The ongoing trial of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried has uncovered a series of explosive revelations in the form of testimonies from former key FTX and Alameda Research executives.
The latest court proceedings on Oct. 12 saw former Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison testify for the third day, following which the jury was presented with a recording of a meeting she held with Alameda staffers on Nov. 9, 2022, just days before the collapse of the FTX empire.
The meeting, held in Hong Kong and joined by nearly half of Alameda’s employees, was the key moment Ellison came clean about the ongoing scenario with the crypto exchange to her colleagues. This admission was accompanied by explosive revelations about Alameda’s financial relationship with FTX. Cointelegraph has obtained access to the secret recording, and we have curated a list of four striking elements it revealed.
Alameda’s bad investments led to the financial crisis at FTX
The first and most crucial revelation came early in the meeting when Ellison revealed that Alameda had borrowed money from FTX for a year. She admitted that Alameda had made several illiquid investments using the borrowed funds.
Due to the market downturn, Alameda’s loan positions were called in, creating a shortfall in FTX’s balance sheet. Here’s an excerpt from the discussion:
“Most of Alameda’s loans got called in in order to meet those loan recalls. We ended up borrowing a bunch of funds on FTX, which led to FTX having a shortfall in user funds. And so with the, once there started being like FUD about this and users started withdrawing funds.”
Ellison revealed that Alameda’s bad loans created market panic around FTX, causing users to withdraw their funds. FTX then paused withdrawals to contain the situation, and the exchange came crashing down within days.
FTX planned to raise more funds to compensate users
When one of the employees attending the meeting asked Ellison how FTX intended to pay back its customers, Ellison said that the crypto exchange was planning to raise further funds to fill the gap.
“Basically, FTX is trying to raise in order to do this [compensate users], but yeah, after the crash, no one wanted to invest. I don’t know, obviously, in retrospect, the plan of waiting around for several months and like for the market environment to get better and then raise.”
During the court proceedings on Thursday, Christian Drappi, a former software engineer at Alameda who was present during the meeting, told the court that Ellision’s response about paying back customers sounded concerning to him because he wasn’t aware of a scenario where investors have contributed to making customers whole due to bad financial decisions of the company.
The nervous laughter
As the secret recording was played in the court, the former Alameda employee also pointed out that Ellison had giggled during the meeting. The employee suggested this was Ellison’s “nervous laughter,” something she often did when in a tight spot.
When Ellison was asked by a staffer at the meeting whose idea it was to plug Alameda’s loan losses with FTX customer money, she responded with, “Um, Sam, I guess,” and giggled.
Alameda almost always had access to user’s funds at FTX
Another staffer enquired about the backdoor access of Alameda to FTX and asked how long Alameda had been using FTX customers’ funds to bridge holes in its balance sheet. Ellison responded, “FTX basically always allowed Alameda to borrow user funds, as far as I know.”
Collect this article as an NFT to preserve this moment in history and show your support for independent journalism in the crypto space.
US lawmakers have introduced a discussion draft that would ease the tax burden on everyday crypto users by exempting small stablecoin transactions from capital gains taxes and offering a new deferral option for staking and mining rewards.
The proposal, introduced by Representatives Max Miller of Ohio and Steven Horsford of Nevada, seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code to reflect the growing use of digital assets in payments. The draft is set “to eliminate low-value gain recognition arising from routine consumer payment use of regulated payment stablecoins,” per the draft.
Under the draft, users would not be required to recognize gains or losses on stablecoin transactions of up to $200, provided the asset is issued by a permitted issuer under the GENIUS Act, pegged to the US dollar and maintains a tight trading range around $1.
The bill includes safeguards to prevent abuse. The exemption would not apply if a stablecoin trades outside a narrow price band, and brokers or dealers would be excluded from the benefit. Treasury would also retain authority to issue anti-abuse rules and reporting requirements.
