CEFI

Twitter users investigate | Did SBF accidentally reveal that FTX is playing with a simulation account? Admit to misusing funds from ordinary users

share
Twitter users investigate | Did SBF accidentally reveal that FTX is playing with a simulation account? Admit to misusing funds from ordinary users

SBF's apology tour has been going on for a while, and although he always manages to deflect questions about embezzlement with technical jargon, actions speak louder than words. In an interview on Twitter Space with YouTuber "Coffeezilla," he seemed to slip up.

Coffeezilla interviewed SBF three times, noting that SBF's media portrayal of "I feel guilty, I messed up, but I'm openly and honestly discussing this issue" is far from the truth. Whenever Coffeezilla asked SBF more challenging questions, SBF would either suddenly claim to have a meeting to attend or say he couldn't discuss the matter, leading to evasive answers. However, Coffeezilla persistently pressed SBF for answers on "where did the $8 billion go."

Advertisement - Please scroll down for more content

In the third interview, he managed to get some official responses from SBF that were different from previous interviews.

SBF Distorts FTX Terms of Service

According to the Terms of Service (ToS) of FTX, all digital assets should be stored in user accounts as follows, summarized as:

  • Asset ownership always belongs to the user.

  • User assets may not be transferred to FTX Trading.

  • Users should bear the risk of potential loss of digital assets.

  • FTX Trading takes no responsibility for volatility.

  • User assets are not FTX Trading's property and may not be lent to FTX Trading.

  • Users control the digital assets in their accounts and can transfer assets to different blockchain addresses controlled by the user or a third party at any time, even in the event of downtime.

Q: Have users' assets in spot trading been misappropriated?

SBF deliberately avoids the Terms of Service but acknowledges that different trading products such as margin trading and futures involve different commitments and risks, indicating that assets of non-spot trading users may be misappropriated.

Coffeezilla cannot accept this answer. Are there users who only trade spot and have never "mistakenly" wired fiat to Alameda? Then where did these users' money go?

Claiming Different Risks, Yet Allowing Indiscriminate Withdrawals?

Q: If users are simply trading Bitcoin spot, are you truly not using their funds? Not even for investing in treasury bonds? You mentioned this in the deleted tweet, so where's the money?

SBF brings up the claim of certain funds accidentally wired to the Alameda account, which Coffeezilla interrupts.

Q: Let's focus on withdrawals before the collapse. If different trade categories have different services, why can't spot traders withdraw?

SBF mentions processing withdrawals of approximately $5-6 billion during the period and several billion dollars of unwithdrawn crypto assets still on the platform.

Q: I'm asking about users who have never engaged in margin trading. According to the Terms of Service, their assets should have 1:1 support. Stop bringing up Alameda. As a CEO, can you guarantee it's 1:1 support?

SBF believes necessary withdrawals during the crisis period are not limited to spot traders alone.

He admits to implementing indiscriminate withdrawals during the period, which contradicts his claim of "different trade products have different services" and is not in line with FTX's Terms of Service.

Q: So there are no segregated wallet assets as you claimed? Applying high-risk terms directly to regular users, isn't this fraud?

SBF states that during the rush to withdraw, his intention was to treat all users fairly, hence the above situation.

He emphasizes that he only wanted to facilitate normal withdrawals during the crisis and couldn't design a brand-new withdrawal process in an emergency.

FTX Playing with Paper Trading?

SBF's response in another Twitter Space session was also incorrect. Users question whether FTX actually executes trades when users buy or sell Bitcoin, explaining why the balance of Bitcoin in the subsequently released balance sheet is zero.

SBF reluctantly admits that this is another way of phrasing it, and some trades do indeed happen this way.