It's insane he could have cashed out as a billionaire and lived the high life for the remainder of his life but doubled down instead and is now facing a stretch in prison. I'd also like to put my hand up and say I was one of those who was cynical that he'd end up in prison so glad that seems to be happening.
I reckoned he'd escape some how being let off on some technicality of some prosecutor not following due diligence.
I doubt there was any time in his career where all the accounts were fully legit and he could have cashed out. There would always have been some investors who hadn't got the returns they expected and would have gone digging.
Hindsight is always 20/20 but as FTX was growing and Alameda was losing money, he could have shut down Alameda before it went negative. Then, he could've focused solely on FTX, which was apparently worth 10 of billions.
FTX supposedly had funding rounds that valued it at like $30B. This is equity, not deposits. Possibly massively overpriced due to crypto bubble, but likely that he could've extracted generational wealth from it.
I'd be shocked if they had any solid claim at even $1B using honest numbers. The crypto world loves to make valuations like “I just sold one to my buddy at $500, the other tokens are worth $45 trillion” but at the end of the day there just wasn't that much liquidity since most people aren't interested in the product. For a company like FTX which is getting fees from their customer's holdings that doesn't leave a lot of room for billions unless they could have cashed out at the peak of the bubble.
Or just settled for the generational wealth he'd get from his parents. You really had to try hard in this guy's position to not live a life of complete material ease, and he pulled it off!
In crypto, those two seem to mean the same thing. Three yards of ironclad terms of service inform customers that the deposited funds are fully and permanently the exchange's funny money
Like most of the financial world, the whole thing was a confidence game. Shutting down Alameda would have destroyed the illusion and the chips would have begun to fall shortly after, IMHO.
> It's insane he could have cashed out as a billionaire
hah no. The billionaire claim was bull used to promote himself and his businesses. I wouldn't be surprised if a detailed accounting showed that he has never had a positive liquidation value for FTX and Alameda at any point in time.
It's a common problem people have in reasoning about fraudsters-- there is a tendency to only peel back one layer of fraud and get caught because the fraud continues all the way down. :)
(okay never positive at any time might be a little too far, I wouldn't be shocked if it was a few millions in the black at some point or another-- but billions? I would be shocked unless you used obviously fraudulent accounting like valuing illiquid assets at the last trade price)
> hah no. The billionaire claim was bull used to promote himself and his businesses.
Granted, but as we have seen with these exit scams you don't need to be operating a cash or crypto positive business in order to run off with people's funds.
All of these leaks and loans etc... were likely him siphoning funds if/when he was eventually caught. I still think it takes a certain kind of crook to setup shop in the Bahamas, purchase an immensely ostentatious home, make your sexual proclivities known to the World while splashing money around to make politicians make favourable legislation for your crooked business, stream yourself playing video games while doing pitches to VCs and getting them, all while talking about effective altruism and guaranteed yield and none of that has to do with being business savvy and everything to do with be a grifter.
He is like Razzlekhan's bf, he had a golden ticket with billions in BTC and could have just woke up and left to Russia or Belarus (and eventually Turkey where all the Oligarchs are now buying up sea-side Villas given the distressed Lira) where he could have even been chummy with Putin given how he evaded the US intelligence community: instead the two were out buying Playstations with walmart gift cards and making shitty rap videos on youtube and got pinched when they left a copy of the private keys on a cloud server!
There I agree: there would have been opportunities for a profitable illegal exit.
But the kind of grifters who are able to say "this is good enough" don't tend to find themselves atop such a gigantic scheme to begin with... they scam off a few million dollars and fade silently into the night.
> I reckoned he'd escape some how being let off on some technicality of some prosecutor not following due diligence.
Or [0]...
This is peak HN, as is the bulk of the top post, you guys are entirely clueless and refuse to see anything that detracts from your own insular narrative(s). Seriously, if you think SBF was a conman, which he is, thenyou should really take a dose of reality and see what pillars SV and big tech as a whole is built on. it really is no differnt than that of Mega corps, Wall Street and Banks.
