CEFIPEOPLE

New York Times Interview | SBF: Regrets Battle with CZ, Mysterious Tweet Just Impromptu Gesture

share
New York Times Interview | SBF: Regrets Battle with CZ, Mysterious Tweet Just Impromptu Gesture

During an interview with The New York Times, SBF briefly explained the recent developments over the past few days. He refused to disclose his whereabouts, expressed regret over FTX's collapse, and addressed the attacks on CZ. He also mentioned that he had been sleeping and playing video games to help himself relax.

Update at 15:00 on 11/15: This New York Times interview has been heavily criticized by the crypto community. In over an hour, it did not mention FTX's hack, the existence of any backdoors, or other key issues. It has been questioned whether the report was released to help SBF delete past tweets.

Having Some Sleep

SBF expressed regret over the FTX collapse but mentioned:

You might think I'm not able to sleep now, but in reality, I did get some sleep.

He refused to disclose his current location citing security reasons. He also expressed remorse for attacking CZ:

Attacking Mr. Zhao was not a good strategy for me. I am very frustrated with many things I see now. I should have understood that it was not a good decision initially.

Alameda's Overleveraged Position in FTX

SBF only provided some details to explain the core issue of the collapse:

Alameda held a large amount of margin positions in FTX, which means it borrowed money from the exchange, much more than I imagined.

He mentioned the position size was in the tens of billions of dollars but declined to provide further details.

Sources stated that Alameda's CEO, Caroline Ellison, explained the reason for the collapse in a meeting on 11/9, trembling as she said:

I'm sorry to disappoint everyone. In recent months, Alameda has obtained loans and used this money for venture capital. After the market collapse in the second quarter, the lenders began to call in these loans, so Alameda began to use FTX user funds.

Sources indicated that this amount reached up to $10 billion.

Ignoring Warnings of Overexpansion

SBF did not have in-depth discussions with relevant executives during this year's rescue efforts. When advised on overexpansion and the suggestion to hire more staff, he ignored these advices.

Existence of Executive Inner Circle

Similar to previous disclosures by an anonymous employee, SBF's life in the Bahamas is sometimes isolated. When asked if he overly relied on specific colleagues, SBF stated:

There are about 15 closer colleagues. In reality, I don't think anyone can closely communicate with more than 15 people.

These individuals include Nishad Singh, Head of Engineering, Gary Wang, CTO, Ramnik Arora, Head of Product, and Caroline Ellison, CEO of Alameda.

Sources mentioned that Alameda's daily operations should be in a separate office, but recently Ellison has been staying in the exchange's trading data calculation department. Additionally, Ellison and SBF were previously in a relationship.

SBF stated that they have broken up and refused to provide more details.

What's the Meaning Behind the Mysterious Tweets?

SBF refused to discuss the possibility of imprisonment in the interview:

People can criticize me like crazy online, but for me, the most important thing is what I can do and what I finally did.

He revealed that he played the video game Storybook Brawl these days:

Although I played less than usual, it helped me relax a bit and keep my mind clear.

He was asked to explain the mysterious tweets on Twitter:

I originally planned to tweet "A" and then "P." It's not just about the words themselves. I will follow up later. I don't know why I did it; it was just spontaneous.

According to SBF's Twitter, the tweet thread has now become "What happen."

The interviewer, David Yaffe-Bellany, is also followed by SBF on Twitter. Venture capital partner Jason Choi pointed out:

SBF's long-time collaborator David helped him write an article to polish his image while SBF was busy deleting posts, and the New York Times did a great job.

Even Tesla founder Musk questioned the intent of this interview: