Connect with us

Published

on

FTX back in bankruptcy court as Sam Bankman-Fried tries again for bail in the Bahamas

Before his surprise Monday night arrest, Sam Bankman-Fried had apologized for everything he could think of, to everyone who would listen. In a leaked draft of his aborted House testimony, he wrote that he was truly, for his entire adult life, “sad.” He “f—– up,” he tweeted, and wrote, and said.

He told Bahamas regulators he was “deeply sorry for ending up in this position.” But when Bankman-Fried was escorted out of his penthouse apartment in Nassau in handcuffs, it still wasn’t clear what he was apologizing for, having stridently denied committing fraud to CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin, ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, and across Twitter for weeks.

related investing news

FTX flameout showed investors bought crypto for the wrong reasons. Why most are hoping that'll change in 2023

CNBC Pro

But the day after his arrest, federal prosecutors and regulators unsealed dozens of pages of filings and charges that accused Bankman-Fried of not just having perpetrated a fraud, but having done so “from the start,” according to a filing from the Securities Exchange Commission

Far from having “f—– up,” SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulators, alongside federal prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, allege that Bankman-Fried was at the heart — indeed, the driver — of “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history,” in the words of U.S. Attorney Damian Williams. The allegations against Bankman-Fried were assembled with stunning speed, but offer insight into one of the highest-profile fraud prosecutions since Enron.

Bankman-Fried founded his crypto hedge fund Alameda Research in November 2017, renting office space in Berkeley, California. The scion of two Stanford law professors, Bankman-Fried had graduated from MIT, worked at the prestigious quantitative trading firm Jane Street Capital, and had broken into cryptocurrencies with a MIT classmate, Gary Wang.

Alameda Research was essentially an arbitrage shop, purchasing bitcoin at a lower price from one exchange and selling it for a higher price at another. Price differences in South Korea versus the rest of the world allowed Bankman-Fried and Wang to profit tremendously from what was nicknamed “the kimchi swap.”

In April 2019, Bankman-Fried and Wang — along with U.C. Berkeley graduate Nishad Singh — founded FTX.com, an international cryptocurrency exchange that offered customers innovative trading features, a responsive platform, and a reliable experience.

Federal regulators at the CFTC say that just a month after founding FTX.com, Bankman-Fried, “unbeknownst to all but a small circle of insiders,” was leveraging customer assets — specifically, customers’ personal cryptocurrency deposits — for Alameda’s own bets. 

Rehypothecation is the term for when businesses legally use customer assets to speculate and invest. But Bankman-Fried didn’t have permission from customers to gamble with their funds. FTX’s own terms of use specifically forbade him, or Alameda, from using customer money for anything — unless the customer allowed it.

And from FTX’s inception, there was a lot of customer money. The CFTC cited 2019 reports from FTX which pegged the futures volume alone as often exceeding $100 million every day.

Using customer money for Alameda’s bets constituted fraud, the CFTC alleges. In the Southern District of New York, where Bankman-Fried was indicted by a grand jury, Bankman-Fried faces criminal fraud charges as well. From the very genesis of FTX, regulators allege, Bankman-Fried was using customer funds to bankroll his speculative investments.

It is a swift fall from grace for the one-time king of crypto, who as recently as two months ago was hailed as the savior of the industry. Now, Bankman-Fried heads to a Bahamian court on Monday to surrender himself to the U.S. extradition process, according to a person familiar with the matter. A criminal trial awaits him once he is back on U.S. soil.

Attorneys for Bankman-Fried, and attorneys for his former companies, did not immediately return requests for comment. A representative for Bankman-Fried declined to comment.

Sam Bankman-Fried ordered back to prison after bail denied

The rise of the Alameda-FTX empire

FTX quickly rose, launching its own token, FTT, in July 2019 and snagging an equity investment from Binance in November of that year.

