Sam Bankman-Fried: Altruism is just a marketing gimmick
Sam Bankman-Fried quickly built a billion dollar fortune through transactions in the crypto industry. In the media he presented himself with a pronounced social awareness. Alleged modesty and a giving mentality helped his companies to grow enormously. Now he makes it clear: the supposed altruism was just a marketing gimmick.
Sam Bankman-Fried deceives clients with altruism
Sam Bankman-Fried, often abbreviated to SBF, has been arguably the most popular crypto exchange CEO to date in the media. Large media houses reported on the American, who started doing crypto business at the age of 25. Within a few years he became a billionaire.
SBF was very different in public from similar businessmen. According to his own statements, he tried to earn as much money as possible in order to donate it to charitable causes. He was only too happy to use a certain keyword: effective altruism.
Altruism or unselfishness describes a way of life in which one tries to do as much good as possible. Most of the money that SBF earned in the crypto industry he wanted to donate. So far, he has not kept his promise to sell most of his fortune.
Effective altruism denotes a particularly radical form of this idea. Resources such as time and money should be used as effectively as possible in order to improve the lives of as many beings as possible.
SBF will probably not keep its promise in the future either. As can be seen from private Twitter messages, the altruism depicted was merely a marketing gimmick. SBF has since confirmed to Vox that the news is authentic.
Regulation and Charity: All Staging
Due to the FTX crash , SBF lost an enormous portion of its assets. Accordingly, the entrepreneur is no longer a billionaire, but only a multimillionaire. His staging as a moral clean man also raises questions at Vox. A journalist confronts SBF with his self-portrayal:
You’re pretty good at talking about morals for someone who sees everything as a game with winners and losers.
To which SBF replies:
Yes. That’s how it had to be. A reputation depends on it. I feel sorry for those ruined by this. It’s a silly game we woken westerners play where we always say the right thing to make everyone like us.
For comparison: In a viral YouTube video , media maker Nas Daily described SBF as the “most generous billionaire ever”. In the video, SBF explained that there are “many reasons” to donate almost all of his wealth.
After the FTX group created and run by SBF collapsed, the YouTuber removed his video.
FTX and the proximity to the legislature
In the crypto scene, SBF and the crypto exchange FTX were never undisputed. Nevertheless, the company managed to become the second largest trading platform of its kind behind Binance
The problem: SBF comes from Tradfi and has repeatedly stated publicly that it is not convinced of cryptocurrencies. In addition, he was considered not very liberal, donated to crypto-hostile politicians, primarily the US Democratic Party, and advocated strict regulation.
This proximity to the legislature was also only faked.
There is nobody there who makes sure that only good things happen and nothing bad.
Bankman-Fried explains when asked if his advocacy of regulation was just marketing.
It was all just PR. I shit on regulators. They only make things worse. They don’t protect consumers at all.
SBF cannot understand most of the criticism leveled at FTX today. Most crypto exchanges don’t treat customer money any differently, he explains. FTX had lent $10 billion to trading sister Alameda, causing illiquidity. Alameda traded crypto.
In the end, they only lost a conflict with Binance because they had significantly less capital. While Binance founder CZ emerged from the conflict as a great hero, SBF lost its reputation. He now regrets filing for bankruptcy. For customers, this decision is harmful.