"The Department of Justice may think I am, but to be honest, I don't care about their opinion."

Compiled & Edited by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Guest: Sam Bankman-Fried, Founder of FTX

Host: Tucker Carlson

Podcast Source: Tucker Carlson

Original Title: Sam Bankman-Fried on Life in Prison With Diddy, and How Democrats Stole His Money and Betrayed Him

Broadcast Date: March 7, 2025

Key Points Summary

Sam Bankman-Fried is serving a 25-year sentence and shares a prison unit with Diddy. Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is currently serving 25 years in prison, where he now shares a unit with Diddy. He joined us from prison to share the latest about his new life.

Highlights from the Interview

• I don't think I'm a criminal. I know the Department of Justice may think I am, but to be honest, I don't care about their opinion.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) led by Gary Gensler is a complete nightmare.

• By 2022, my private donations to the Republican Party had equaled those to the Democratic Party. Coincidentally, this was exposed just before and after the collapse of FTX.

• Before I relinquished control of FTX, and even before the company filed for bankruptcy, it seemed the Department of Justice had already made up its mind to take action.

• The key question is whether the government will take the necessary steps to address these obstacles when truly faced with challenges.

• Some systems in our country hold immense power, and they can exert pressure and intimidation in subtle ways that influence people's decisions.

• They may not have prominent backgrounds or relevant experience, yet they can perform better in the company than almost anyone else. This is because they are resilient, intuitive, dedicated, and know how to work, collaborate, and find solutions to problems.

• People sometimes assume they know how to help without understanding the real needs of others, which can come off as somewhat self-righteous. In fact, many foreign aid projects end up wasting resources because no one truly understands what the people they aim to help actually need.

• If the industry can continue to focus on technological advancement rather than being overly concerned with market price fluctuations, we might see a whole new world in the next 5 to 10 years, where anyone can easily own a crypto wallet and billions can transact through it daily. These transactions will be private, secure, fast, low-cost, and seamless globally. These are the characteristics that cryptocurrencies initially promised, but unfortunately, the industry's attention has been diverted to many other issues over the years.

What is prison life like?

Tucker: How long have you been there? How is life there?

SBF:

I've been in prison for about two years, and it feels a bit dystopian here. Fortunately, the place I'm in doesn't have physical dangers. To be honest, the staff here are working hard to help us, doing their best under limited conditions, but no one wants to be in a place like this. About 40 people are confined in one room, all charged with various crimes, unable to leave for years. In this environment, even the smallest things become the focus of everyone's attention.

Tucker: Have you encountered any trouble?

SBF:

Not in terms of violence; I haven't been attacked or anything like that, but I have faced quite a few logistical issues. Honestly, the biggest difficulty was during the trial period when I had almost no opportunity to handle my legal affairs. On a typical trial day, I'm woken up at 4 AM and then spend five hours shuttling between various buses, vans, and holding cells. The court hearings usually last until 5 PM, and then I have to spend another four hours in holding cells and vans. By the time I get back to prison at 9 PM, there's basically no time left to deal with any legal work. This has been my biggest problem.

Tucker: So, what do you do when you're not in trial?

SBF:

That's a good question because, in reality, there's not much to do. I read books, started revisiting some novels, occasionally play chess, and try to handle my legal matters, like appeals. Other than that, I do my best to complete any work I can. But the most unbearable part of prison life is probably the lack of other meaningful activities to pass the time.

Did SBF take Adderall before going to prison?

Tucker: Regardless of what a person is accused of or has done, I feel sorry for everyone who is incarcerated. Personally, I don't think locking people up is a good solution.

SBF:

I understand what you mean. But perhaps sometimes it has to be done, and I sympathize with everyone in prison. That's my view. You could say I'm a liberal. But to be honest, after two years of prison life, I feel like you look healthier than before and less tense.

I have a lot of time to reflect here, especially on communication issues. Looking back, I think I didn't communicate well when the crisis first started. In the following month, I fell into an old habit of getting caught up in the details while neglecting the bigger picture.

Tucker: Every time I saw you on TV, you always seemed very hyper, like you had taken Adderall. Now you don't seem that way. Were you really using that medication?

(Deep Tide TechFlow Note: Adderall is a prescription medication primarily used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy, helping patients focus and improve efficiency.)

SBF:

I never took it. But I did feel like my mind was racing at the time because there was just so much to handle. Typically, while working at FTX, I would often be doing interviews while also dealing with urgent company matters. Even during interviews, I was thinking about other issues, and many times I didn't have time to prepare, so I had to improvise.

Tucker: What do you think? Now that you don't have a phone, is that important to you?

SBF:

I still prefer a life with digital tools. After all, these things are not for entertainment but to improve efficiency and allow me to make an impact on the world. From that perspective, doing anything without digital tools becomes very difficult.

SBF's Encounter with Diddy in Prison

Tucker: Have you made friends in prison? Are you still in the same unit as Diddy?

SBF:

He is indeed here. I don't know how to describe it, but he is very kind to people. I've also made some friends. The environment here is unique, with some high-profile case individuals and many former gang members or accused suspects.

Tucker: What kind of person is Diddy?

SBF:

To be honest, I've only seen him in prison. He is very friendly to the people in our unit and nice to me as well. However, no one wants to be in this environment. He clearly doesn't want to be here either; I remember him mentioning that this kind of life feels like a soul-crushing experience for everyone. All we see every day are the people around us, not the outside world.

Tucker: You and Diddy might be the two most famous people living in the same unit. How do others, like those armed robbers, view you?

SBF:

That's an interesting question. Indeed, some people might think, wow, it's a rare opportunity to meet people like us. I was a bit surprised by that, but I can understand their perspective.

I found that they are particularly good at chess. This is one interesting thing I've learned here. Many of those former armed robbers, who may not have even graduated from middle school or can't speak English, are quite good at chess. I'm not saying they are chess masters, but every time I play against them, I didn't expect it to be so challenging.

SBF's Change in Mindset Since Going to Prison

Tucker: How is it now? Have these experiences changed your perspective?

SBF:

I feel this is part of a larger life experience. This might be one of the most profound lessons I've learned but still haven't fully understood. Clearly, intelligence and hard work are important, but there are also some qualities that we seem to lack the right words to describe. I haven't found that word yet, but these qualities can make a person perform exceptionally well, succeed, be efficient, and even exceed others' expectations of them. Of course, everyone's situation is different. However, in the finance world, I've seen many people who lack prominent backgrounds and relevant experience yet perform better in the company than almost anyone else. This is because they are resilient, intuitive, dedicated, and know how to work, collaborate, and find solutions to problems. I used to work on Wall Street, where there are all kinds of talented people.

Despite Huge Donations, Democrats Refuse to Save SBF

Tucker:

Overall, while I don't want to delve too much into the details of your case, it seems your company built a political network through political donations. This practice is common, and you're not the only businessman doing this. However, you donated so much money to the Democratic Party, I would have thought they would help you out in a critical moment. The Democrats usually protect their own from prison, so why did you end up in this situation?

SBF:

That's a good question, but I can only guess because I don't know their true thoughts. However, one thing might be relevant: even in 2020, my stance was still center-left, and I donated to Biden's campaign team. At that time, I hoped he could be a relatively moderate center-left president. But in the following years, I frequently traveled to Washington, D.C., met people, and attended meetings, which left me very disappointed. By 2022, my private donations to the Republican Party had equaled those to the Democratic Party. Coincidentally, this was exposed just before and after the collapse of FTX.

Tucker: What disappointed you? I know you spent a long time in Washington, meeting almost everyone, and there are many photos circulating. What exactly shocked you?

SBF:

Some things turned out to be worse than I originally feared. For example, cryptocurrency regulation is a typical case. I never expected the Democrats to push for good financial regulation, but I also didn't think they would perform so poorly. Of course, there are good and bad people in every party, and some thoughtful individuals as well. But the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) led by Gary Gensler is a complete nightmare. What I see is that when a company provides certain services in the U.S., Gensler will sue them on the grounds of "unregistered." Gensler says he welcomes registration, but in reality, there is no clear registration process. Almost all cryptocurrency projects have encountered this issue, and none have successfully registered. This is what I find very unsettling.

Tucker: Can you explain a bit more clearly? To an outsider like me, Gary Gensler seems obviously corrupt, that’s for sure. But what are his motives? What does he want?

SBF:

That's a good question. I can't speculate on his inner thoughts, but I have some guesses. He seems to really enjoy being in a position of power. Power is something many people pursue, and he is no exception. This may be more about expanding his power base; he wants his agency to have more authority, even if he doesn't intend to use that power to promote industry development, but rather to hinder it. What I don't understand is why he insists on requiring everyone to register while not providing clear registration guidelines. Even he doesn't seem to know how to handle these registered companies.

Tucker: It sounds like this behavior fits very well with the style of Washington. I've seen similar situations before.

SBF:

This isn't a moral issue. He is not someone with a strong belief in communism.

Tucker:

When things started to go south, you were charged with crimes or potentially facing charges. Logically, someone who donated so much money to the Democrats would typically call their supporters for help, saying, "Hey, I'm in trouble, can you help me?" Did you call Schumer or anyone else you supported, asking them to help, like getting the Biden administration's Department of Justice to go easy on you?

SBF:

I did not, and there are several reasons for that. First, I didn't want to do anything inappropriate. Second, many people quickly made their stance clear and distanced themselves from me. By that time, my relationship with Washington Republicans might have been better than with Democrats, although that wasn't public, but it shouldn't be hard to perceive from the outside.

Lastly, there's a complicated story involving a law firm that played a special role in the case. But in reality, before I relinquished control of FTX, and even before the company filed for bankruptcy, it seemed the Department of Justice had already made up its mind to take action.

The Future of Cryptocurrency Under Donald Trump's Administration

Tucker: What do you think about the future of cryptocurrency? How do you see its development speed? Are they moving in the ideal direction now?

SBF:

I hope so. Look at the statements made when the Trump administration first took office; there were quite a few positive comments, along with many policy directions that were starkly different from the Biden administration. Of course, the key lies in the subsequent actions, and we are currently at this critical stage, waiting to see what will happen. Unsurprisingly, a change in government does help to alter the situation, but financial regulatory agencies are a massive bureaucratic system within the federal government, which usually reacts slowly. Over the past decade, these agencies have played more of a "hindrance" role in the cryptocurrency space. The U.S. cryptocurrency market only accounts for 5% of the global market, while the U.S. holds 30% of the global financial market. This mismatch is entirely due to regulatory issues. The regulatory environment in the U.S. is very unique globally. Therefore, I think the key question is whether the government will take the necessary steps to address these obstacles when truly faced with challenges.

Tucker:

I remember when cryptocurrency first entered the public eye, it was promoted as a currency that could restore personal commercial freedom. It promised to allow people to buy and sell freely without government intervention while also protecting privacy. But clearly, that vision has not been realized and seems unlikely to be realized. I hardly hear anyone mention privacy issues anymore; cryptocurrency seems to have become another asset speculation tool. So, what is the current state of privacy issues?

SBF:

In fact, cryptocurrency is not just an investment tool; it has many practical uses on a technical level, such as cross-border remittances and payments. However, the promotion and application of these technologies often take longer. In contrast, the fluctuations of investment bubbles seem to happen much more frequently, almost daily or monthly.

Currently, cryptocurrency has not developed to the point where it can be a daily tool for a quarter of the global population. Although the goal has not yet been achieved, it is not far off. If the industry can continue to focus on technological advancement rather than being overly concerned with market price fluctuations, we might see a whole new world in the next 5 to 10 years, where anyone can easily own a crypto wallet, and billions can transact through it daily. These transactions will be private, secure, fast, low-cost, and seamless globally. These are the characteristics that cryptocurrencies initially promised, but unfortunately, the industry's attention has been diverted to many other issues over the years.

Tucker: Do you think governments will allow this to happen? If they really allow the global population to conduct financial transactions without government control, wouldn't that undermine the foundations of government?

SBF:

Regarding the level of government regulation over financial transactions, different countries have very different attitudes. Take Bitcoin as an example; although wallets are anonymous, every transaction is recorded on a public ledger that anyone can query. Therefore, even if the government does not directly control these transactions, they can still obtain a certain degree of information through the public ledger.

However, not all governments view this transparency the same way. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. government has had a very clear stance on controlling financial transactions. Other countries, like France, have taken a similar approach, especially regarding international currency transactions. In contrast, some more authoritarian countries may adopt completely different strategies. But in reality, half of the countries globally do not attempt to intervene in everyday financial transactions as deeply as the U.S. does.

Does SBF Still Have Any Money?

Tucker: After all this, do you still have any money left?

SBF:

Basically none. My previous company is still in bankruptcy proceedings. I'm not sure of the specifics. If there are no other interventions, the company's current liabilities are about $15 billion, while assets are about $9.3 billion.

So, theoretically, the answer should be yes. That is to say, theoretically, there are enough assets to repay all debts and even pay a considerable amount of interest, leaving investors with billions of dollars in surplus. But the reality is that things have not developed as planned. The company's assets have rapidly diminished during the bankruptcy process, and those who took over the company transferred billions of dollars in assets out. This is a huge disaster, and failing to prevent this from happening is my greatest regret in life.

Tucker: Before being charged, you were one of the most well-known people in the industry. Do you think you are the biggest criminal in the crypto industry?

SBF:

I don't think I'm a criminal. I know the Department of Justice may think I am, but to be honest, I don't care about their opinion.

Tucker:

You are now in prison, which clearly indicates they think so. But I want to ask, do you think there are many dark behaviors in the crypto industry?

SBF:

Indeed. This phenomenon was particularly evident ten years ago, or at least relative to the size of the industry at that time. Looking back at the period from 2014 to 2017, the scale of the crypto industry was far less than it is today. I have seen many transactions, a considerable portion of which, well, to put it differently, fall into the "gray area." For example, "Silk Road" is a typical case. Ten years ago, it was quite common for people to use cryptocurrency to buy drugs online.

Of course, there will always be criminals in any industry. But over time, the proportion of such behavior in the crypto industry has significantly decreased. On one hand, this is because other legitimate uses of cryptocurrency have gradually increased, and on the other hand, it is also because the government has strengthened regulations on anti-money laundering (AML). So, while there are still some dark behaviors now, they are no longer as prevalent as in the early days.

Tucker Questions SBF About "Effective Altruism"

Tucker: You were once considered a representative of the concept of "effective altruism." This worldview or ideology, even a belief, is fundamentally about pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The purpose of your making money was supposedly to help as many people as possible. However, it has been pointed out that with the collapse of your company, about a million people lost their funds. This seems ironic because the principle you have always advocated is to bring goodwill to the greatest number of people.

I wonder if all this has made you reevaluate the concept of effective altruism?

SBF:

I have not reevaluated these principles. Clearly, I feel very bad about what has happened; this is completely not the outcome I expected. I know that if things had gone smoothly, the results could have been entirely different. People could have gotten their money back, but the waiting process was too torturous for them, and what they ultimately received was just dollars, not any real value. Additionally, the good things I hoped to do for the world through the company have also been almost entirely undermined by the company's collapse, or you could say completely destroyed.

Tucker: I think most people find it hard to understand that helping those they have never met is more valuable or morally significant than helping those close to them. In other words, helping your relatives or friends may seem more meaningful than helping a stranger you have never met. I think most people intuitively think this way, and you seem to disagree.

SBF:

I do disagree, but with the caveat of avoiding a common mistake. Many times, people assume they know how to help without understanding the real needs of others, and this idea can sometimes come off as somewhat self-righteous. In fact, many foreign aid projects end up wasting resources because no one truly understands what the people they aim to help actually need. For example, some teams might bring a bunch of water pumps to a place that has plenty of water but lacks food; such aid is clearly meaningless.

There are many such examples. When you help familiar people, you are more aware of their needs, which is indeed an advantage. Even if I believe that every life is equally important, that does not mean that my help for a stranger will be as effective as helping someone I know.

Tucker: But I feel like your previous answer actually contradicts the idea of effective altruism. I mean, the logic of effective altruism seems too simplistic. For example, curing polio might be relatively straightforward, but keeping a person happy for 30 years is very difficult. So perhaps those more complex and challenging tasks are more worthwhile.

SBF:

I understand your point, but I want to use malaria as an example. In the U.S., almost no one dies from malaria anymore, but globally, about 1 million people still die from it each year. This is a disease that shouldn't be taking lives anymore. We know how to theoretically solve this problem, so we should act without hesitation. While addressing malaria may seem simple to some extent, that shouldn't be a reason for us to ignore it.

The intervention costs in many of the poorest areas are actually not high. If we can allocate resources efficiently, these efforts won't significantly impact our domestic aid budget. But the key is efficiency. If we waste resources in places that don't need help, like providing useless water pumps to food-scarce villages, we won't truly save any lives.

Tucker:

What you say makes sense, and that's clearly a fact. Over the past 60 years of aid to Africa, life expectancy has actually declined in many areas. But from a moral perspective, when your loved ones are facing depression or other issues, how can it be justified to prioritize caring for malaria patients? Shouldn't we help those around us first?

SBF:

If I could do that, I certainly would. But ultimately, everyone has their own responsibilities. If I know my loved ones well and understand how to help them, then I certainly have a responsibility to address their issues. But if I've done my best and still can't help, while at the same time I can save more lives in other ways, I don't think that diminishes the good I can do internationally.

Tucker: Last question, can you think of a recent international aid project that has undoubtedly been successful?

SBF:

There are certainly some, but I won't name them specifically. It's important to note that these are not government-led projects, but rather some privately funded initiatives. For example, malaria is a great case. Through efforts primarily driven by private donations, malaria cases have significantly decreased in many regions globally, especially in Africa and India, saving hundreds of thousands of lives each year. On average, the cost to save one life is about a few thousand dollars, which is a very successful case in relative terms.

We're not talking about trillions of dollars, but rather billions of dollars that have been efficiently allocated through careful planning. Of course, if you look at some government-led projects, you might find their effects to be minimal. If you want to understand successful government cases, like the Marshall Plan, it achieved tremendous success in rebuilding Germany after World War II.

Will SBF Really Get Out of Prison?

Tucker: If you are not pardoned, assuming everything remains unchanged, how old will you be when you get out?

SBF:

That's a complex calculation. I don't fully understand all the details because it involves the First Step Act. If you simply add my time in confinement to my age, the answer is that I would be released in my forties.

Tucker: Can you handle that kind of life?

SBF:

Sorry, I misspoke earlier. If you consider my time in confinement and age, I might be released in my fifties. If you include all possible reductions, it could be in my forties. But I was 32 when I was convicted and sentenced to 25 years, so that would be 57.

Tucker: Given that you've already served two years, do you think you can hold on?

SBF:

Honestly, I'm not sure. The hardest part is that there isn't much meaningful to do here. According to some studies (though I'm not sure of their accuracy), the suicide rate in prisons is said to be three times that of the general population. So, imagine my 25-year sentence multiplied by three, plus the fact that I was 32 when convicted; that calculation is indeed quite depressing.

Tucker: Transitioning from a world of digital currency to a world without money is really strange. What do people use as a medium of exchange in prison?

SBF:

In prison, people use small items they can find as a medium of exchange, like plastic-wrapped muffins. These muffins might have been sitting at room temperature for a week, usually the kind you see at gas station counters. Besides that, there are instant noodles or sealed fish cans, which may look disgusting, but they can be useful here.

Tucker: So you've gone from the world of cryptocurrency to the muffin economy. How do you view the two? After all, transferring muffins internationally is clearly much more difficult.

SBF:

That's right; I think muffins as a currency clearly won't become a global strategic reserve. Their value is entirely based on demand, with no other intrinsic value. While muffins are not highly interchangeable, they are somewhat similar. Two muffins are roughly equivalent, so they can be exchanged. But this currency system can only support small transactions, like those under five dollars. If you want to complete a $200 transaction with muffins, that would be very difficult.

In prison, all transactions are very small in scale. You might even see someone fighting over a banana, but that's not really because they particularly like bananas; it's because they have no other way to vent their emotions.

Why Have SBF's Friends, Family, and Colleagues Abandoned Him?

Tucker: Since you went to prison, you are facing a maximum sentence of 23 years. I'm curious if those who were once helped by you, especially those in Washington, have called you to express concern or wish you good luck? SBF:

In the initial stages after the company's collapse, I did receive greetings from quite a few people, including some friends from Washington. But about six months later, those contacts gradually disappeared. By the time of the trial, almost no one reached out to me anymore. The whole situation became highly politicized, and the risks were too high; no one wanted to take the chance to stay in touch with me.

Tucker: Really no one has contacted you? I noticed your ex-girlfriend testified against you in court. Do any friends still remain loyal to you?

SBF:

There are a few, but very few. This surprised me. But thinking about it, it makes sense. Anyone close to me would face immense pressure; they have to make choices, and one of those choices could put them at risk of decades in prison themselves. For example, Ryan Salem's experience is a very tragic case. He was charged with completely false accusations.

He initially refused to plead guilty, but the prosecution threatened his wife, even saying that if he didn't plead guilty, they would send his wife to prison too. In the end, to protect his wife, he had to choose to plead guilty. Such behavior should not be allowed legally.

This behavior completely undermines the principles of justice, making it impossible to trust; he is a good person who did nothing wrong.

Tucker: Are you aware that the outside world is changing very rapidly? When you get out, you might find yourself in a completely different world.

SBF:

Yes, I do feel that way. The world is constantly evolving, while I am stuck in place, unable to keep up with it.

Tucker: Is having children part of your "effective altruism" philosophy?

SBF:

No. There are different views on this issue within the community. Over the past five years, I feel like I have had 300 children because my employees make me feel a heavy sense of responsibility. I hardly have time to focus on my personal life.

Tucker: Have any of those employees come to see you?

SBF:

No, almost no one has come, just one or two people.

Tucker: Perhaps you should consider having your own children. Because when you are in trouble, they will always be there for you.

SBF:

This has indeed made me think a lot about trust and reliance issues. Some systems in our country hold immense power, and they can exert pressure and intimidation in covert ways, influencing people's decisions.

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。