By 2021, according to the CFTC filing, FTX and its subsidiaries held roughly $15 billion worth of assets, and accounted for 10% of global digital transaction volume, clearing $16 billion worth of customer trades every day.

The firm’s “years-long” fraud didn’t just extend to playing with customer money, according to the SEC. 

FTX was able to operate so effectively, clear such massive volume, and generate such interest because it had a designated market maker (DMM) of its own. In traditional finance, a DMM is a firm that will buy and sell securities to and from customers, hoping to clear a profit in any difference in price, called the spread.

From FTX’s 2019 founding, Alameda was that market maker, snapping up and releasing cryptocurrencies on the exchange. Alameda and FTX’s symbiotic relationship proved advantageous for both ends of Bankman-Fried’s growing empire.

As FTX matured, other market makers came online to offer liquidity. But Alameda was, and remained, FTX’s largest liquidity provider, easing platform function at “Bankman-Fried’s direction,” the SEC alleges.

Unlike those other market makers or power users, Alameda had a set of powerful tools at its disposal. 

In August 2019, the SEC alleges, Bankman-Fried directed his team at FTX to program an exception into the exchange’s code, allowing Alameda to “maintain a negative balance in its account, untethered from any collateral requirements.”

“No other customer account at FTX was permitted to maintain a negative balance,” the SEC filing continues. The negative balance meant that Alameda was allegedly effectively backstopped by customer assets while making trades.

Former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison once alluded to this in a widely disseminated interview. 

“We tend not to have things like stop losses,” Ellison said.

In traditional finance, a stop-loss order helps traders limit exposure to a potentially losing trade. When an asset (a stock, for example) reaches a pre-determined lower limit, the stop-loss order will automatically sell off the asset to prevent losses from spiraling out of control.

Not content with what would eventually become a “virtually unlimited” line of credit from investors — his own customers — Bankman-Fried conspired to stack the deck in Alameda’s favor, regulators say.

FTX offered power users access to an API — an interface that allowed the user to bypass FTX’s front-end platform and communicate directly with FTX’s back-end systems. Normal users were still subjected to common-sense checks: verifying that they had enough money in their account, for example.

Alameda traders could access a fast-lane which let them shunt past other users and shave “several milliseconds” off their trade execution times, according to the CFTC. The kind of high-frequency trading that FTX users engaged in made that invaluable.

I didn't ever try to commit fraud on anyone: Sam Bankman-Fried

A lousy crypto hedge fund

Despite the deck being stacked in Alameda’s favor, the hedge fund offered terrible returns. A court filing indicated that Alameda lost over $3.7 billion over its lifetime, despite public statements by FTX leaders touting how profitable the trading arm was.

Alameda’s losses and lending structure were a critical component of FTX’s eventual collapse.

Alameda didn’t just play fast and loose with customer money. The hedge fund borrowed aggressively from multiple lenders, including Voyager Digital and BlockFi Lending. Both those companies entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings this year, and FTX targeted both for acquisition.

Alameda secured its loans from Voyager and BlockFi with FTT tokens, which FTX minted itself. Bankman-Fried’s empire controlled the vast majority of the available currency, with only a small amount of FTT actually circulating at any time.

Alameda should have acknowledged the fact that its tokens couldn’t be sold at the price that they claimed they were worth, the CFTC alleges in its complaint. 

This was because any attempt by Alameda to sell off their FTT tokens would crater FTT’s price, given how much of the available supply Alameda controlled.

Instead of correctly marking its tokens to market, though, Alameda recorded their entire hoard of FTT as being worth the prevailing market price.

Alameda used this methodology with other coins as well, including Solana and Serum (a token created and promoted by FTX and Alameda), using them to collateralize billions in loans to other crypto players. Industry insiders even had a nickname for those tokens — “Sam coins.”

The tables turned after the collapse of Luna, a stablecoin whose implosion and subsequent crash devastated other lenders and crypto firms and sent crypto prices plunging. Major Alameda lenders, like Voyager, declared bankruptcy. Remaining lenders began to execute margin calls or liquidate open positions with customers, including Alameda.