He and his ex-gf worked at Jane Street, and are part of a SV elite in-class, they (but specifically SBF) were already living the high-life before they even knew what Cryptocurrencies were. That was probably never thier goal, they probably sought relevance in a World that was curated and manicured for them because of what class they belong to; only to find out that this space will eat you up and ridicule you to no end if you suck at it mercilessly: I speak from experience as a founder in this space. And to be honest, these two are worse than RazzleKhan and her bf (look it up) as they take the cake at sheer incompetence.
Sidenote: I'm glad it was downvoted as I know it struck a nerve and serve dit's intended purpose; but I'm also really starting to feel I am becoming a sort Tech-Diogenes around here, and I'm not sure if that's good or bad seeing as how I know how is fate ended.
At least he held had his integrity in one piece. That should count for something. What bugs me is why people would trust all these absolute nobodies with media coverage that makes you immediately question their sanity with their money. It's like picking any random junkie off the pill-bridge in Amsterdam and asking them to hold on to your cash for a while.
> I reckoned he'd escape some how being let off on some technicality of some prosecutor not following due diligence.
Call me cynical and conspiratorial, but I expect that the camera glitches are being set up as we speak. The sleepy guards being scheduled. The one photo of "his body" being generated. On the bright side, at least SBF isn't tall enough to simply stand up if he were to "kill himself" in his cell by hanging.
What gives me optimism is that if this is done, we can at least have some visibility into his accounts.
Even assuming it's true that Epstein didn't take his own life, SBF holds nowhere near the level of significance to justify such actions. The matters he's been associated with pale in comparison to Epstein and the potential political fallout is extremely minor in comparison.
The grim, yet in all probability accurate, reality is that confronting the prospect of spending numerous decades incarcerated is an exceedingly tough pill to swallow, particularly for individuals who've enjoyed rather comfortable existences and anticipated its continuation.
If, by any chance, we find SBF in a cell dead it's significantly more probable that this is the underlying cause.
Perhaps you hadn’t heard he was the second biggest donor for the 2022 elections. Might be spicy.
“Bankman-Fried contributed more than $70 million to election campaigns in less than 18 months, placing him among the nation’s top political donors. He personally gave at least $40 million to politicians and political action committees ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, mostly to Democrats and liberal-leaning groups, making him the second overall top donor to Democrats, only behind George Soros, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”
His prospects of achieving even a fraction of his prior earnings in the future are exceedingly slim. Even under the assumption that he manages to avoid conviction on all counts, he will unquestionably be prohibited from assuming any director or officer role within a company ever again.
Should you hold the view that politicians are entirely self-serving and akin to human cockroaches, there's minimal justification for endorsing him or expending even an iota of political capital on him moving forward. Conversely, there's ample incentive to distance oneself from him at present while fervently attempting to retain possession of the funds he has already contributed.
Formerly an asset, he has now transformed into nothing more than a liability that can be side-stepped by just feigning ignorance and maintaining distance.
> The grim, yet in all probability accurate, reality is that confronting the prospect of spending numerous decades incarcerated is an exceedingly tough pill to swallow, particularly for individuals who've enjoyed rather comfortable existences and anticipated its continuation.
Yep, even with their omertà vows, that's what finally got the New York mob to start turning on each other. Nobody, even those street-hardened guys, wanted to spend decades or the rest of his life in prison, so they started cooperating with prosecutors.
If you watch some of his interviews after the news of the scam broke out, he was incriminating himself every time he opened his mouth. Almost as if he thought laws are just for plebs.
SBF is going to be nailed to the cross as an warning to others.
The case is a slam dunk, there are mountains of evidence, plenty of eager witnesses and prosecutors who would love to add his scalp to their collection. There's no way he's getting off on a technicality.
Yeah, and as much as he gave in political donations to all sorts of politicians in the past, since it looks like he won't be able to give any more in the future they have no reason for loyalty to try and influence anything behind the scenes.
In the book 48 Laws of Power from Robert Greene, Law 13 addresses this. If you held them by past deeds people will feel that they owe you something and nobody wants to owe anything to anyone. It is better instead to show them what they have to gain from now on.
Think of what he did to his parents too… Two bright Stanford professors/lawyers now with black marks on their careers. Silver lining is they surely have enough tucked and hidden away to live very comfortable once this blows over. Albeit in disgrace.
> I'd also like to put my hand up and say I was one of those who was cynical that he'd end up in prison so glad that seems to be happening.
If you read the article, all it says it that he's going to jail for the completely legal act of publishing correspondence that was sent to him. He hasn't been sentenced or convicted or anything. The judge just doesn't like him.
Theoretically, you deny bail to people who are flight risks.
> the completely legal act of publishing correspondence that was sent to him
...from the private diaries of his ex-girlfriend and former business partner who is now testifying against him, making this the latest in a long series of failed attempts at witness tampering, a federal crime in its own right. It's also what has turned out to be the last straw with a judge who has up to this point been astonishingly tolerant with all the other ways Bankman-Fried has tried to screw around with the remarkably lenient terms of his former bail agreement.
> the completely legal act of publishing correspondence that was sent to him
Clearly the judge didn't consider it "completely legal", presumably based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512[0] which says the following may result in a fine or imprisonment (edited for brevity):
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
...
(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;
Judges also typically hold an aversion to what could be likened to the legal version of 'I'm not touching you!' That's at least part of the reason behind the revocation of his bail.
He's going to jail for intimidating and tampering with witnesses, which is fully appropriate. The country would be doing better if all people participating in such conduct were sent to await their trails in jail.
There was an illuminating interview he had before being arrested:
COWEN: ...let’s say there’s a game: 51 percent, you double the Earth out somewhere else; 49 percent, it all disappears. Would you play that game? And would you keep on playing that, double or nothing? So, what’s the chance we’re left with anything? Don’t I just St. Petersburg paradox you into nonexistence?
BANKMAN-FRIED: Well, not necessarily. Maybe you St. Petersburg paradox into an enormously valuable existence. That’s the other option.
For anyone wondering about the verb to St. Petersburg paradox:
The game is a simple 50/50 for a win or loss. You begin with one unit (say: $1). Every round you don't lose the stake doubles. The game terminates if you lose. How much should you pay (expected value) to enter such game?
Given the bank - offering you the gamble - has infinite resources the expected value is infinite.
Well of course one way [0] (another more nuanced way is to question the simple axiom of maximizing the expected value [1]) to resolve the paradox is to limit the resources realistically, analogous to Martingale [2].
Given the world's GDP at ~ $100 trillion (or about N ~ 46 rounds) the expected value (beginning with $1) would be only about $(N+1)/2 so in this case $23,5.
Why is the expected value infinite? It seems fairly obvious that you will not make much money on such a game as we all know you can't flip a coin many times without tails showing up. To make infinite money in such a game you would need effectively "infinite luck" no?
If you get 2 dollars on the first head, 4 dollars on the second, etc., then the probability of receiving each dollar amount multiplied by the dollar amount is 1 dollar.
Of course, the proof only works if dollars continue to have linearly increasing value to you as you keep accruing them. If their value to you logarithmically increases, the expected value is not infinite.
Consider the chance of winning at least 100 times. It's 1 over 2^100, and you win at least 2^100. So the small chance and the big reward "balance out", kind of.
But the reward is not limited there. Once you reach each and every "balance point", the next step is 50% chance for doubling the reward. If you currently have X, the value of continuing to play is 1.5X. This is independent of how big X is, or how unlikely you have made it this far (sorta a reverse Gambler's Fallacy). And it's why the expected value is infinite.
Oh, I wish I could find it, but there's an excellent video by a mathematician explaining why an infinity doesn't work in your favor here. IIRC, it's because as the number of throws approach infinity, the odds also approach being infinitesimal, and you'll still lose.
It seems that the scenario Cowen put forth and the St. Petersburg paradox are not quite the same? In St. Petersburg (at least as Wikipedia describes it) you walk away with the accumulated winnings, whereas in the example put forth if you lose you walk away with nothing.
I was wondering because it would seem with Cowen's example the expected value is just $1 (ignoring the 51% edge). The 51% edge ends up making the expected value infinite, so the intuition lines up even though the exact details don't.
