Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short, has painted an interesting picture of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) in his soon-to-be released book on the former FTX CEO.
In an excerpt of Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon published in the Washington Post on Oct. 1, Lewis described several interactions Bankman-Fried had with the media and influential figures prior to the downfall of FTX and his criminal charges in the United States. According to the author, he would frequently play video games in the background of online interviews — his League of Legends exploits are well reported — often giving little attention to people including Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour.
“Sam didn’t want to seem rude,” said Lewis on SBF’s talk with Wintour. “It was just that he needed to be playing this other game at the same time as whatever game he had going in real life. His new social role as the world’s most interesting new child billionaire required him to do all kinds of dumb stuff. He needed something, other than what he was expected to be thinking about, to occupy his mind.”
At one point, Sam Bankman-Fried was worth $22.5 billion. No one but Mark Zuckerberg had become richer faster.
Lewis added that Natalie Tien, who moved into the role of FTX’s head of public relations and SBF’s “personal scheduler”, said the former CEO cancelled many highly publicized appearances — often at the last minute — for seemingly no reason at all. The Wintour interview reportedly led to FTX’s sponsorship and Bankman-Fried as a special guest at the Met Gala, which he ended up snubbing.
“Sam treated everything on his schedule as optional,” said the book. “The schedule was less a plan than a theory. When people asked Sam for his time, they assumed they’d posed a yes or no question […] All he had done, when he said yes, was to assign some non-zero probability to the proposed use of his time. The dial would swing wildly as he calculated and recalculated the expected value of each commitment, right up until the moment he honored it or didn’t.”
Other in-person showings by Bankman-Fried included testifying before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee in December 2021 and meeting with Senator Mitch McConnell. The appearances marked some of the rare times SBF appeared in public wearing a suit as opposed to his usual T-shirt and shorts — though social media users pointed to footage of the then CEO’s shoes slipped on without being tied at the hearing.
It’s unclear what other information will become available once the book is released on Oct. 3, the same day jury selection begins for SBF’s criminal trial in New York. Amid the expected court proceedings, a slew of podcasts, news features, books, and other media have been released detailing aspects of Bankman-Fried’s life before and after the downfall of FTX. A 60 Minutes interview with Lewis revealed SBF had plans to pay off former U.S. President Donald Trump not to run for the office again based on the threat to elections and democracy as a whole.
On Oct. 4, Bankman-Fried will appear in a New York courtroom for the first day of his trial, scheduled to run through November. He will face 7 charges related to fraud at FTX and Alameda Research, for which he has pleaded not guilty.
The license came eight months after the regulator granted the company in-principle approval, and a few weeks after Bybit secured a non-operational license for Dubai.
Sir Keir Starmer has denied any ministers were involved in the collapse of the trial of alleged Chinese spies.
Christopher Cash, 30, a former parliamentary researcher, and teacher Christopher Berry, 33, were accused of spying for China, but weeks before their trial was due to begin, it was dropped.
Berry, of Witney, Oxfordshire, and Cash, of Whitechapel, east London denied the allegations.
Sir Keir, his ministers and national security adviser Jonathan Powell have faced accusations they were involved in the trial being dropped.
The prime minister has maintained that because the last Conservative government had not designated China as a threat to national security, his government could not provide evidence to that effect, which the director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said was required to meet the threshold for prosecution.
Mr Parkinson had blamed ministers for failing to provide the crucial evidence needed to proceed.
More on China
Related Topics:
During a trade visit to India, the prime minister was asked whether any minister, or Mr Powell, were involved in the decision not to provide the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with evidence that, at the time of the alleged offences, China represented a threat to national security.
He replied: “I can be absolutely clear no ministers were involved in any of the decisions since this government’s been in in relation to the evidence that’s put before the court on this issue.”
Sir Keir reiterated his line that the case could only rely on evidence from the period the pair were accused of spying, from 2021 to 2023, when the Conservatives were in government.
He said: “The evidence in this case was drawn up at the time and reflected the position as it was at the time,” the PM said in India.
“And that has remained the situation from start to finish.
“That is inevitably the case because in the United Kingdom, you can only try people on the basis of the situation as it was at the time.
“You can’t try people on the basis of the situation, as it now is or might be in the future, and therefore, the only evidence that a court would ever admit on this would be evidence of what the situation was at the time.
“It’s not a party political point. It’s a matter of law.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:40
Is China an enemy to the UK?
Sir Keir’s assertion has been called into question by former top civil servants and legal experts.
Mark Elliott, professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, told Sky News there is no legal requirement for a country to be declared an enemy for someone to be tried for breaching the Official Secrets Act.
He said the current government was “cherry picking” what the previous government had said about China to claim they did not regard them as a threat to national security.
However, there are several examples of the Tory government saying China was a national security threat during the time Berry and Cash were accused of spying.