Prosecution to use Caroline Ellison notes as evidence against SBF

[2stout]

The thing is that pardons and clemency are not one in the same and conflating the 2 is an error.  A pardon is a type of clemency and the most desirable type as it can let you off the hook for restitution and fully restore ones rights.  Commutations of a prison sentence is another type of clemency, which is the most common type of clmency and typically doesn't absolve one of restitution or fully restores ones rights.  So using your source (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/07/biden-granted-more-acts-of-clemency-than-any-prior-president/), Biden only granted 80 pardons during his time in office and in a year, trump has granted over 1600 pardons in a little over a year so far in office (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches; ).  Also, trump removed the requirement that they pay restitution and fines, costing their victims an at least estimated $1.3 billion (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches).

This doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons. One view is that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated, and Trump intervened.
Trevor Milton is in a very difficult situation; Trump has only waived criminal and state fines, not private corporate debts. Only one particular and controversial case was cited, on the basis of which it is impossible to draw final conclusions.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.  And, the view that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated is patently false as he is a proven fraud.  Yeah, but $661 million was wiped away while he still owes nearly $100 million.  So he went from owing around $761 million to only $100 million.  The corporate debt is only 13.14% of the total.  I only cited 1 of many cases and will leave it to you to do some easy research as today's lesson is over.

If you've decided to become a teacher, you're doing a very poor job. You've cited only one case and are drawing conclusions based on that that Trump is selling pardons.
If you're accusing someone, you should provide sufficient evidence and independently study other cases.

What I cited contained more than 1 case and I've also mentioned other cases previously.  My conclusion are drawn not just from 1 case, far from it.  The goal post moving and mental gymnastics from continued schooling are astounding.

[zasad@]

The thing is that pardons and clemency are not one in the same and conflating the 2 is an error.  A pardon is a type of clemency and the most desirable type as it can let you off the hook for restitution and fully restore ones rights.  Commutations of a prison sentence is another type of clemency, which is the most common type of clmency and typically doesn't absolve one of restitution or fully restores ones rights.  So using your source (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/07/biden-granted-more-acts-of-clemency-than-any-prior-president/), Biden only granted 80 pardons during his time in office and in a year, trump has granted over 1600 pardons in a little over a year so far in office (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches; ).  Also, trump removed the requirement that they pay restitution and fines, costing their victims an at least estimated $1.3 billion (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches).

This doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons. One view is that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated, and Trump intervened.
Trevor Milton is in a very difficult situation; Trump has only waived criminal and state fines, not private corporate debts. Only one particular and controversial case was cited, on the basis of which it is impossible to draw final conclusions.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.  And, the view that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated is patently false as he is a proven fraud.  Yeah, but $661 million was wiped away while he still owes nearly $100 million.  So he went from owing around $761 million to only $100 million.  The corporate debt is only 13.14% of the total.  I only cited 1 of many cases and will leave it to you to do some easy research as today's lesson is over.

If you've decided to become a teacher, you're doing a very poor job. You've cited only one case and are drawing conclusions based on that that Trump is selling pardons.
If you're accusing someone, you should provide sufficient evidence and independently study other cases.

What I cited contained more than 1 case and I've also mentioned other cases previously.  My conclusion are drawn not just from 1 case, far from it.  The goal post moving and mental gymnastics from continued schooling are astounding.

I can even help you and give you a link to an article that explains more than the two examples you gave.
https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches

Of course, Trump has issued many individual pardons, but that's his right to favor his allies or strike lucrative political deals. I can even agree that his decisions are very expensive for the US budget.

But even if you're logical, that doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons.

[2stout]

The thing is that pardons and clemency are not one in the same and conflating the 2 is an error.  A pardon is a type of clemency and the most desirable type as it can let you off the hook for restitution and fully restore ones rights.  Commutations of a prison sentence is another type of clemency, which is the most common type of clmency and typically doesn't absolve one of restitution or fully restores ones rights.  So using your source (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/07/biden-granted-more-acts-of-clemency-than-any-prior-president/), Biden only granted 80 pardons during his time in office and in a year, trump has granted over 1600 pardons in a little over a year so far in office (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches; ).  Also, trump removed the requirement that they pay restitution and fines, costing their victims an at least estimated $1.3 billion (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches).

This doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons. One view is that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated, and Trump intervened.
Trevor Milton is in a very difficult situation; Trump has only waived criminal and state fines, not private corporate debts. Only one particular and controversial case was cited, on the basis of which it is impossible to draw final conclusions.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.  And, the view that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated is patently false as he is a proven fraud.  Yeah, but $661 million was wiped away while he still owes nearly $100 million.  So he went from owing around $761 million to only $100 million.  The corporate debt is only 13.14% of the total.  I only cited 1 of many cases and will leave it to you to do some easy research as today's lesson is over.

If you've decided to become a teacher, you're doing a very poor job. You've cited only one case and are drawing conclusions based on that that Trump is selling pardons.
If you're accusing someone, you should provide sufficient evidence and independently study other cases.

What I cited contained more than 1 case and I've also mentioned other cases previously.  My conclusion are drawn not just from 1 case, far from it.  The goal post moving and mental gymnastics from continued schooling are astounding.

I can even help you and give you a link to an article that explains more than the two examples you gave.
https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches

Of course, Trump has issued many individual pardons, but that's his right to favor his allies or strike lucrative political deals. I can even agree that his decisions are very expensive for the US budget.

But even if you're logical, that doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons.

I thought you were going to provide a new link, but I see you used the one I previously provided, so moot point.  More food for thought, hopefully these things will be investigated one day, hopefully sooner than later:  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-linked-firm-pardon-lobbying/

[zasad@]

The thing is that pardons and clemency are not one in the same and conflating the 2 is an error.  A pardon is a type of clemency and the most desirable type as it can let you off the hook for restitution and fully restore ones rights.  Commutations of a prison sentence is another type of clemency, which is the most common type of clmency and typically doesn't absolve one of restitution or fully restores ones rights.  So using your source (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/07/biden-granted-more-acts-of-clemency-than-any-prior-president/), Biden only granted 80 pardons during his time in office and in a year, trump has granted over 1600 pardons in a little over a year so far in office (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches; ).  Also, trump removed the requirement that they pay restitution and fines, costing their victims an at least estimated $1.3 billion (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches).

This doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons. One view is that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated, and Trump intervened.
Trevor Milton is in a very difficult situation; Trump has only waived criminal and state fines, not private corporate debts. Only one particular and controversial case was cited, on the basis of which it is impossible to draw final conclusions.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.  And, the view that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated is patently false as he is a proven fraud.  Yeah, but $661 million was wiped away while he still owes nearly $100 million.  So he went from owing around $761 million to only $100 million.  The corporate debt is only 13.14% of the total.  I only cited 1 of many cases and will leave it to you to do some easy research as today's lesson is over.

If you've decided to become a teacher, you're doing a very poor job. You've cited only one case and are drawing conclusions based on that that Trump is selling pardons.
If you're accusing someone, you should provide sufficient evidence and independently study other cases.

What I cited contained more than 1 case and I've also mentioned other cases previously.  My conclusion are drawn not just from 1 case, far from it.  The goal post moving and mental gymnastics from continued schooling are astounding.

I can even help you and give you a link to an article that explains more than the two examples you gave.
https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches

Of course, Trump has issued many individual pardons, but that's his right to favor his allies or strike lucrative political deals. I can even agree that his decisions are very expensive for the US budget.

But even if you're logical, that doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons.

I thought you were going to provide a new link, but I see you used the one I previously provided, so moot point.  More food for thought, hopefully these things will be investigated one day, hopefully sooner than later:  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-linked-firm-pardon-lobbying/

I'm not a Trump fan, but I think these cases won't be investigated and everyone will forget about it after Trump leaves the White House in a little over two years. There was a lot of dirt on the previous president, too, but everyone forgot about it after the election.
Lobbying isn't illegal in the US, so I don't understand why this angers you so much.

[2stout]

The thing is that pardons and clemency are not one in the same and conflating the 2 is an error.  A pardon is a type of clemency and the most desirable type as it can let you off the hook for restitution and fully restore ones rights.  Commutations of a prison sentence is another type of clemency, which is the most common type of clmency and typically doesn't absolve one of restitution or fully restores ones rights.  So using your source (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/07/biden-granted-more-acts-of-clemency-than-any-prior-president/), Biden only granted 80 pardons during his time in office and in a year, trump has granted over 1600 pardons in a little over a year so far in office (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches; ).  Also, trump removed the requirement that they pay restitution and fines, costing their victims an at least estimated $1.3 billion (https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches).

This doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons. One view is that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated, and Trump intervened.
Trevor Milton is in a very difficult situation; Trump has only waived criminal and state fines, not private corporate debts. Only one particular and controversial case was cited, on the basis of which it is impossible to draw final conclusions.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.  And, the view that the case against Trevor Milton is politically motivated is patently false as he is a proven fraud.  Yeah, but $661 million was wiped away while he still owes nearly $100 million.  So he went from owing around $761 million to only $100 million.  The corporate debt is only 13.14% of the total.  I only cited 1 of many cases and will leave it to you to do some easy research as today's lesson is over.

If you've decided to become a teacher, you're doing a very poor job. You've cited only one case and are drawing conclusions based on that that Trump is selling pardons.
If you're accusing someone, you should provide sufficient evidence and independently study other cases.

What I cited contained more than 1 case and I've also mentioned other cases previously.  My conclusion are drawn not just from 1 case, far from it.  The goal post moving and mental gymnastics from continued schooling are astounding.

I can even help you and give you a link to an article that explains more than the two examples you gave.
https://www.cato.org/blog/embarrassment-riches

Of course, Trump has issued many individual pardons, but that's his right to favor his allies or strike lucrative political deals. I can even agree that his decisions are very expensive for the US budget.

But even if you're logical, that doesn't prove Trump is selling pardons.

I thought you were going to provide a new link, but I see you used the one I previously provided, so moot point.  More food for thought, hopefully these things will be investigated one day, hopefully sooner than later:  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-linked-firm-pardon-lobbying/

I'm not a Trump fan, but I think these cases won't be investigated and everyone will forget about it after Trump leaves the White House in a little over two years. There was a lot of dirt on the previous president, too, but everyone forgot about it after the election.
Lobbying isn't illegal in the US, so I don't understand why this angers you so much.

The comparison of dirt between the current and previous president is like comparing apples to oranges.  Lobbying doesn't anger me so much as you say, and by saying this you missed the plot.  The main anger is for the victims who had their day in court and won restitution only to have it wiped out to the tune of over a billon USD by the current president issuing a full pardon, when he could have taken other measures to leave restitution in place.

[zasad@]

The comparison of dirt between the current and previous president is like comparing apples to oranges.  Lobbying doesn't anger me so much as you say, and by saying this you missed the plot.  The main anger is for the victims who had their day in court and won restitution only to have it wiped out to the tune of over a billon USD by the current president issuing a full pardon, when he could have taken other measures to leave restitution in place.

If you're talking about compensation, Trump's pardon doesn't relieve Trevor Milton of civil liability to private individuals. A pardon doesn't erase the fraud, and all criminal case materials can be used in civil court. Trevor Milton will face very lengthy legal proceedings in the coming years.

Nevertheless, Trevor Milton has started a new startup, and I don't feel sorry for the idiots who will lose money there. If investors themselves are giving money to a fraudster, then there's no need to blame others.

[2stout]

The comparison of dirt between the current and previous president is like comparing apples to oranges.  Lobbying doesn't anger me so much as you say, and by saying this you missed the plot.  The main anger is for the victims who had their day in court and won restitution only to have it wiped out to the tune of over a billon USD by the current president issuing a full pardon, when he could have taken other measures to leave restitution in place.

If you're talking about compensation, Trump's pardon doesn't relieve Trevor Milton of civil liability to private individuals. A pardon doesn't erase the fraud, and all criminal case materials can be used in civil court. Trevor Milton will face very lengthy legal proceedings in the coming years.

Nevertheless, Trevor Milton has started a new startup, and I don't feel sorry for the idiots who will lose money there. If investors themselves are giving money to a fraudster, then there's no need to blame others.

But, the civil liability ($168 million) pales into comparison on what was wiped out via the pardon (at least $660 million).  And by the time it's settled, it'll most likely be less than half the $168 million as the game will be to tie it up in court as long as possible so people will be willing to settle to get it over with.

I too won't feel bad or sorry for anyone that takes an L investing in his new start up.  However, if a full and unconditional presidential pardon wasn't given then his new start up wouldn't have seen the light of day, let alone get off the ground.

