couldn't see their son's psychopathy for what it was. After all parents' inability to view their children without bias is a trope that has been repeated throughout history.
That said, the philosophy of - as the article put it - the ends justify the means can only inevitably lead to these outcomes. Whether free will is an illusion or not, it is pure hubris to think that our knowledge alone can guide us to absolute good for the greatest number of people. We simply cannot process the entire system, and morality is a helpful heuristic here. The specifics of moral code should always be up for discussion, but to use some outdated part of the code to dismiss the whole is just rash.
The question raised in the article of how could such "deeply ethical people" be "so close to such a massive ethical lapse", is less paradoxical in this light. The same phenomenon shows up with the Effective Altruism movement, and of course lots of other things that present themselves as extremely good.