The CFTC alleges that between May and June 2022, Alameda was subjected to “a large number of margin calls and loan recalls.”

Unbeknownst to investors, lenders, or regulators, Alameda lacked enough liquid assets to service its loan obligations.

But while Alameda was illiquid, FTX’s customers — who had been constantly reassured that the exchange, and Bankman-Fried, were determined to protect their interests — were not. 

Sam Bankman-Fried in jail in the Bahamas till February as Senate FTX hearing kicks off

The fraud — exposed

Bankman-Fried stepped down from his leadership position at Alameda Research in Oct. 2021 in what CFTC regulators claim was a calculated bid to cultivate a false sense of separation between FTX and the hedge fund. But he continued to exercise control, regulators claim.

Bankman-Fried allegedly ordered Alameda to increase its use of customer assets, drawing down massively on its “unlimited” credit line at FTX.

“Alameda was able to rely on its undisclosed ordinary-course access to FTX credit and customer funds to facilitate these large withdrawals, which were several billion dollars in notional value,” the CFTC filing reads.

By the middle of 2022, Alameda owed FTX’s unwitting customers approximately $8 billion. Bankman-Fried had testified before the House that FTX boasted world-class risk management and compliance systems, but in reality, according to the firm’s own bankruptcy filings, it possessed almost nothing in the way of record-keeping.

Then, on Nov. 2, the first domino fell. Crypto trade publication CoinDesk publicized details on Alameda’s balance sheet which showed $14.6 billion in assets. Over $7 billion of those assets were either FTT tokens or Bankman-Fried-backed coins like Solana or Serum. Another $2 billion were locked away in equity investments.

For the first time ever, the secretive inner workings of Alameda Research were revealed to be a modern-day Potemkin village. Investors began to liquidate their FTT tokens and withdraw their holdings from FTX, a potentially calamitous situation for Bankman-Fried.

Alameda still had billions of collateralized loans outstanding — but if the value of their collateral, FTT, fell too far, their lenders would execute further margin calls, demanding full repayment of loans.

Allegedly, Alameda had already been unable to fulfill loan obligations over the summer without accessing customer funds. Now, with money flowing out of the exchange and FTT’s price slipping, Alameda and FTX faced a liquidity crunch.

In a now-deleted tweet, Bankman-Fried continued to claim FTX was fully funded and that customer assets were safe. But on Nov. 6, four days after the CoinDesk article, the crack widened into a chasm, thanks to an old investor-turned-rival, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao.

Zhao founded Binance in 2017, and it was the first outside investor in FTX, funding a Series A round in 2019. It had exited the investment by July 2021, the same year that FTX raised $1 billion from big names like Sequoia Capital and Thoma Bravo.

FTX bought out Binance with a combination of BUSD, BNB, and FTT, according to Zhao.

BUSD is Binance’s exchange-issued stablecoin, pegged to the value of the U.S. dollar. BNB is their exchange token, similar to FTX’s FTT, issued by Binance and used to pay transaction and trading fees on the exchange.

Zhao dropped the hammer with a tweet saying that because of “recent revelations that have came [sic] to light, we have decided to liquidate any remaining FTT on our books.”

FTX executives scrambled to contain potential damage. Ellison responded to Zhao offering to purchase Binance’s remaining FTT position for $22 per token.

Privately, Bankman-Fried ordered Alameda traders to liquidate Alameda’s investments and positions “to rapidly free up capital for FTT buybacks,” the CFTC filing states. Bankman-Fried was preparing to bet the house in an effort to maintain Ellison’s public support level of $22.

Alameda traders managed to fend off outflows for two days, holding the price of FTT at around $22.

Publicly, Bankman-Fried continued to operate as if all was well. “FTX is fine. Assets are fine,” he wrote in a tweet on Nov. 7 that has since been deleted. Bankman-Fried asserted that FTX did not invest client assets and that all redemptions would be processed.