I see it as a clever and extreme variation of the same underlying fallacy:
a) the favored outcome is slightly more probable (51%)
b) the expected value of losing could be expressed as negative infinity
That SBF answered this (rhetorical) question that confidently and quick with not necessarily but what followed was simply something like look on the bright side is effectively imho parroting but at least he handled the verb eloquently. It would certainly take me like 20-30 seconds to process it.
This is the epitome of "understands how things work but makes bad decisions".
You do have to be smart to see that there might be a more positive outcome. But you have to be unwise to gamble.
My first boss (trading) told me, "Our job is to be in business tomorrow". Which is relevant because in that business you actually can blow up in a day.
He's a gambler and gambler be gambling. At the beginning of that interview with Tyler Cowen, he's asked what makes him better. He doesn't sound like he knows, but he doesn't want to acknowledge luck. Instead he speaks like someone who can see patterns in entropy. I think at one point SBF started believing in his own legend and thought that he's actually doing something special that sets him apart. He can read the language of chance. The way that an addict tries to repeat the exact routine of the day that led to a past big win, before his next gambling spree, thinking that "surely, spilling a bit of maple syrup in my coffee that morning had something to do with it".
> This is the epitome of "understands how things work but makes bad decisions".
I'm not sure I'd even call this 'understands how things work' - everyone who's heard of marginal utility knows that large scale double-or-nothing 51/49 gambles very rarely make sense to take.
To me this sounds more like someone hopped up on a nootropic that causes compulsive gambling, like Emsam.
Agree. The St Petersburg paradox isn't about a single 50/50 wager. Both SBF and Cowen seem to not understand that. Instead they simply start jacking off to infinity because lizard brain says Petersburg is related to infinity somehow.
The "logic" that are using here would justify everyone to go to a casino and put their life savings down on black.
It's gambler brain logic just couched in pseudo-intellectual terminology to make them sound smart. The equivalent of techno babble for gambling.
From just that snippet, Cowen sounds like he's challenging SBF on it. I don't see Cowen "jacking off to infinity", but rather seemingly expressing that such a wager is a horrible idea. He says:
> And would you keep on playing that, double or nothing?
The point being that if you'd push that button now, in this world, then what would be different in the new world to stop you from pushing the button again? There's no stopping point, hence the St. Petersburg paradox. Maybe the button has already been pushed, maybe multiple times. If anything, Cowen seems to be presciently pointing out that SBF's attitude will inevitably lead to disaster.
SBF does seem to be misunderstanding: push the button forever, and maybe magic will happen!
I took it to mean "I understand the St Petersburg Paradox, but I think I have a way out".
Which is actually why it's both intelligent and dumb at once. You have to have done some reading in your life to understand this thing. As someone who did well at math and worked in trading, he would have come across it. But it's also unwise because actually lots of other people have also studied it for a long time, and they are not declaring victory.
Almost by definition the only “huge winners” at the roulette table are the people who keep putting it all on black and let it ride. Because the people who take their winnings off can’t ever get the huge payouts.
And some people seem absolutely unable to understand the probabilities involved. It seems to almost be a requirement for startup leaders.
Is it a famous quote or something? I doubt he was the first guy to think of it, and neither was anyone at Barings. Anyone in trading could feasibly have thought of it independently.
Leeson certainly wasn't the first guy to think of it but he did in fact bring down the house by using exactly that strategy and Barings ended up not being there tomorrow one day on account of that. Lots of oversight failures.
That's reminiscent of a Martingale but the roles are reversed. That was a great question to put to him and gives some insight into how these things happen.
That was a good interview as it exposed SBF. His answers were painfully stupid for a billionaire. I lost a lot of respect for the VC community after listening to that interview, I don't know how they got this so wrong. Perhaps it was just the sham nature of crypto that put blinders on everyone?
Anyway, kudos to Cowen for having SBF on there and letting SBF talk and expose himself.
There has to be a certain mental aftereffect of going from a coddled life where nothing ever happens to you because you're a 'main character' and everybody else is just an NPC to the point where those NPC's put you in jail and hold you responsible for your actions. I've seen the term 'affluenza' in relation to this and it very much reminds me of some of the children of wealthy people that I know. They feel that they have deserved their station in life and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with them getting a free pass for whatever transgressions they make because they're the golden children of the future.
This results in the weirdest excesses and - invariably - they are proven right over and over again. Daddy will bail them out, buy off the authorities or donate to the school and all is forgiven. Running into the wall at this speed has to be a rude wake-up call.
The other dimension to it is he's spent most of his adult life being praised by Very Serious People for the rationality of his penchant for taking massive gambles and claiming they're just applied utilitarianism[1], why not take a few more...
It's the hagiography removed from Sequoia's website which amongst other things praises him not doing any due diligence on his business deals as understanding the prisoners' dilemma, paints him dropping out of his first job without a plan as ingenious "risk neutrality" rather than what loads of disaffected graduates with a safety net do and sees his decision to play League of Legends through his investment meeting with them as a sign of how awesome he is rather than a warning sign about his priorities and/or executive function...
The fall from affluence is like falling into a pit whose bottom keeps breaking and falling out each time after you land. As soon as you've fully absorbed the shock of the previous fall, you start falling again.
I can't imagine what it would feel like to fall from such extreme heights to such extreme lows.
I've seen this happen to two different German guys that I knew. Neither of them managed to put their lives back together afterwards. What also stands out for me about them is that they were complete jerks to others when they were 'riding high' and never for a second considered that the tables might be turned some day. But when that happened the amount of soft revenge they had to deal with was such that one of them removed himself from society completely. Because all of the supplicants when he was wealthy had his number when he wasn't in control of their lives anymore. Both ended up divorced.
Your description of the ground beneath breaking up over again and keep falling deeper is very apt. That's exactly how it happened.
I think it has grown to more than the children of rich parents. Rejecting responsibility for one's actions appears to be indicative of today's young adults. Their behavior in schools and public suggests they feel entitled, and even a victim of responsibility.
>Rejecting responsibility for one's actions appears to be indicative of today's young adults. Their behavior in schools and public suggests they feel entitled, and even a victim of responsibility.
Members of every generation have said this (or similar) about the generations that have come after them.
The stereotypical behavioural problems of new money Hollywood actors and musicians also fits the term 'affluenza'. Easy to imagine how celebrities could be deceived by social dynamics into thinking non-celebrities are NPCs.
The term became very popular during Ethan Couch's trial, because the judge bought it.
> Couch was indicted on four counts of intoxication manslaughter for recklessly driving under the influence. In December 2013, Judge Jean Hudson Boyd sentenced Couch to ten years of probation, subsequently ordering him to undergo therapy at a long term inpatient facility. Before sentencing, Couch's attorneys had argued that Couch had "affluenza" and needed rehabilitation instead of prison, arguing that Couch had no understanding of boundaries as his affluent parents had never given him any. Couch's sentence, judged by many as outrageously lenient, set off what The New York Times called "an emotional, angry debate that has stretched far beyond the North Texas suburbs".
It's interesting that this pretty much codifies the 'rich people have it easier in court' phenomenon, if 'being rich' is something that you can use in your defense no matter what the crime then that's an end run around justice. The discrepancy when dealing with rich vs poor in court is already tremendous, this acts like a force multiplier. I'd like to see that same judge looking at someone who is poor to give poverty as a defense being equally lenient. But I'm not too optimistic about that happening.
The problem with ponzi schemes is that they need to keep growing and growing but nothing can keep growing indefinitely. Most people, even those without any scruples, understand this and avoid ponzi schemes exactly because they inevitably blow up.
SBF knowingly went down a road that would land him in prison. His current behavior is self-destructive in exactly the same way. You can't expect SBF to behave rationally because if he was capable of that he would still be living the wealthy crypto life. He wouldn't have started a ponzi scheme in the first place.
I remember looking at those yield percentages and feeling tempted. 6-8% seemed insanely high compared to the fed rate at the time. I passed because it seemed like the best case scenario for my finances is that I would be making some sort of defi loan to a cartel or warlord.
It was obviously some form of pyramid scheme based on the rate alone.
And where would you have achieved 8% yields in a liquid instrument, prior to the recent Fed rate hikes? From the end of the GFC (and the start of QE) until when the current hiking cycle began, 8% was basically the cap of junk bond yields[0]. Half the time, it was under 6%.
Sure, you could probably have bought rental property or invested in a small business and come out above 8% yields, but those are highly illiquid and not comparable to deposits at FTX.
6% is the average yield there for the index. Within it there are plenty of bonds paying 8, 10, 12 etc. And plenty of others defaulting. But none are ponzi schemes.
The same applies to this. If someone offers you 400% it's a scam (Ponzi or otherwise). If someone offers you 8% it's risky or there is some other reason no one else has touched it.
8% is not inherently unachievable. Just good (and therefore likely there is some risk).
To me, the craziest thing is that he basically lucked into an insanely profitable position and STILL ended up losing so much on his dumb hedge fund he started stealing from clients...
As He keeps treated with kid gloves, he fails to recognise the seriousness of the situation he's in. A life of privilege does this to people because people in privilege just get all the understanding and benefit of the doubt and when they are nailed, they get a slap on the wrist. It's just how it is, the examples are endless but from a recent popular culture, you can make though experiment about someone of privilege attempting to poison someone at school v.s. someone off privilege doing the same.
When the thing is high profile enough and tightly put into the system they will end up getting the legal punishment but the process for them is way way less painful. Cross a border illegally? you sleep on the ground alone, covered with foil blanked for months in a detention center, you final punishment might not be something very high but your process is painful. You defraud people, go after them and, harass them and if you get caught you are surrounded with people sympathetic to you, trying to make sure that you don't have a time of hardship other than you are legally required. The final punishment can be something like living for many years in a highly secure building with no personal schedule and access to the rest of the society but at no point you suffer beyond that. You also get lot's of people around you trying to make sure that you will live in that building as less as possible.
IMHO He will not grasp the seriousness of his situation until everything is over and starts feeling some pain when he has some brilliant idea about crypto or something but he is locked up and can't pursue it.
Just as a point of interest, in terms of a legal defense in the US, "insanity" isn't what a lot of people think. It's not a medical term, and whether or not you're considered "insane" by the medical community doesn't enter into it.
All it means is that the person is unable to discern between right and wrong. That's it.
And if you successfully employ the defense (which very rarely succeeds), it doesn't mean you go free. It more likely means that you'll be institutionalized differently.
I mean, fleeing the country would make perfect sense to me. Publishing your ex-girlfriends diary to try and get her not to testify, after already randomly breaking other bail conditions to no gain just seems dumb.
Why would he be trying anything except (a) staying on bail and (b) arranging to disappear to a non extradition country?
Yes, criminals are often very dumb. Do you think SBF is smart? This seems kinda dumb. He thought it was a good idea to steal a bunch of peoples money, while lying and pretending to help people, with his batshit ideology. Now his life is fucked.
If he gets his due, he's gonna be doing 10-40+ years. I think there's a real chance he won't get the book at him (eg Jeff Skilling, don't know if I spelled his name right, don't care). It's not really worth it. Plus, everyone knows what a POS you are, which undermines your whole goal of making the world think you're an angel.
Anyway it's actually not a "smart person / dumb person" thing. You can be plenty smart, and you will probably still do some headscratching things in these situations. People reliably do. Lawyers do.
I'm also still just shocked that you seem to assume good decision making from the man, considering his history.
It's part of the reason some people don't post bail - if you're pretty sure you're going to end up in prison anyway, you might as well get started early so you can get out sooner.
Having health problems in your 60s is not guaranteed. My experience is that every decade after my 20s have been better than the previous decade. If I had to sacrifice a couple of decades, I'd rather them be my younger ones than my older ones.
I'm happy to hear that, it's just that the opposite is generally true for the vast majority of people as actuarial tables indicate. Nonetheless, I wish you health for many more years!
Yes, but that's generally because of a lifetime of poor health habits. Which means that it's a choice.
Don't get me wrong -- aging isn't for the faint of heart, and you are absolutely more likely to have health problems when you're older vs when you're younger.
But how healthy you live in your youth has an enormous affect on the odds of having major health problems when you're older.
As an older person myself, I suffer from several age-related health degradations, but they are relatively minor (as are the ones of nearly everyone my age that I know). And the upside to being older far outweighs those downsides.