[zasad@]

The comparison of dirt between the current and previous president is like comparing apples to oranges.  Lobbying doesn't anger me so much as you say, and by saying this you missed the plot.  The main anger is for the victims who had their day in court and won restitution only to have it wiped out to the tune of over a billon USD by the current president issuing a full pardon, when he could have taken other measures to leave restitution in place.

If you're talking about compensation, Trump's pardon doesn't relieve Trevor Milton of civil liability to private individuals. A pardon doesn't erase the fraud, and all criminal case materials can be used in civil court. Trevor Milton will face very lengthy legal proceedings in the coming years.

Nevertheless, Trevor Milton has started a new startup, and I don't feel sorry for the idiots who will lose money there. If investors themselves are giving money to a fraudster, then there's no need to blame others.

But, the civil liability ($168 million) pales into comparison on what was wiped out via the pardon (at least $660 million).  And by the time it's settled, it'll most likely be less than half the $168 million as the game will be to tie it up in court as long as possible so people will be willing to settle to get it over with.

I too won't feel bad or sorry for anyone that takes an L investing in his new start up.  However, if a full and unconditional presidential pardon wasn't given then his new start up wouldn't have seen the light of day, let alone get off the ground.

You talk about fairness, but haven't you assessed the actual damages?
I'm not a Trump or Trevor Milton supporter, but I'm trying to convince you to look at this situation from a different perspective. People who invest in startups aren't just housewives or ordinary working people.

Typically, such investments are made by professional investors who make money from them, and they assess their risks. They'll get $168 million instead of $660 million, but that depends on the court's decision.

If you have a choice between investing in Trevor Milton's startup or several new startups, it makes more sense to invest in Trevor Milton's startup because he already has a lot of experience.

[2stout]

The comparison of dirt between the current and previous president is like comparing apples to oranges.  Lobbying doesn't anger me so much as you say, and by saying this you missed the plot.  The main anger is for the victims who had their day in court and won restitution only to have it wiped out to the tune of over a billon USD by the current president issuing a full pardon, when he could have taken other measures to leave restitution in place.

If you're talking about compensation, Trump's pardon doesn't relieve Trevor Milton of civil liability to private individuals. A pardon doesn't erase the fraud, and all criminal case materials can be used in civil court. Trevor Milton will face very lengthy legal proceedings in the coming years.

Nevertheless, Trevor Milton has started a new startup, and I don't feel sorry for the idiots who will lose money there. If investors themselves are giving money to a fraudster, then there's no need to blame others.

But, the civil liability ($168 million) pales into comparison on what was wiped out via the pardon (at least $660 million).  And by the time it's settled, it'll most likely be less than half the $168 million as the game will be to tie it up in court as long as possible so people will be willing to settle to get it over with.

I too won't feel bad or sorry for anyone that takes an L investing in his new start up.  However, if a full and unconditional presidential pardon wasn't given then his new start up wouldn't have seen the light of day, let alone get off the ground.

You talk about fairness, but haven't you assessed the actual damages?
I'm not a Trump or Trevor Milton supporter, but I'm trying to convince you to look at this situation from a different perspective. People who invest in startups aren't just housewives or ordinary working people.

Typically, such investments are made by professional investors who make money from them, and they assess their risks. They'll get $168 million instead of $660 million, but that depends on the court's decision.

If you have a choice between investing in Trevor Milton's startup or several new startups, it makes more sense to invest in Trevor Milton's startup because he already has a lot of experience.

Actual damage- the numbers don't lie so not sure how there was no assessment.  Also, nikola was a publicly traded company, so the retail investor did get screwed, i.e, including as you say "ordinary working people."  And actually, it would make more sense to sit out investing in trevor milton's startup as he's proven to be better at massive fraud rather than a start up with a working product.

In concluding, I never said you were a trump or milton fan but for some reason you have to keep repeating that you aren't.  Typically folks that have to keep repeating such are exactly what they say they aren't.

[zasad@]

The comparison of dirt between the current and previous president is like comparing apples to oranges.  Lobbying doesn't anger me so much as you say, and by saying this you missed the plot.  The main anger is for the victims who had their day in court and won restitution only to have it wiped out to the tune of over a billon USD by the current president issuing a full pardon, when he could have taken other measures to leave restitution in place.

If you're talking about compensation, Trump's pardon doesn't relieve Trevor Milton of civil liability to private individuals. A pardon doesn't erase the fraud, and all criminal case materials can be used in civil court. Trevor Milton will face very lengthy legal proceedings in the coming years.

Nevertheless, Trevor Milton has started a new startup, and I don't feel sorry for the idiots who will lose money there. If investors themselves are giving money to a fraudster, then there's no need to blame others.

But, the civil liability ($168 million) pales into comparison on what was wiped out via the pardon (at least $660 million).  And by the time it's settled, it'll most likely be less than half the $168 million as the game will be to tie it up in court as long as possible so people will be willing to settle to get it over with.

I too won't feel bad or sorry for anyone that takes an L investing in his new start up.  However, if a full and unconditional presidential pardon wasn't given then his new start up wouldn't have seen the light of day, let alone get off the ground.

You talk about fairness, but haven't you assessed the actual damages?
I'm not a Trump or Trevor Milton supporter, but I'm trying to convince you to look at this situation from a different perspective. People who invest in startups aren't just housewives or ordinary working people.

Typically, such investments are made by professional investors who make money from them, and they assess their risks. They'll get $168 million instead of $660 million, but that depends on the court's decision.

If you have a choice between investing in Trevor Milton's startup or several new startups, it makes more sense to invest in Trevor Milton's startup because he already has a lot of experience.

Actual damage- the numbers don't lie so not sure how there was no assessment.  Also, nikola was a publicly traded company, so the retail investor did get screwed, i.e, including as you say "ordinary working people."  And actually, it would make more sense to sit out investing in trevor milton's startup as he's proven to be better at massive fraud rather than a start up with a working product.

In concluding, I never said you were a trump or milton fan but for some reason you have to keep repeating that you aren't.  Typically folks that have to keep repeating such are exactly what they say they aren't.

I see that you are starting to label your opponent, which means it’s time to end the argument. We exchanged opinions, but everyone will have their own opinion.
A fool will still lose his money, a smart investor who invests in startups can lose money in 48 startups, and get X100-1000 on 49 and 50.

I think in Russian, write in English, so we may have misunderstandings.
In Russia, people usually say “The thief is the first to cry “thief!””

[FP91G]

July 4, 2026 -250th anniversary of the United States

The White House Considers Granting 250 Pardons for the Nation’s Birthday
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/06/trump-250-pardons-250th-birthday/687736/

That's why Sam recently filed a formal petition for clemency. But Trump's opponents accuse Trump of commercializing the institution of presidential pardons.

[2stout]

The comparison of dirt between the current and previous president is like comparing apples to oranges.  Lobbying doesn't anger me so much as you say, and by saying this you missed the plot.  The main anger is for the victims who had their day in court and won restitution only to have it wiped out to the tune of over a billon USD by the current president issuing a full pardon, when he could have taken other measures to leave restitution in place.

If you're talking about compensation, Trump's pardon doesn't relieve Trevor Milton of civil liability to private individuals. A pardon doesn't erase the fraud, and all criminal case materials can be used in civil court. Trevor Milton will face very lengthy legal proceedings in the coming years.

Nevertheless, Trevor Milton has started a new startup, and I don't feel sorry for the idiots who will lose money there. If investors themselves are giving money to a fraudster, then there's no need to blame others.

But, the civil liability ($168 million) pales into comparison on what was wiped out via the pardon (at least $660 million).  And by the time it's settled, it'll most likely be less than half the $168 million as the game will be to tie it up in court as long as possible so people will be willing to settle to get it over with.

I too won't feel bad or sorry for anyone that takes an L investing in his new start up.  However, if a full and unconditional presidential pardon wasn't given then his new start up wouldn't have seen the light of day, let alone get off the ground.

You talk about fairness, but haven't you assessed the actual damages?
I'm not a Trump or Trevor Milton supporter, but I'm trying to convince you to look at this situation from a different perspective. People who invest in startups aren't just housewives or ordinary working people.

Typically, such investments are made by professional investors who make money from them, and they assess their risks. They'll get $168 million instead of $660 million, but that depends on the court's decision.

If you have a choice between investing in Trevor Milton's startup or several new startups, it makes more sense to invest in Trevor Milton's startup because he already has a lot of experience.

Actual damage- the numbers don't lie so not sure how there was no assessment.  Also, nikola was a publicly traded company, so the retail investor did get screwed, i.e, including as you say "ordinary working people."  And actually, it would make more sense to sit out investing in trevor milton's startup as he's proven to be better at massive fraud rather than a start up with a working product.

In concluding, I never said you were a trump or milton fan but for some reason you have to keep repeating that you aren't.  Typically folks that have to keep repeating such are exactly what they say they aren't.

I see that you are starting to label your opponent, which means it’s time to end the argument. We exchanged opinions, but everyone will have their own opinion.
A fool will still lose his money, a smart investor who invests in startups can lose money in 48 startups, and get X100-1000 on 49 and 50.

I think in Russian, write in English, so we may have misunderstandings.
In Russia, people usually say “The thief is the first to cry “thief!””

I have not labelled my "opponent"; otherwise,  I would have just stated it unambiguously and outright.  Yes, perhaps there could be some misunderstanding due to mother tongues.  Also, I'm thinking an investor, considered smart, who gets their x100-1000 4% (2 out of 50) of the time but is losing the other 96% (48 out of 100) of the time is also lucky and rich.

[2stout]

July 4, 2026 -250th anniversary of the United States

The White House Considers Granting 250 Pardons for the Nation’s Birthday
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/06/trump-250-pardons-250th-birthday/687736/

That's why Sam recently filed a formal petition for clemency. But Trump's opponents accuse Trump of commercializing the institution of presidential pardons.

It's possible.  It seems sam bankman-fried applied for clemency on 8 June 2026. However, do we know when the White House started considering granting 250 Pardons for the Nation's Birthday?  Was it before or after that date?  Some ideas on how the pardon process is working for this:  https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/250-pardons-white-house-trump-b3006083.html

[zasad@]

I have not labelled my "opponent"; otherwise,  I would have just stated it unambiguously and outright.  Yes, perhaps there could be some misunderstanding due to mother tongues.  Also, I'm thinking an investor, considered smart, who gets their x100-1000 4% (2 out of 50) of the time but is losing the other 96% (48 out of 100) of the time is also lucky and rich.

SBF invested $500 million in Anthropic, acquiring approximately 8% of the company's shares.
Following the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange, a new team of liquidators sold off the stake piecemeal at auctions, fully completing the transactions in the spring of 2024 and raising $1.3 billion for the entire stake.
Anthropic's market capitalization is currently around $1 trillion, meaning 8% is $80 billion.

Even if SBF had made 100 mistakes before, he would have had a huge profit


___
Source
https://www.tradingkey.com/analysis/cryptocurrencies/more/261727138-anthropic-ai-crypto-ftx-sbf-tao-fet-ipo-tradingkey
https://www.bitmex.com/blog/anthropic-ipo-guide

[2stout]

I have not labelled my "opponent"; otherwise,  I would have just stated it unambiguously and outright.  Yes, perhaps there could be some misunderstanding due to mother tongues.  Also, I'm thinking an investor, considered smart, who gets their x100-1000 4% (2 out of 50) of the time but is losing the other 96% (48 out of 100) of the time is also lucky and rich.

SBF invested $500 million in Anthropic, acquiring approximately 8% of the company's shares.
Following the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange, a new team of liquidators sold off the stake piecemeal at auctions, fully completing the transactions in the spring of 2024 and raising $1.3 billion for the entire stake.
Anthropic's market capitalization is currently around $1 trillion, meaning 8% is $80 billion.

Even if SBF had made 100 mistakes before, he would have had a huge profit


___
Source
https://www.tradingkey.com/analysis/cryptocurrencies/more/261727138-anthropic-ai-crypto-ftx-sbf-tao-fet-ipo-tradingkey
https://www.bitmex.com/blog/anthropic-ipo-guide

Yep, the trifecta- some smarts, definitely rich, and a lot of luck.  Not what he did was right, but the crazy thing is if the liquidators would have deferred on selling, everyone and everything could have been made whole.  Basically dude could have had all but a walk in the park pardon case, not so much now.

[zasad@]

I have not labelled my "opponent"; otherwise,  I would have just stated it unambiguously and outright.  Yes, perhaps there could be some misunderstanding due to mother tongues.  Also, I'm thinking an investor, considered smart, who gets their x100-1000 4% (2 out of 50) of the time but is losing the other 96% (48 out of 100) of the time is also lucky and rich.