But at the same time Bankman-Fried was tweeting reassurances, internally, executives were growing more and more alarmed at the increasing shortfall, according to prosecutors. It was “not merely a matter of having sufficient liquid funds on hand to cover customer withdrawals,” the CFTC alleges.

Rather, Bankman-Fried and other executives admitted to each other that “FTX customer funds were irrevocably lost because Alameda had appropriated them.”

It was an admission that flew in the face of everything Bankman-Fried would claim publicly up through the day of his arrest, a month later.

By Nov. 8, the shortfall had grown from $1 billion to $8 billion. Bankman-Fried had been courting outside investors for a rescue package. “Numerous parties declined […] regardless of the favorable terms being offered,” the CFTC filing alleges. 

FTX issued a pause on all customer withdrawals that day. FTT’s price plummeted by over 75%. Bankman-Fried was in the midst of a high-tech, decentralized run on the bank. Out of options, he turned to Zhao, who announced that he’d signed a “non-binding” letter of intent to acquire FTX.com.

But just a day later, on Nov. 9, Binance said it would not go through with the acquisition, citing reports of “mishandled customer funds” and federal investigations.

Two days later, Bankman-Fried resigned as CEO of FTX and associated entities. FTX’s longtime attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell approached John J. Ray, who oversaw Enron through its bankruptcy, to assume Bankman-Fried’s former position.

FTX filed for bankruptcy that same day, on Nov. 11. A month later, Bankman-Fried was arrested by Bahamian authorities, pending extradition on charges of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering.

Bankman-Fried, a devotee of a philosophy known as “effective altruism,” was apparently driven by an obsessive need to quantify the impact he had on this world, measured in dollars and tokens. He drafted a spreadsheet which measured the influence that Alameda had on the planet (and determined it was nearly a net wash). 

Billions of dollars of customer money are now floating in venture funds, political war chests and charitable coffers — money now at risk of being clawed back, thanks to Bankman-Fried’s alleged crimes.

Almost a decade ago, Bankman-Fried posed a hypothetical question to his friends and family on his personal blog: Waxing poetic on effective altruism, he asked rhetorically, “Just how much impact can a dollar have?”

“Well, if you want a one-sentence answer, here it is: one two thousandth of a life,” he said.

The CFTC alleges that over $8 billion dollars of customer funds are missing. Some customers have doubtless lost their life savings, their kid’s college funds, their future down payments. By Bankman-Fried’s own math, his alleged misdeeds were worth four million lives.

CNBC Pro Exclusive: 30-year-old crypto billionaire shares his unique investing approach

Continue Reading

Environment

Toyota’s all-solid-state EV battery plans just got a lift from Japan’s oil giant

Published

on

By

Toyota's all-solid-state EV battery plans just got a lift from Japan's oil giant

Japanese oil giant, Idemitsu Kosan, is building a new large-scale lithium sulfide plant that will supply the raw material for Toyota’s upcoming all-solid-state EV batteries.

New plant will supply Toyota’s all-solid-state EV batteries

Toyota has been promising to launch all-solid-state EV batteries for years, but those plans may finally be coming together.

Idemitsu announced on Thursday it will build a large-scale production plant for lithium sulfide, a raw material used in all-solid-state EV batteries.

All-solid-state batteries, often called the “holy grail” of EV battery tech, promise to deliver drastic improvements in driving range, charging speeds, and energy density. As the name implies, they feature a solid electrolyte rather than traditional lithium-ion batteries, which contain a liquid electrolyte.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) has already approved the planned construction site. It will cost around 21.3 billion yen ($142 million) and was deemed as a “plan for ensuring supply of storage batteries.”

Idemitsu aims to mass produce all-solid state batteries in 2027 and 2028. The plant will be able to produce 1,000 metric tons of lithium sulphide annually.