Perhaps I'd feel differently if I had a major health issue -- but perhaps not. You can have a major health issue at any age, after all. All in all, being older is such an improvement that even if I did have major health issues, I suspect I'd still prefer to sacrifice my younger years over my older years.
But that's just me. Others likely have different opinions.
Cancer is an example of a major health problem that can hit anyone irrespective of their habits (although also much more likely than not depending on their habits), and it hits older people a lot more often.
But it makes good sense if you think you'll spend a year behind bars and the judicial process will also take about a year. You'll probably be found guilty and then immediately released.
If you know you're going down for a felony and intend to fight it all the way, consider skipping bail.
You will be held in the county jail, usually somewhere in your metro area, until your sentencing. It is much easier for people to visit you in the local jail than it will be once you're shipped out to the state pen 2 hours away. After a few rounds of 4-hour commutes for a 30-minute visitation, people stop coming to see you.
Taking the fall early keeps you out of trouble too-- no babies being born 9 months into your sentence or drama arising from you "just trying to talk with" witnesses.
In lots of the world, if you're found guilty then the state pays for your prison cell and food. Yet if you're found not guilty, then you have to repay the state for the food and accomodation you wrongly received.
I think its malignant narcissism. If you believe you are smarter than everyone else for long enough you convince yourself you can get away with anything. If you actually manage to get away with things for long enough as SBF did for a long time, your worldview is probably pretty warped by it and you think you are the only one smart enough to solve the situation you find yourself in. This is why people like SBF and Trump ignore the advice of counsel and just keep running their mouths. They cannot help themselves. They cannot stop. If they are smart, wealthy and lucky enough they get away with it to... until they dont.
> If you believe you are smarter than everyone else for long enough you convince yourself you can get away with anything.
Indeed. That's why there's a rule of thumb that says that the instant you think you're better or smarter than everyone else in the room, you've just become the dumbest person in the room.
It tracks with the rest of the story. Homie is clearly extremely bad at fully understanding the inevitable future consequence of his actions. Somewhat ironic given his parents are esteemed lawyers.
Some people have an unbreakable belief that they can charm their way out of any misconduct, and oftentimes it works too. It's basically just narcissism.
Lawyers aren't paid to predict the future. Lawyers are paid to be persuasive in the present.
Looks like his parents did too good a job there. SBF didn't just persuade those around him that the future was glittering and guaranteed, he persuaded himself.
Surely they are very often paid to tell you what likely legal consequences might transpire in the future based on actions that you take in the present…
Suppose you are out on bail facing felony charges that could earn you a long prison sentence, but you also think you would have a decent chance of getting acquitted or at least getting a much lighter sentence if a few specific witnesses for the prosecution were not cooperating with the prosecution.
Intimidating those witnesses might then be worth it even if getting caught at that means spending the time between now and the end of your trial in jail.
From another comment it appears that he is someone who would take a bet if it is slightly in his favor, even if the reward is only a little more valuable than the risk.
If I recall correctly, being imprisoned during trial makes conviction more likely and sentencing tends to be harsher. Seeing the defendant in prison garb biases the judge and the jury.
Why? People do all kinds of nonsense when put under the gun. This is why so many crimes result in the perpetrator making seemingly moronic decisions that easily get them caught.
When faced with a situation like this it can be agonizing and you're powerless. You would definitely harbor fantasies that there's just one little thing you could do to fix everything.
All you have to do is convince yourself that you just might be successful. If your case is hopeless, and the consequences catastrophic, literally anything you try including summoning space aliens is better than accepting certain defeat.
I think I feel the same way. I think it has to do with someone like this going to jail sounds like justice, but it doesn’t really help any of the people he screwed over.
Sort of like when one of the government agencies issued a huge fine to a company that wronged users. Will I ever see a dollar of that? It’s punitive consequences, but not justice.
The tax cuts for "everyone" are configured to be rolled back:
> Many tax cut provisions, especially income tax cuts, will expire in 2025,[9] and starting in 2021 will increase over time; by 2027 this would affect an estimated 65% of the population and in that same year the law's provisions are set to be fully enacted,[10] but the corporate tax cuts are permanent.
I reckoned he'd escape some how being let off on some technicality of some prosecutor not following due diligence.