_Original: New York Sun's _Sam Bankman-Fried Speaks To The New York Sun From Prison,

Translation: Odaily Planet Daily jk

Preface

The following is a 45-minute interview conducted by A.R. Hoffman (hereinafter referred to as AR), the deputy editor of The New York Sun, with former cryptocurrency billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried. At the peak of his cryptocurrency exchange FTX, SBF was considered a potential candidate to become the richest person in the world.

However, with the collapse of FTX and its affiliated company Alameda Research, everything fell apart in an instant. Ultimately, Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud and other charges and sentenced to 25 years in prison without the possibility of parole. He has appealed the verdict, insisting that he was predetermined to be guilty and believes that his company was always solvent, and that there were significant errors in the bankruptcy proceedings of FTX.

This interview took place at the Manhattan Detention Center. The following is SBF's account, edited only as necessary. The three interviews were conducted on the evening of Tuesday, February 18, 2025, each lasting 15 minutes and separated by an hour as per prison regulations. The conversation covered his views on the current political situation, his hopes for a potential pardon from President Trump, his reflections on the judge presiding over his trial, and his opinions on the prosecutor Danielle Sassoon who is responsible for prosecuting him. Notably, Sassoon recently resigned after refusing to drop the case against New York City Mayor Adams.

Additionally, SBF shared deeper reflections on his personal experiences—from once controlling immense wealth to ultimately having nothing.

Interview Record

AR: Hello, Sam. I’m AR. It’s great to talk to you. I know you have a lot to say, especially about the current political environment. There has been a lot of discussion about pardons lately, and your prosecutor Danielle Sassoon has been frequently in the news. We have limited time, so why don’t we dive right into your thoughts? A lot has indeed happened recently.

Sam Bankman-Fried: As you mentioned, my prosecutor has recently made headlines due to conflicts with the Trump administration's Department of Justice (DOJ). The judge who presided over my trial, Judge Kaplan, is also one of the New York judges appointed by Trump, and the current situation involves a confrontation between the DOJ under the Trump administration and the judicial system left behind by the Biden administration. The DOJ is undergoing significant changes, and the president and his team believe that the judicial system has been biased for decades, with prosecutors abusing their power, and even the politicization of the DOJ is intensifying.

AR: Do you think your case is part of this political struggle?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I think it’s just a part of it. Clearly, a lot of things are happening simultaneously, and whenever high-profile cases are involved, the careers of all relevant officials are affected. I don’t believe my case was fairly adjudicated, especially regarding some of the judge's rulings during the trial. For example, Judge Kaplan allowed the prosecution to claim to the jury that everyone lost all their money, but in another ruling, he did not allow the defense to rebut that…

AR: So, the court allowed the prosecution to make that statement but prohibited you from clarifying the facts. This is clearly one of the key issues in the trial. This is just one example among many judicial issues. How do you view the current turmoil in the DOJ, especially in the Southern District Attorney's office? Do you think your case reflects a broader issue of prosecutorial misconduct?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I do believe my case shares certain commonalities with broader issues. One area of concern is the sentencing of all the plea deal participants. There is a Republican who only pleaded guilty to a few charges—frankly, I don’t think anyone is truly guilty, and I certainly don’t think he is guilty—but he was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison. That’s four times longer than the total sentences of the other three plea deal participants, all of whom are Democrats. There are clear signs of politicization here, including the prosecution threatening his wife, saying that if he didn’t act according to the wishes of the Biden administration's DOJ, she could be prosecuted due to her status as a Republican congressional candidate. This is one of the most direct cases of political manipulation.

At the same time, my case involves many layers of factors. One of them is that people are starting to realize that I actually had much closer ties to the Republican Party than the public previously knew. I had provided funding support to the Republicans and conservative organizations, and this information had not been disclosed before.

AR: Do you think this is part of the story? The media sometimes reports that the amounts you donated to the Democrats are staggering, while your donations to the Republicans are merely symbolic or to maintain a facade of balance. Do you think the public, the government, or others have misunderstood your political stance and inclinations?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I think there is some truth to both sides. This is something I’m saying from a federal prison. When I made my first large donations in 2020, I did donate to Biden. Part of the reason was that I didn’t want the Democratic Party to become a party like Bernie Sanders. At that time, I viewed myself as center-left, but I no longer see myself that way, and by 2022, my views had changed.