Toyota's-all-solid-state-EV-batteries
Idemitsu’s value chain for solid electrolytes used in all-solid-state EV batteries (Source: Idemitsu)

The company’s executive officer Tetsuji Mishina told the media (via Reuters) at its oil refinery in China, where it will build the new facility.

Mishina also said Toyota would be its first customer before it plans to expand to others later. Toyota and Idemitsu have been working together since 2023 to develop solid electrolytes for the mass production of all-solid-state EV batteries.

Toyota-all-solid-state-EV-batteries
Toyota EV battery roadmap (Source: Toyota)

The new plant is another step in the right direction, part of Idemitsu and Toyota’s plans to commercialize all-solid-state EV batteries in 2027 to 2028.

In September, Toyota was granted a METI certification, which gave it the green light to build the new batteries in Japan.

Toyota-all-solid-state-EV-batteries
Toyota and Lexus EV concepts (Source: Toyota)

The approval comes as Japan looks to wean itself off dependence on China or South Korea for batteries and establish a stable local supply chain. Toyota and Idemitsu are among several leading Japanese companies investing a combined $7 billion (1 trillion yen) in domestic battery production.

Electrek’s Take

Will Toyota actually launch EVs powered by all-solid-state batteries? They have been touting the new battery tech for years, but it seems to have made some progress recently.

Meanwhile, others are already getting a head start. Mercedes-Benz began testing the “world’s first” production EV powered by solid-state batteries earlier this month.

Through its partnership with US-based Factorial Energy and Mercedes AMG High-Performance Powertrains (HPP), the company tested a slightly modified EQS with over 621 miles of driving range. Mercedes said it was “the first car powered by a lithium-metal solid-state battery on the road.”

Factorial is working with other major OEMs, including Stellantis. Next year, Stellantis plans to launch a series of electric Dodge Chargers powered by Factorials solid-state batteries.

Honda, Hyundai, and let’s not forget global battery leaders CATL and BYD, are also racing to launch the promising new battery tech.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla is hit with a fresh class action about its self-driving claims, hardware 3 computer

Published

on

By

Tesla is hit with a fresh class action about its self-driving claims, hardware 3 computer

Tesla is hit with a fresh class action lawsuit about the performance and claims of its self-driving and Autopilot systems as well as its “hardware 3 computer.”

The automaker is already facing dozens of lawsuits over its self-driving claims, crashes using advanced driver assist systems, alledged breaches of fiduciary duties from its CEO and board members, but now ou can add another one to the list.

In Australia, law firms Woodsford and JGA Saddler organized a class action in the Federal Court of Australia against Tesla Motors Australia Pty Ltd (Tesla Australia) and Tesla, Inc. (Tesla US) “alleging that Tesla Australia marketed and sold motor vehicles manufactured by Tesla US that were defective.”  

The firms are currently recruiting people who purchased or leased a Tesla Model 3 or Y vehicle in Australia between May 2021 and February 2025.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

They are going after Tesla over three specific issues. When it comes to the alleged defect, they are focusing on the phantom breaking issues when using Tesla’s FSD and Autopilot features:

Tesla vehicles have the propensity to autonomously engage automatic emergency braking abruptly in inappropriate circumstances, leading to a risk of collisions.

Another focus of the lawsuit is the discrepancy between the advertised and real range in its vehicles:

They lack the ability to achieve, or come close to achieving, the advertised maximum range or the range displayed on the vehicle’s dashboard when the battery level is greater than 50%.

Finally, the lawsuit is also going after Tesla for claiming that all its vehicles produced since 2016 have the hardware capable of self-driving:

Despite statements or representations to the contrary, the hardware on Tesla vehicles is incapable of supporting fully autonomous or close to autonomous driving.

This lawsuit comes after CEO Elon Musk finally recently admitted that its Hardware 3 self-driving computer (HW3) will not be capable of unsupervised self-driving.

It’s the first known lawsuit about this issue since the CEO admitted the situation.