SBF invested $500 million in Anthropic, acquiring approximately 8% of the company's shares.
Following the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange, a new team of liquidators sold off the stake piecemeal at auctions, fully completing the transactions in the spring of 2024 and raising $1.3 billion for the entire stake.
Anthropic's market capitalization is currently around $1 trillion, meaning 8% is $80 billion.

Even if SBF had made 100 mistakes before, he would have had a huge profit


___
Source
https://www.tradingkey.com/analysis/cryptocurrencies/more/261727138-anthropic-ai-crypto-ftx-sbf-tao-fet-ipo-tradingkey
https://www.bitmex.com/blog/anthropic-ipo-guide

Yep, the trifecta- some smarts, definitely rich, and a lot of luck.  Not what he did was right, but the crazy thing is if the liquidators would have deferred on selling, everyone and everything could have been made whole.  Basically dude could have had all but a walk in the park pardon case, not so much now.

At the time of the investment, Sam Bankman-Fried's capital was approximately $26 billion.

I don't know if it was luck or recklessness, but investing $500 million back then was a big risk for him.

But if you analyze his investments, he was not a bad investor, he was let down by risk management.
https://www.semafor.com/article/11/17/2022/the-ftx-spreadsheet-you-havent-seen-belongs-to-alameda-research

[2stout]

I have not labelled my "opponent"; otherwise,  I would have just stated it unambiguously and outright.  Yes, perhaps there could be some misunderstanding due to mother tongues.  Also, I'm thinking an investor, considered smart, who gets their x100-1000 4% (2 out of 50) of the time but is losing the other 96% (48 out of 100) of the time is also lucky and rich.

SBF invested $500 million in Anthropic, acquiring approximately 8% of the company's shares.
Following the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange, a new team of liquidators sold off the stake piecemeal at auctions, fully completing the transactions in the spring of 2024 and raising $1.3 billion for the entire stake.
Anthropic's market capitalization is currently around $1 trillion, meaning 8% is $80 billion.

Even if SBF had made 100 mistakes before, he would have had a huge profit


___
Source
https://www.tradingkey.com/analysis/cryptocurrencies/more/261727138-anthropic-ai-crypto-ftx-sbf-tao-fet-ipo-tradingkey
https://www.bitmex.com/blog/anthropic-ipo-guide

Yep, the trifecta- some smarts, definitely rich, and a lot of luck.  Not what he did was right, but the crazy thing is if the liquidators would have deferred on selling, everyone and everything could have been made whole.  Basically dude could have had all but a walk in the park pardon case, not so much now.

At the time of the investment, Sam Bankman-Fried's capital was approximately $26 billion.

I don't know if it was luck or recklessness, but investing $500 million back then was a big risk for him.

But if you analyze his investments, he was not a bad investor, he was let down by risk management.
https://www.semafor.com/article/11/17/2022/the-ftx-spreadsheet-you-havent-seen-belongs-to-alameda-research

Another thing that let him down is the comingling and intermingling of assets between Alameda and FTX as this is flat out illegal.  If it wasn't for this, there is quite the possibility that he may have avoided prison as many businesses fail, go bankrupt for reasons not illegal.

[zasad@]

I have not labelled my "opponent"; otherwise,  I would have just stated it unambiguously and outright.  Yes, perhaps there could be some misunderstanding due to mother tongues.  Also, I'm thinking an investor, considered smart, who gets their x100-1000 4% (2 out of 50) of the time but is losing the other 96% (48 out of 100) of the time is also lucky and rich.

SBF invested $500 million in Anthropic, acquiring approximately 8% of the company's shares.
Following the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange, a new team of liquidators sold off the stake piecemeal at auctions, fully completing the transactions in the spring of 2024 and raising $1.3 billion for the entire stake.
Anthropic's market capitalization is currently around $1 trillion, meaning 8% is $80 billion.

Even if SBF had made 100 mistakes before, he would have had a huge profit


___
Source
https://www.tradingkey.com/analysis/cryptocurrencies/more/261727138-anthropic-ai-crypto-ftx-sbf-tao-fet-ipo-tradingkey
https://www.bitmex.com/blog/anthropic-ipo-guide

Yep, the trifecta- some smarts, definitely rich, and a lot of luck.  Not what he did was right, but the crazy thing is if the liquidators would have deferred on selling, everyone and everything could have been made whole.  Basically dude could have had all but a walk in the park pardon case, not so much now.