Draft bill explains the reasoning behind tax breaks. Source: House
Beyond payments, the proposal addresses long-standing concerns around “phantom income” from staking and mining. Taxpayers would be allowed to elect to defer income recognition on staking or mining rewards for up to five years, rather than being taxed immediately upon receipt.
“This provision is intended to reflect a necessary compromise between immediate taxation upon dominion & control and full deferral until disposition,” the draft said.
The draft also extends existing securities lending tax treatment to certain digital asset lending arrangements, applies wash sale rules to actively traded crypto assets, and allows traders and dealers to elect mark-to-market accounting for digital assets.
Crypto groups urge Senate to rethink stablecoin rewards ban
Last week, the Blockchain Association sent a letter to the US Senate Banking Committee, signed by more than 125 crypto companies and industry groups, opposing efforts to extend restrictions on stablecoin rewards to third-party platforms.
The group argued that expanding the GENIUS Act’s limits beyond stablecoin issuers would curb innovation and increase market concentration in favor of large incumbents. The letter compared crypto rewards to incentives commonly offered by banks and credit card companies, warning that banning similar features for stablecoins would undermine fair competition.
The elections watchdog has criticised the government for offering to consider delaying 63 local council elections next year – as five authorities confirmed to Sky News that they would ask for a postponement.
On Thursday, hours before parliament began its Christmas recess, the government revealed that councils were being sent a letter asking if they thought elections should be delayed in their areas due to challenges around delivering local government reorganisation plans.
The chief executive of the Electoral Commission, Vijay Rangarajan, hit out at the announcement on Friday, saying he was “concerned” that some elections could be postponed, with some having already been deferred from 2025.
“We are disappointed by both the timing and substance of the statement. Scheduled elections should, as a rule, go ahead as planned, and only be postponed in exceptional circumstances,” he said in a statement.
“Decisions on any postponements will not be taken until mid-January, less than three months before the scheduled May 2026 elections are due to begin.
“This uncertainty is unprecedented and will not help campaigners and administrators who need time to prepare for their important roles.”
Mr Rangarajan added: “We very much recognise the pressures on local government, but these late changes do not help administrators. Parties and candidates have already been preparing for some time, and will be understandably concerned.”
He said “capacity constraints” were not a “legitimate reason for delaying long planned elections”, which risked “affecting the legitimacy of local decision-making and damaging public confidence”.
The watchdog chief also said there was “a clear conflict of interest in asking existing councils to decide how long it will be before they are answerable to voters”.
Four mayoral elections due to take place in May 2026 set to be postponed
Sky News contacted the 63 councils that have been sent the letter about potentially delaying their elections.
At the time of publication, 17 authorities had replied with their decisions, while 33 said they would make up their minds before the government’s deadline of 15 January.
Many councils told Sky News they were surprised at yesterday’s announcement, saying that they had been fully intending to hold their polls as scheduled.
They said they were now working to understand the appropriate democratic mechanism for deciding whether to request a postponement of elections. Some local authorities believe it should be a decision made by their full council, while others will leave it up to council leaders or cabinet members to decide.
Multiple councils also emphasised in statements to Sky News that the ultimate decision to delay elections lay with the government.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Reform UK has threatened legal action against ministers, accusing Labour and the Tories of “colluding” to postpone elections in order to lock other parties out of power – a sentiment echoed by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey.
But shadow local government secretary Sir James Cleverly told Sky News this morning that the Conservative Party “wants these elections to go ahead”. Sky News understands that the national party is making that position clear to local leaders.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, said it was taking a “locally-led approach”, and emphasised that “councils are in the best position to judge the impact of postponements on their area”.
They added: “These are exceptional circumstances where councils have told us they’re struggling to prepare for resource-intensive elections to councils that will shortly be abolished, while also reorganising into more efficient authorities that can better serve local residents.
“There is a clear precedent for postponing local elections where local government reorganisation is in progress, as happened in 2019 and 2022.”
The five councils that confirmed they would be seeking postponements were:
Blackburn with Darwen Council (Labour);
Chorley Borough Council (Labour);
East Sussex County Council (Conservative minority);
Hastings Borough Council (Green minority);
West Sussex County Council (Conservative).
The councils in Chorley, and East and West Sussex, had decided prior to Thursday’s government announcement that they would request a delay.
Can the Conservatives make ground at the local elections in 2026?
An East Sussex County Council spokesperson told Sky News: “It is welcome that the government is listening to local leaders and has heard the case for focussing our resources on delivery in East Sussex, particularly with devolution and reorganisation of local government, as well as delivering services to residents, such high priorities.”
They also pointed to the cost of electing councillors for a term of just one year, and argued that it would be “more prudent for just one set of elections to be held in 2027”.
West Sussex County Council echoed those reasons and said it would cost taxpayers across the county £9m to hold elections in 2026, 2027, and 2028, as currently planned.
Chorley and Blackburn councils also cited the cost of delivering elections, and said they would prefer that money be spent on delivering the local government reorganisation and delivering services to local residents.
Meanwhile, 12 councils confirmed to Sky News that they would not be requesting delays:
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (Liberal Democrat-Independents);
Broxbourne Borough Council (Conservative);
Colchester City Council (Labour-Liberal Democrat);
Eastleigh Borough Council (Liberal Democrat);
Essex County Council (Conservative);
Hart District Council (Liberal Democrat-Community Campaign);
Hastings Borough Council (Green minority);
Isle of Wight Council (no overall control);
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (Conservative);
Portsmouth City Council (Liberal Democrat minority);
Keonne Rodriguez, who pleaded guilty to one felony count related to his role at Samourai Wallet, is calling on US President Donald Trump to pardon him, citing similar language that has been successful in previous pardon applications.
In a Thursday X post, Rodriguez said he would report to prison on Friday, where he will serve a five-year sentence for operating an illegal money transmitter. The Samourai co-founder claimed there were no “victims” to his crime, and blamed his incarceration on “lawfare perpetrated by a weaponized Biden DOJ.”
In a message tagging Trump, Rodriguez expressed hope that the US president would issue a federal pardon for him and William “Bill” Lonergan Hill, another Samourai executive who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years. Rodriguez blamed “activist judges” for his legal troubles, claiming he was targeted by a “political anti-innovation agenda.”
“I maintain hope that [Trump] is a fair man, a man of the people, who will see this prosecution for what it was: an anti innovation, anti american, attack on the rights and liberties of free people,” said Rodriguez. “I believe his team […] and others truly want to end the weaponization of the DOJ that the previous administration wielded so effectively […] I believe he will continue to wield that power for good and pardon me and Bill.”
Rodriguez’s public plea followed Trump’s statement that he would “take a look” at a pardon for the Samourai co-founder, claiming that he had no knowledge of the case. It’s unclear whether Rodriguez filed an official application for a pardon or is relying on public statements to get the president’s attention.
Other crypto execs successfully lobbied for a Trump pardon
One of Trump’s first acts as president in January was to issue a pardon for Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who had been serving a life sentence for his role in creating and operating the darknet marketplace.
Former Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, who pleaded guilty to one felony in 2023 related to the exchange’s Anti-Money Laundering program, served four months in prison but also received a pardon from the president. Trump later said he “[knew] nothing about” Zhao when asked about the pardon in a November interview.
Rodriguez’s language addressing Trump mirrored comments from the White House on previous pardons. For example, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was a “weaponization of justice from the previous administration” when the president commuted the sentence of David Gentile, who was convicted of defrauding “thousands of individual investors in a $1.6 billion” scheme in 2024.
Crypto users on Polymarket were not given the choice of betting on the odds of a Trump pardon of Rodriguez as of Friday. At the time of publication, Trump ally Steve Bannon had the highest odds, at 9%.