Tesla has already been having issues selling vehicles in Australia recently. Tesla’s sales were down 17% in the country last year and 33% in the first month of 2025.

Electrek’s Take

I would expect to see a lot of these lawsuits pop up against Tesla in the coming months, especially about HW3 now that Elon admitted that it won’t be capable of unsupervised self-driving as promised.

He did say that Tesla would offer retrofits for people who bought the FSD package, and that’s enough for his fans, but I doubt it will hold in court.

The way I see it, Tesla used the claim that “all cars produced since 2016 have the hardware capable of self-driving” to see these vehicles whether or not people bought the self-driving software package. Buyers who believed Tesla’s claim expected their cars to hold better value because of that, and it never happened.

Tesla could very well have to compensate every single person who bought vehicles from them.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Meet the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra, the luxury Chinese EV everyone’s talking about

Published

on

By

Meet the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra, the luxury Chinese EV everyone's talking about

Xiaomi’s first electric vehicle, the SU7, took the market by storm, securing nearly 250,000 orders in just nine months. Today, the company launched a new flagship variant with over 1,500 hp, starting at under $75,000. Meet the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra.

Xiaomi launches new flagship SU7 Ultra EV variant

In less than a year, Xiaomi’s first EV has become one of the hottest sellers in China. The SU7 hit the market last March and in just nine months, the electric sedan secured nearly 250,000 locked-in orders.

During its product launch event on Thursday, Xiaomi’s CEO, Lei Jun, announced the company had delivered over 135,000 SU7s by the end of 2024.

The sleek electric sedan starts at 215,900 yuan, or just under $30,000. At the event, Xiaomi launched its new flagship “Ultra” SU7 variant.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Hitting the market at just 529,900 yuan ($73,000) on Thursday, the SU7 Ultra is actually much cheaper than expected.

Powered by three electric motors, packing up to 1,526 horsepower, the high-performance EV can sprint from 0 to 100 km/h (0 to 62 mph) in just 1.98 seconds. After it went on pre-sale last October for 814,900 yuan ($112,000), the Ultra model went viral, securing 3,680 pre-orders in just 10 minutes.

That same month, an SU7 prototype claimed the title as the fastest four-door sedan at the famous Nurburgring race track in Germany.

At 5,115 mm long, 1,970 mm wide, and 1,465 mm tall, Xiaomi’s SU7 is about the size of the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT.

The flagship variant features CATL’s Qilin 2.0 battery pack, which has a 93.7 kWh capacity and can provide a CLTC cruising range of up to 385 miles (620 km).

Lei announced on Weibo that the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra has already received over 6,900 orders. The company will begin deliveries in April and aim to deliver 10,000 models.

Xiaomi-SU7-Ultra-EV
Xiaomi SU7 Ultra (Source: Xiaomi)

In 2025, Xiaomi expects to deliver around 300,000 vehicles. This would be a massive accomplishment, given that it started selling cars less than a year ago.

The SU7 wasn’t the only product to get a new “Ultra” edition. Xiaomi, one of China’s largest smartphone makers, launched the new Xiaomi 15 Ultra, starting at 6,499 yuan ($893).

Lei said buyers that place a deposit before March 31 will receive benefits worth up to 90,000 yuan ($12,400), including 15 pieces of carbon fiber (including the rear wing) and their choice of interior design. The offer includes Xiaomi’s full-scenario end-to-end intelligent driving system, free delivery, and more.

Electrek’s Take

For those that don’t remember, the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra was the Chinese EV Ford’s CEO Jim Farley drove after shipping one from Shanghai to Chicago last year.

Farley called the electric car “fantastic” on the Fully Charged Podcast, and even said he “doesn’t want to give it up.”

According to Ford’s CEO, Xiaomi is an “industry juggernaut” and a brand “that’s much stronger than car companies.”One thing is for sure, Xiaomi will be a brand to keep an eye on as China’s electric car market expands into overseas territory.

Source: CarNewsChina, Xiaomi

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending