Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao reportedly declined to pay $40 million to former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) for a futures crypto exchange in March 2019, according to an excerpt from Michael Lewis’ book Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon.
According to the book, SBF proposed a futures exchange with “zero risk” in case of bad trades with high leverage. Traditionally, a futures exchange allows traders to leverage funds against a small collateral, and the exchange often asks traders to increase collateral if the trade starts to go bad.
In crypto, price swings can be fast and significant, which could leave exchanges with bad debts due to a lack of collateral. However, FTX wanted to create a futures exchange that would monitor the trader’s activity and, as soon as the trade surmounted the collateral, would liquidate the user’s positions, thus limiting any potential losses to the exchange.
The book suggests that at the time of SBF’s proposal in 2019, Binance and FTX had different goals. FTX wanted to cater to institutional investors, while Binance was all about retail customers. After pondering the proposal for a few weeks, CZ reportedly denied the request for funding from SBF and went on to create an in-house futures platform.
The author of the book claims that CZ’s decision didn’t go down well with SBF, who reportedly called the Binance CEO a “douche” for his decision. After the denial from Binance, FTX created its own FTX futures exchange in 2019 but wasn’t sure about its success. An excerpt from the book quoting SBF reads:
“If it works it is worth billions of dollars, but I thought there was a better than fifty per cent chance it wouldn’t work. I’d never done marketing. I’d never talked to the media. I’d never had customers. It was just different from anything that I’d ever done.”
This was not the only incident when SBF and CZ crossed paths. In 2022, when the FTX liquidity crisis came to light, FTX reached out to Binance again for an acquisition, but CZ declined, claiming the platform was beyond redemption.
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.