It
is
patently
absurd
that
Sam
Bankman-Fried
asked
to
receive
no
more
than
6.5
years
for
what
could
be
appropriately
described
as
the
crime
of
the
century.
It
is
also
laughable
that,
in
arguing
for
a
lighter
sentence,
his
newly
hired
defense
counsel
made
appeals
to
SBF’s
autism
and
veganism,
and
made
hay
of
the
full
restitution
his
victims
are
likely
to
receive.
A
man’s
diet
is
not
a
basis
for
leniency,
and
moreso,
the
FTX
estate
was
able
recover
some,
but
not
all,
of
the
billions
of
dollars
worth
of
missing
assets,
not
because
of
Bankman-Fried’s
help,
but
in
spite
of
it.
This
is
an
excerpt
from
The
Node
newsletter,
a
daily
roundup
of
the
most
pivotal
crypto
news
on
CoinDesk
and
beyond.
You
can
subscribe
to
get
the
full
newsletter
here.
“There
are
plenty
of
things
we
did
not
get
back,
like
the
bribes
to
Chinese
officials
or
the
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
he
spent
to
buy
access
to
or
time
with
celebrities
or
politicians
or
investments
for
which
he
grossly
overpaid
having
done
zero
diligence,”
FTX
CEO
John
J.
Ray
III,
who
is
overseeing
the
exchange’s
bankruptcy
process,
wrote
in
a
March
20
memo.
“The
harm
was
vast.
The
remorse
is
nonexistent.”
Yet,
to
serve
Sam
Bankman-Fried
with
what
would
amount
to
a
virtual
life
sentence
would
also
have
been
insane.
According
to
U.S.
sentencing
guidelines,
Bankman-Fried
faced
up
to
110
years
in
prison.
The
Department
of
Justice
prosecutors
who
tried
the
case
sought
a
40-50
year
sentence
for
SBF’s
guilt
in
two
counts
of
fraud
and
five
counts
of
conspiracy.
As
Judge
Lewis
Kaplan
said,
“that
would
be
more
than
necessary,”
as
he
handed
down
a
25-year
sentence.
Public
opinion
on
the
matter
(such
as
it
is)
appears
split,
with
many
saying
the
sentence
is
too
lenient.
SBF
will
need
to
serve
at
least
85%
of
the
25
years,
meaning
the
32-year-old
could
walk
in
his
early
50s.
SBF
violated
the
trust
of
his
investors,
customers
and
own
employees.
Dozens
of
victim
statements
speak
to
the
shock
and
financial
distress
he
caused,
and
the
countless
lives
he
threw
off
course.
Judge
Kaplan
also
ruled
SBF
attempted
to
obstruct
justice,
and
perjured
himself
three
times.
And
yet,
as
the
verdict
is
handed
down
today,
the
crypto
industry
might
do
well
to
wish
SBF
well.
Putting
aside
the
grisly
statistics
and
realities
of
life
in
federal
penitentiaries
—
including
that
the
United
States
incarcerates
five
times
more
people
per
capita
than
most
other
countries,
and
the
racial
disparity
in
criminal
justice
—
robbing
SBF
of
his
entire
life
for
a
non-violent
crime
would
have
been
unconscionable.
This
is
likely
an
unpopular
opinion,
given
the
harm
SBF
has
caused
to
many
crypto
holders
and
the
industry
at
large.
There
is
no
point
in
arguing
SBF’s
guilt;
whether
or
not
he
intended
to
deceive
the
world
is
moot.
Significant
harm
was
done.
There
is
also
no
reason
to
believe
SBF’s
arguments
that
he
could
help
clients
better
than
the
highly-paid
bankruptcy
lawyers
currently
doing
that
job.
It’s
clear
SBF
made
no
attempt
to
protect
or
recover
clients’
funds
until
after
the
fraud
was
exposed.
Likewise,
there
is
no
point
in
trying
to
answer
the
question
of
whether
SBF,
motivated
by
utilitarian
aims
of
doing
the
most
good
in
the
world,
turned
bad
or
started
that
way.
There
is
also
almost
no
viable
defense
of
SBF
that
could
be
made.
The
dozens
of
character
witnesses
in
his
favor
who
painted
a
picture
of
a
smart
kid
who
got
in
over
his
head,
or
who
is
too
sweet
for
hard
prison
life,
are
largely
unconvincing.
Barbara
Fried,
SBF’s
mother,
wrote
that
Sam
is
an
“angel
of
mercy”
who
carries
the
pain
of
the
world
in
his
depressed
mind,
without
any
reference
to
his
victims.
And
his
charitable
works
don’t
count
for
anything;
it’s
easy
to
give
away
other
peoples’
money.
But
wishing
for
someone
to
be
locked
up
for
decades
—
to
never
again
have
the
opportunity
to
redeem
themselves
or
make
an
attempt
to
do
right
is
odd.
Incarceration
serves
a
few
purposes:
retribution
for
harms
done
to
society,
deterrence
for
others
to
commit
similar
crimes
and
as
a
matter
of
public
safety.
The
prosecutors
tried
to
argue
there
was
a
“significant
likelihood”
Bankman-Fried
would
commit
more
crimes
upon
release,
asking
for
him
to
be
locked
up
into
his
80s.
See
also:
Lyn
Ulbricht
—
Put
America’s
Geeks
to
Work,
Don’t
Cage
Them
|
Opinion
Prison
can
also
serve
another
purpose:
reform.
Although
SBF’s
lawyer
Marc
Mukasey
told
the
judge
that
the
FTX
founder
wasn’t
a
“ruthless
financial
serial
killer”
who
set
out
to
rob
his
customers,
only
a
mind-reader
could
say
for
certain
what
his
intentions
were.
It’s
clear
enough
that
SBF
began
dipping
from
customer
accounts
within
a
year
of
spinning
up
the
FTX
futures
exchange
and
has
expressed
little
remorse
for
his
crimes.
But,
as
human
rights
lawyer
Clive
Stafford
Smith
said:
“Never
judge
a
person
only
by
their
worst
action.”
Demonizing
SBF,
sometimes
called
the
“face
of
crypto,”
is
in
effect
a
demonization
of
crypto
in
general.
Crypto
fans
should
hope
that
SBF
is
reformed
and
feels
remorse
in
time,
in
the
same
way
the
industry
itself
should
work
to
rid
itself
of
fraud.
I
cannot
comment
on
whether
SBF’s
effective
altruism
was
ever
sincere,
but
I
want
to
believe
there
is
the
possibility
of
goodness
in
him,
in
the
same
way
that
crypto
supporters
believe
that
crypto
can
affect
good
in
the
world,
despite
its
detractors.
In
short:
SBF
deserves
a
life
after
prison.
CORRECTION
(MARCH
28,
2024):
Fixes
age
at
which
Sam
Bankman-Fried
could
exit
prison.