In the following years, I spent a lot of time in Washington, D.C., working with lawmakers, regulators, and the executive branch on various issues, most of which were related to cryptocurrency policy. However, over time, I became increasingly disappointed and frustrated with the Biden administration and the Democratic Party. I’m not sure if my stance changed or if the Democratic Party’s stance shifted, but at least in the areas I’m most familiar with—especially regarding cryptocurrency policy—the Biden administration's attitude has been extremely destructive and even difficult to work with. Frankly, the Republicans have been more rational on these issues, so I spent a lot of time in Washington doing what I could, hoping that even when the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, we could still work across party lines to prevent the government from implementing harsh policies on the industry.

AR: I want to ask you a question—I'm not sure if you’ve followed this topic, but it has been widely discussed: the “attitude shift” of tech leaders like Zuckerberg and Bezos. You may have interacted with these individuals. If your trial hadn’t happened, do you think you could have been on the stage at a presidential inauguration? Or to ask it another way, how do you view this phenomenon? Do you think your story is connected to the current changes in tech culture?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I certainly can’t speak for them, but I think they may have seen the same things I have over the past four years. Zuckerberg might express this best—I guess he hoped the government would take a reasonable and constructive approach to misinformation, but the outcome turned into “using the banner of combating misinformation to engage in misinformation,” more like a form of political censorship. I think they encountered similar frustrations in their dealings with the Biden administration, just as many in the cryptocurrency industry have experienced regarding business and free speech issues.

AR: What do you think about political figures issuing meme tokens? Have you heard about the Trump Coin that was issued before Trump’s inauguration?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I’ve heard of it, but due to well-known reasons, information access in prison is very limited, so I don’t know as much about it as I would like. However, I’m not surprised to see political figures starting to venture into the digital space. Over time, I expect more industries to explore this area, partly because cryptocurrencies are more flexible than traditional financial systems. This is also one of the reasons why the industry has grown so rapidly, with constant innovation. The blockchain infrastructure is more modern, more open, and has lower development costs, and there’s no need to worry about infringing patents, regulatory monopolies, or other barriers of the traditional financial system when building across regions.

AR: Let me ask you a question—I’ve spoken with many people in the cryptocurrency industry and bankruptcy liquidation field, and they have expressed serious concerns about how your case has been handled and the management of FTX’s bankruptcy. Many related issues have been mentioned in court documents, but from your perspective, what keeps you hopeful? And what frustrates you? Clearly, issues like pardons are at the intersection of politics and law. I’m curious, from your perspective in prison, what potential breakthroughs do you see?

Sam Bankman-Fried: So far, the most frustrating thing for me—but recently, in some ways, it has also given me some hope—is the issue of bankruptcy management.

The situation with banks is similar, of course, on a larger scale. Banks have millions of customers and trillions of dollars in assets. Sometimes, a large number of customers will request withdrawals in a short period, and banks need to pay out tens of billions of dollars quickly. Banks do not keep all their assets in cash; they hold government bonds, mortgages, and other assets. Therefore, they will sell assets to obtain cash to meet withdrawal demands.

This is what is known as a “bank run,” which does put pressure on banks, but it does not lead to customers losing money. It’s merely a liquidity management issue; banks need to adjust their asset structure quickly to meet market demands.

What happened with FTX is similar. Before the crisis erupted in November 2022, we had a net worth of about $10 billion, with another $20 billion in equity value. Then, suddenly, a “run” occurred—FTX customers began withdrawing tens of billions of dollars from the platform daily. So, we took the conventional measures that banks use to respond to a run; just like selling a car for cash, we were also selling assets to obtain liquidity.

This process was expected to take days to weeks, but we received multiple offers to accelerate transactions. It was indeed a massive undertaking, but it is a common liquidity management issue in the financial system and should not result in customer harm.

However, things did not develop according to normal market logic. A law firm took over FTX and did nothing for the next two years, just pretending that there was not a single penny in the accounts.

AR: Sam, do you believe you are innocent?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, absolutely. Of course, there are many things I would choose to handle differently; as CEO, I made many decisions. But without a doubt, my biggest mistake was in November 2022, when I did not stand my ground.

I should not have allowed Sullivan & Cromwell to take over FTX. I should have stood up against them, but I didn’t. After that, not only I but millions of customers experienced a long and painful wait, being wrongly told that there was no money in their accounts, until recently when they began to receive compensation.

AR: I want to ask you a question—regarding Danielle Sassoon and other prosecutors, their charges against you mainly revolve around fraud, greed, and misconduct. For most people, the scale of the funds you handled is almost unimaginable.

Let me start from here: what is your attitude towards money? There has been a lot of reporting about your interest in "Effective Altruism" and other causes. But simply put, what does it feel like to have such immense wealth? What are your true thoughts? On a larger scale, what was your original intention?

Sam Bankman-Fried: It was an astonishing amount of wealth, and it came suddenly—within just a few years, the funds I had far exceeded what I could have imagined in my lifetime.

I view my relationship with money in two layers. The first is my personal life. From this perspective, my life hasn’t changed much. I live on a salary, and while a $200,000 annual income is considerable, it’s far from billions of dollars in wealth. I didn’t make drastic changes to my lifestyle; honestly, I’ve never been attracted to a luxurious life. I’ve never understood the appeal of yachts, for example; to me, it has never been a wise allocation of resources.

Instead, I focused on larger-scale financial operations and their potential impact on the world. I view this wealth through the lens of "Effective Altruism": since I have funds to donate, where can it have the greatest positive impact?

Part of it goes to global health initiatives—helping those who die from preventable diseases (like malaria and schistosomiasis). Another part goes to animal welfare and epidemic prevention. Of course, some funds have also been invested in politics. I believe these areas can effectively utilize large-scale funding—billions of dollars can indeed bring about substantial change.

AR: How have you experienced these ups and downs over the past few years?

Sam Bankman-Fried: From a personal life perspective… there are many things I dislike. But money is not the most important of them… What I miss the most is freedom. But what frustrates me the most is that I once hoped to make a positive impact on the world, and now I can no longer do that.

There are many great causes and charities that were counting on my significant donations over the next decade, but now they can no longer receive those funds. Not only that, but they have also been affected and stigmatized because of their association with me. This makes me very sad, and I feel deeply guilty about it.

AR: You were at the forefront of the cryptocurrency industry, and some even compared the industry at that time to the "Wild West." Whether it was fierce competition, working with controversial figures, or being part of an industry still finding its way—do you feel frustrated? Because some people are still free to operate, while you, someone who once held altruistic ideals, have ended up in your current situation?

In other words, a person of faith might ask, "Why me?" Have you ever felt a sense of injustice or anger?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Clearly, I feel very frustrated about my situation, but I try not to view others negatively. That mindset is neither constructive nor fair.

Ultimately, my misfortune is not their fault, and they shouldn’t suffer because of my bad luck. Many of them have achieved quite impressive accomplishments in their fields. Yes, we have collaborated and had disagreements, but my failure does not mean their success is undeserved.

AR: If one day you could regain your freedom—by any means—have you thought about what you would do? Would you want to return to the cryptocurrency industry? Or have you had any sort of "epiphany" that has given you a different perspective on the future? Or is it all still too far away to imagine?

Sam Bankman-Fried: That is obviously a very, very distant question. If that day really comes, I would have to seriously consider the direction of my future.

But for now, I try not to get caught up in that question because I have no control over it. I still have over twenty years of my sentence to serve. And frankly, from the statements made by the prosecution and the judge in court, their intent seems to be to ensure that I cannot have a meaningful life even after my sentence is completed.

So, thinking about what I would do if circumstances changed feels like "putting the cart before the horse."

AR: What do you miss the most? Is it simple things like taking walks, having coffee, or deep late-night conversations with friends?

Sam Bankman-Fried: For me, physical aspects have never been the most important.

Clearly, I miss conversations with friends. But what pains me more is that I have lost the freedom of information—the ability to access information from the outside world at any time. Just the loss of the ability to freely search for information online is something I miss immensely.

Beyond that, what I miss the most is being able to engage in meaningful work. These two points are what I find hardest to come to terms with after losing them.

AR: What is the most immediate reality for you now? Do you have any expectations for the situation in the coming weeks or months? Does it feel stagnant, or is there some narrative progress?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Life is quite monotonous. There isn’t much to do in prison.

I’m used to being fully immersed in work, but there’s nothing to engage with here. From a broader perspective, the most important thing coming up is the outcome of my appeal. Oral arguments are expected in the next three to six months. I hold a cautiously optimistic attitude, but in the federal criminal justice system, the chances of overturning a conviction are low. So saying "cautiously optimistic" just means I feel we still have a glimmer of hope. I hope the judges will seriously and critically examine the entire process.

Aside from that, as a prisoner, we have almost no control over our lives. Most things are not decided by us but happen to us. For example, there’s now a sudden possibility—I might be transferred to another location in the country, and this process could take days, weeks, or even months. This would clearly disrupt the little daily routine I have left.

AR: I’m very interested in the topic of "control." To me, you have always been someone—perhaps it sounds cliché to say this—who is a "disruptor," someone who prefers to build their own kingdom rather than live under rules set by others. Whether in college, the corporate world, or other fields, you seem to always want to do things your own way.

And now, you’ve been thrown into this most rigid and inflexible system. I don’t have any particularly profound insights; I just feel that the law itself is a massive system.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, this experience is extremely frustrating. And what makes it worse is seeing many others around me going through similar situations.

There are various different stories here, but one commonality is exactly what you just mentioned—you are thrown into this system and completely lose control. This is a place that strips away humanity, an environment without choices or autonomy.

For many people, especially those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer, they can only rely on public defenders. Sometimes they encounter excellent lawyers, but many times they do not. As a result, they cannot even control their own cases. Even if they want to participate, their voices often go unheard. Their defense proceedings happen around them, while they themselves are swept along in the currents of the judicial system, drifting along regardless of the facts.

AR: How do you view all of this? I think you have always been someone inclined to think about problems logically or even mathematically—if I’m wrong, please correct me. But now, you have to face the way the legal system operates. Does this shift frustrate you? Do you feel that these two ways of thinking are completely different, like entering a completely unfamiliar world as in "Alice in Wonderland"?

Sam Bankman-Fried: Yes, there are two layers involved.

First, the law itself can sometimes seem bizarre, infuriating, and even illogical.

This doesn’t just apply to my case; I see many people here facing extremely absurd predicaments.

For example, can you kidnap someone for six seconds? It sounds like a strange question, but in fact, in half of the regions in the U.S., the answer is "yes"—at least legally. And such an accusation could lead to a 25-year sentence.

This is just one example. But another deeper issue lies in the way the entire criminal justice system operates. You find that at certain stages, judges act like small dictators, controlling everything, while at other stages, prosecutors hold absolute power. If their judgments make no sense, then they really make no sense—and there are usually no real avenues for relief.

There is no competition, and there is no accountability. In a sense, this is a monopolistic system.

If those in power have no interest in justice on a particular issue, then that’s how it is. Of course, you can appeal, but that process takes years. You might have to wait three years to get a "second opinion."

AR: Before all this happened, you tried to explore how to use vast resources to create social impact. Do you think you have found ways to effectively improve the world with wealth?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I have some ideas, but I certainly haven’t found the "ultimate answer." I don’t think anyone has.

There’s still a lot I need to learn, but at least some basic principles are starting to become clear. Some truths are actually quite obvious, such as paying attention to details, focusing on data, and considering the actual impact of different causes.

One of the biggest problems is that scaling is very difficult. You might find an intervention that is very effective with small-scale resources, but if you increase the funding tenfold, then the extra 90% might be completely wasted. Sometimes, the limiting factor isn’t even funding, but whether there is a truly efficient team.

The most consistent pattern we’ve found is that the most successful movements, causes, charities, and organizations often have a well-functioning team—a team with clear goals, strong yet thoughtful leadership, and a structure that can collaborate efficiently. But this situation is rare.

As long as there is a lack of such a team, efficiency will completely collapse. No matter how much funding is invested, it cannot solve the fundamental problem.

Frankly, I believe the government has the same issues, and we are seeing this phenomenon occur in real-time.

I don’t know if you’ve been following Doge and what has happened around it, but this is actually a real debate about "reform vs. revolution"—whether to choose a scalpel or a chainsaw.

Over time, I have increasingly leaned towards the "chainsaw" approach in certain cases. Some things don’t just need a 10% reduction in redundancy; they need a 30%, 50%, or even 70% cut. But of course, after the cuts, there must be a proper rebuilding. You can’t just cut everything and leave a void.

Look at the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)—the entire cryptocurrency industry cannot communicate with it normally. The issue isn’t whether this agency needs to improve its efficiency a bit; it seems that its existence is entirely to stifle innovation.

Yet ironically, it employs a massive workforce but has accomplished almost nothing of real substance.

AR: Sam, your story is indeed extraordinary. But as you said, whether it’s your appeal or a potential pardon, it requires making exceptions for your case.

Do you consider yourself an exception? Is your case unique, or do you think it represents a broader issue?

Sam Bankman-Fried: The patterns I see in my case are not unique. Many other cases have similar issues.

However, when the media gets involved, when public attention peaks, and when political factors—whether partisan politics or workplace politics—come into play, everything gets amplified. And when the professional incentives of law enforcement officials are also involved, these patterns not only exist but can expand and proliferate uncontrollably.

So, in some ways, my case is an extreme manifestation of these issues, but it is by no means the only one.

AR: Hey, Sam, sorry I missed the call at 3 PM—I was helping a fellow inmate with legal matters.

Sam Bankman-Fried: No problem.

AR: In your appeal, one of your core arguments seems to be that FTX was always solvent, that the company's assets were sufficient to repay all customers, and that the ultimate collapse was essentially a liquidity crisis. This is not only key to your appeal but also seems to be at the heart of the misunderstanding of the case and how it was handled.

Can you elaborate on that?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I was regularly reviewing financial statements and balance sheets, and during the crisis, we also ensured we clarified the actual holdings of each entity.

I still retain many of the financial statements and balance sheets from that time. We have provided all these documents to the bankruptcy trustee in case they need them, but they have shown no interest.

Additionally, I have been following the progress post-bankruptcy, and—every financial statement—whether before, during, or after bankruptcy—shows that FTX was solvent. All the data indicates that our assets have always exceeded our liabilities. This fact has never changed, and we all knew it.

This has always been our most important metric. If that were not the case, we would indeed be facing a real crisis, potentially insolvent with no solutions. But in fact, the data is traceable.

If we look at FTX and Alameda as a whole regarding assets and liabilities, during the bull market of 2021, our total net asset value was around $40 billion to $50 billion, plus FTX had an additional $20 billion to $30 billion in equity value.

Then, the market crashed in the first half of 2022. Even so, we still had about $20 billion in assets against $10 billion in liabilities—about 2x leverage. This means that even in the event of a "bank run," if all FTX customers suddenly tried to withdraw all their funds, we could convert those $20 billion in assets into cash to meet withdrawal demands.

Moreover, FTX had an additional $20 billion in equity as a cushion. This has not changed throughout the crisis and still holds true today.

From a certain perspective, I believe that in November 2022, we could have—and were actually working to—fully repay all customers in kind, meaning customers would receive the assets they requested for withdrawal rather than a cash equivalent. We were selling investments to expedite this process and had secured billions of dollars in liquidity support to complete payments within days or weeks. Some of that funding had already started to come in.

However, looking at the present, the frustration of many customers is entirely understandable. After all, two and a half years have passed, and in the first two years, they received almost nothing. Now, they are not receiving the cryptocurrencies they originally held but rather a cash equivalent calculated at the petition-day price.

I completely understand their frustration. Frankly, the bankruptcy management team and the debtors made a very strange decision—they chose early on not to return customer assets in kind but only to pay in dollar equivalents. But this was entirely their proactive decision; they were not "forced" to do so.

If they had done nothing over the past two years—even just sitting there doing nothing—then today, the bankruptcy estate should have had $40 billion to $60 billion in excess value, depending on whether equity was included and how they could have managed the company.

If all assets had been returned in kind, customers should have received their full crypto assets, rather than being paid out in dollars at the petition-day price of $17,000 per Bitcoin, but rather receiving their Bitcoin directly.

Therefore, whether in November 2022 or today, repaying all customer assets should not be an issue. Moreover, as cryptocurrency market prices rise, the situation should have improved—if the assets had not been unreasonably consumed during this time…

AR: So, what exactly went wrong? Is it because people simply wouldn’t look at the books? Do you think this was malicious behavior, or was there a misunderstanding in the communication of information?

Sam Bankman-Fried: If the chosen plan at the time was to take the next few days or weeks to liquidate assets—essentially the typical response during a bank run: selling investments and assets to meet withdrawal demands—then all of this would have been feasible and could have been completed quickly. That’s exactly what we were doing, and it was a direction we could pursue.

Another option was the plan proposed by Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C): to take over the company and file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for part of its business. At the time, I was unclear about their specific plans, but now we have seen the results.

I certainly cannot fully know the true thoughts of others, but inferring from their actions… You ask if they misread the financial statements—the issue is not just misreading; they were fundamentally unwilling to seriously review any financial documents organized by the company. They outright dismissed the data as "untrustworthy," while at the same time confidently announcing in public that FTX was "beyond rescue," even using metaphors like "a dumpster fire" to describe the company's condition.

They could not have had a reasonable basis to reach that conclusion, especially given that they completely ignored the existing financial data. Moreover, the data actually showed something different from what they claimed. According to their own statements over the past few years, initially at the end of 2022 or the beginning of 2023, they claimed the company had only $1 billion in assets. A few months later, they stated they found $5 billion, then it became $7 billion, and by early 2024, it had grown to $13 billion. By 2025, that number changed to $15 billion. These assets have always been there; it was only after they stopped ignoring them that the numbers began to grow.

AR: Help me clarify a question: what is the relationship between the allegations of FTX using customer funds and the way FTX and Alameda operated? How does this relate to the argument that "FTX was actually profitable all along"?

Sam Bankman-Fried: That’s a great question—what’s frustrating is that we had no opportunity to explain this during the trial. Moreover, the prosecution was not willing to delve into this issue at all.

There are two key perspectives to consider. First, it needs to be clarified whether there was indeed any "borrowing" taking place. In other words, were the assets deposited by customers being borrowed and used by other customers? Or did the balance of each account merely reflect their actual holdings, such as a customer account having 3 Bitcoins and 2 Ethereums, while the exchange indeed held the corresponding 3 Bitcoins and 2 Ethereums in the wallet to match?

For FTX US, it was basically the latter case. Most customers were just doing spot trading; they did not engage in margin trading or leveraged borrowing, so their accounts did not have negative balances. The total assets of these customers matched exactly with the assets in FTX US's wallet.

But for FTX International, the situation was different. About 80% of the assets were leveraged, meaning these accounts did not simply hold a portion of Bitcoin or a small dollar balance but were involved in leveraged trading. For example, a customer might have $500 in Bitcoin and $400 in Ethereum, but these assets were calculated based on leverage… When a user deposits $100 and then uses leverage to purchase $500 in assets, borrowing the remaining $400, the exchange does not hold $500 in assets to represent that account; it only holds $100. This leveraged trading model accounted for the majority of trading activity on FTX International, both in terms of asset scale and trading volume.

So, of course, borrowing was involved—this was the core function of the platform. Users could engage in margin trading, perform cross-margin management, deposit any assets as collateral, and then trade using leverage, whether buying or selling tokens or futures.

AR: Your argument is not about "moral luck"—that is, it’s not that everything can be rationalized in hindsight because there were sufficient funds in the end. Rather, you are saying that this operational model was the way the platform was designed from the beginning.

Sam Bankman-Fried: Exactly, this has always been the core operational logic of the platform.

Of course, there is also a key consideration in this process: solvency. Even if users know that the platform will involve borrowing and re-hypothecation, they still expect the platform to fulfill its financial obligations. If you deposit collateral and trade, then close your position later, the platform should reasonably be able to meet your withdrawal request.

If an exchange is completely insolvent, then it cannot meet users' withdrawal demands, and that ultimately is the biggest risk. If solvency is lost, everything collapses.

But on FTX, most trades defaulted to involving borrowing and re-hypothecation—that is the operational model of the platform. Moreover, from the balance sheet data, FTX's total assets have always exceeded the asset scale of pure spot accounts. About 20% of the assets on the platform came from users who did not use leverage or futures trading; these assets were always directly redeemable.

Of course, there are many details involved—these are just broad overviews. A more in-depth discussion could analyze the Terms of Service, how different parts apply to different asset types. But from a macro perspective, this is the basic principle.

AR: Do you think the issue of solvency is related to "intent"? Does it involve the mens rea requirement for fraud?

Sam Bankman-Fried: I think it is related to some extent.

To explain it another way—if a platform provides lending services, and ultimately someone takes and spends too many assets, leading to the platform's complete bankruptcy, with liabilities ten times the assets, and the accounts not only mismatched in assets but also having no sellable assets to repay customers, then such behavior would clearly result in losses for others and would be "knowingly causing loss."

However, if that is not the case, then while this does not answer all legal questions, it at least addresses a fundamental question—was there clear theft involved, or is this merely a contractual dispute about business obligations?

(The call dropped here in the original text)

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。