At the time of the investment, Sam Bankman-Fried's capital was approximately $26 billion.

I don't know if it was luck or recklessness, but investing $500 million back then was a big risk for him.

But if you analyze his investments, he was not a bad investor, he was let down by risk management.
https://www.semafor.com/article/11/17/2022/the-ftx-spreadsheet-you-havent-seen-belongs-to-alameda-research

Another thing that let him down is the comingling and intermingling of assets between Alameda and FTX as this is flat out illegal.  If it wasn't for this, there is quite the possibility that he may have avoided prison as many businesses fail, go bankrupt for reasons not illegal.

You will be able to independently study materials about how riksmanagement worked for these people.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/11/caroline-ellison-ftx-hid-losses/

Sam Bankman-Fried & Caroline Ellison's +EV Bets and the Fall of FTX | Risky Business
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nUqiybPJKs

Sam Bankman Freed and Caroline Ellison violated numerous laws, resulting in the loss of $8 billion in investor funds, so they could not avoid criminal prosecution.

[2stout]

I have not labelled my "opponent"; otherwise,  I would have just stated it unambiguously and outright.  Yes, perhaps there could be some misunderstanding due to mother tongues.  Also, I'm thinking an investor, considered smart, who gets their x100-1000 4% (2 out of 50) of the time but is losing the other 96% (48 out of 100) of the time is also lucky and rich.

SBF invested $500 million in Anthropic, acquiring approximately 8% of the company's shares.
Following the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange, a new team of liquidators sold off the stake piecemeal at auctions, fully completing the transactions in the spring of 2024 and raising $1.3 billion for the entire stake.
Anthropic's market capitalization is currently around $1 trillion, meaning 8% is $80 billion.

Even if SBF had made 100 mistakes before, he would have had a huge profit


___
Source
https://www.tradingkey.com/analysis/cryptocurrencies/more/261727138-anthropic-ai-crypto-ftx-sbf-tao-fet-ipo-tradingkey
https://www.bitmex.com/blog/anthropic-ipo-guide

Yep, the trifecta- some smarts, definitely rich, and a lot of luck.  Not what he did was right, but the crazy thing is if the liquidators would have deferred on selling, everyone and everything could have been made whole.  Basically dude could have had all but a walk in the park pardon case, not so much now.

At the time of the investment, Sam Bankman-Fried's capital was approximately $26 billion.

I don't know if it was luck or recklessness, but investing $500 million back then was a big risk for him.

But if you analyze his investments, he was not a bad investor, he was let down by risk management.
https://www.semafor.com/article/11/17/2022/the-ftx-spreadsheet-you-havent-seen-belongs-to-alameda-research

Another thing that let him down is the comingling and intermingling of assets between Alameda and FTX as this is flat out illegal.  If it wasn't for this, there is quite the possibility that he may have avoided prison as many businesses fail, go bankrupt for reasons not illegal.

You will be able to independently study materials about how riksmanagement worked for these people.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/11/caroline-ellison-ftx-hid-losses/

Sam Bankman-Fried & Caroline Ellison's +EV Bets and the Fall of FTX | Risky Business
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nUqiybPJKs

Sam Bankman Freed and Caroline Ellison violated numerous laws, resulting in the loss of $8 billion in investor funds, so they could not avoid criminal prosecution.

They definitely overextended themselves by taking out too much loans on margin.  The frivolous spending along with bad accounting didn't help either.  More details into how and why it happened and what not to do:  https://neuronwealth.com/5-investing-lessons-from-ftx-fiasco-that-cost-sbf-his-reputation-and-over-2-lakh-crores/

[zasad@]

They definitely overextended themselves by taking out too much loans on margin.  The frivolous spending along with bad accounting didn't help either.  More details into how and why it happened and what not to do:  https://neuronwealth.com/5-investing-lessons-from-ftx-fiasco-that-cost-sbf-his-reputation-and-over-2-lakh-crores/

There were certainly a lot of crypto companies in the US that broke laws during the Wild West, but only Sam Bankman-Fried got a 25-year prison sentence because he talked too much. There is no point in commenting on anything here, Wall Street has seen many stories of ruin, but when an inexperienced person starts playing investments, he will always lose.