Connect with us

Published

on

FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried arrives at Manhattan Federal Court for a court appearance in New York, United States on June 15, 2023. 

Fatih Aktas/ | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

Sam Bankman-Fried, who pleaded not guilty to criminal fraud charges tied to the collapse of his crypto empire, has one last chance to get a Manhattan jury to believe him.

After two days on the witness stand, Bankman-Fried is set to wrap up his testimony on Tuesday. All that’s left is a couple more hours of cross-examination by prosecutors, followed by a redirect examination by Bankman-Fried’s team. After that, the defense plans to rest its case.

The roughly four-week trial has largely consisted of government-supported testimony from Bankman-Fried’s former close friends, confidants and top executives at crypto exchange FTX and sister hedge fund Alameda Research. They all singled out Bankman-Fried as the mastermind of a scheme to use FTX customer money to fund everything from venture investments and a high-priced condo in the Bahamas to covering Alameda’s crypto losses after the market crashed last year.

Bankman-Fried’s defense failed to land any significant blows in cross-examining the prosecution’s key witnesses, including Caroline Ellison, the defendant’s ex-girlfriend and the former head of Alameda. When it was defense attorney Mark Cohen’s chance to take the lead, he only called three witnesses, with the bulk of his case riding on Bankman-Fried’s ability to convince the jury of his story.

The 31-year-old former billionaire, whose crypto businesses spiraled into bankruptcy over the course of a few days last November, told jurors in his first day on the stand on Friday that he didn’t commit fraud and that he thought FTX’s outside expenditures, like paying for the naming rights at a sports arena, came out of company profits.

When asked by Cohen on Friday morning if he defrauded anyone, Bankman-Fried said, “No, I did not.” His lawyer then asked if he took customer money, to which Bankman-Fried said, “No.”

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is questioned by prosecutor Danielle Sassoon during his fraud trial over the collapse of the bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, before U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan at federal court in New York City, U.S., October 30, 2023 in this courtroom sketch. 

Jane Rosenberg | Reuters

Bankman-Fried, the son of two Stanford University legal scholars, faces seven criminal counts, including wire fraud, securities fraud and money laundering, that could land him in prison for life if he’s convicted. His argument to the jury is that he made mistakes, like not having a risk management team in place, which led to “significant oversights.” But when it comes to the central question — what happened to billions of dollars in customer money — Bankman-Fried doesn’t offer any clear explanations and claims to not really know.

Ellison, who was one of several witnesses cooperating with the government on a plea deal, had a more precise answer, in her Oct. 10 appearance on the stand.

“We ultimately took around $14 billion, some of which we were able to pay back,” she said. “I sent balance sheets to lenders at the direction of Sam that incorrectly stated Alameda’s assets and liabilities.”

Ellison said Alameda siphoned several billion dollars from FTX customers and that Bankman-Fried had not only set up a system to steal the funds but also directed Ellison and others to use customer funds to repay loans in the ballpark of $10 billion.

Bankman-Fried testified that he wasn’t aware of the amount Alameda was borrowing from FTX, or its theoretical max. As long as Alameda’s net asset value was positive and the scale of borrowing was reasonable, increasing its line of credit so that Alameda could keep filling orders was fine, he said. Earlier testimony from former engineering director Nishad Singh and co-founder Gary Wang suggested the line of credit was raised to $65 billion, a number Bankman-Fried said he wasn’t aware of.

Prosecutors entered corroborating materials, including encrypted Signal messages and other internal documents that appear to show Bankman-Fried orchestrating the spending of FTX customer money.

‘Average level sports fan’

Caroline Ellison, former chief executive officer of Alameda Research LLC, leaves Manhattan Federal Court after testifying during the trial of FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, on October 10, 2023 in New York City. 

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images

When it came to Ellison, Bankman-Fried said that he repeatedly tried to make sure she was implementing sufficient hedging strategies at Alameda to ensure the fund didn’t collapse under the weight of tumbling crypto prices.

Bankman-Fried testified about several conversations on the matter he’d had with Ellison between June and September 2022, and said he was notably concerned about the decline in Alameda’s net asset value from $40 billion the prior year to $10 billion.

The market had already dropped 70% and if it fell another 50%, he was afraid the firm would be insolvent, Bankman-Fried told the jury.

“She started crying,” Bankman-Fried said, regarding Ellison’s reaction when he told her that. “She agreed.”

Bankman-Fried said Ellison offered to resign over the matter, but the defendant testified he wasn’t focused on blame or past failures but rather making sure that Alameda remained solvent.

In September, he checked in again with Ellison about the hedging activity, Bankman-Fried testified. Ellison told him Alameda had hedged. He asked about the scale of the trades and said his instinct was that they could have been twice the size. After Ellison sent him spreadsheets about the trades, she agreed there was more room to hedge and she did so, Bankman-Fried said.

In walking through FTX’s failure, Bankman-Fried discussed the role played by Singh, who was also called as a government witness. Bankman-Fried highlighted Singh’s personal financial problems, and said he was suicidal with a therapist on call 24/7 to watch over him. Bankman-Fried said he was trying to comfort Singh about his loans and expenses in part to prevent him from hurting himself.

In describing the swift downfall of FTX, Bankman-Fried said that customer withdrawals had quickly increased from $50 million a day to $1 billion a day. He said it was like a run on the bank and he was very concerned since the only way to withdraw all customer funds was to liquidate every open margin trade.

Bankman-Fried defended his tweets from early November that he said were designed to ease customer concerns.

Regarding the “assets are fine” tweet he wrote during the panic, he said he thought Alameda’s net asset value was roughly $10 billion and that FTX didn’t have a hole in its balance sheet.

“My view was the exchange was OK and there was no hole in the assets,” he told the court.

Shorter answers

In testimony later on Monday, Bankman-Fried was faced with cross-examination as the government had its turn with the defendant. Far from the more descriptive answers Bankman-Fried provided in response to Cohen’s questions, the prosecutors inquiries were met with a lot of quick replies like “Yep” and “I don’t recall.”

In some instances, his answers were directly followed with a government exhibit, such as a tweet, interview transcript, congressional testimony or email, intended to dispute his answer.

For example, Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon asked Bankman-Fried if he assured people that Alameda played by the same rules as others on the FTX exchange. Bankman-Fried said he wasn’t sure. The government followed by showing a tweet from him directly addressing the topic along with an email in which he wrote that Alameda’s account is like everyone else’s.

After the government wraps its questioning on Tuesday and the defense gets its shot at redirect, all that’s left on the docket is two witness rebuttals from the prosecution. One will come from an FBI data analyst and the other from an employee at investment firm Apollo, which had been in talks to help finance an FTX rescue.

At that point, Bankman-Fried’s fate will lie in the hands of the 12 jurors who have spent the past four weeks sitting a few feet away from the defendant in a lower Manhattan courtroom.

If you are having suicidal thoughts or are in distress, contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 for support and assistance from a trained counselor.

— CNBC’s Dawn Giel contributed to this report

WATCH: Sam Bankman-Fried walks jury through final days of FTX

Sam Bankman-Fried walks jury through final days of FTX: CNBC Crypto World

Continue Reading

Technology

Close to half of Kalshi user base experienced glitches, delays during Saturday college football games

Published

on

By

Close to half of Kalshi user base experienced glitches, delays during Saturday college football games

The Kalshi logo arranged on a laptop in New York, US, on Monday, Feb. 10, 2025.

Gabby Jones | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Close to half of Kalshi’s user base experienced glitches and delays on Saturday during college football games, a major source of trades, as some said they were temporarily unable to process orders.

In a message sent to a user obtained by CNBC, the predictions market service’s website apologized for any inconvenience and said it was “looking into” the issues traders were experiencing. 

“The Exchange is experiencing temporary delays,” the message read. “Balances and positions may not be accurately reflected at this time.” 

One user shared a screen recording and screenshots with CNBC that showed they were unable to see their balance or bets while the issues persisted.

A number of users on X reported the website was down when they were trying to place bets on college football games, with some saying they had open orders that wouldn’t process. When CNBC visited the website, it wouldn’t load, showing only a green K with a spinning circle around it for more than 20 minutes. The platform later loaded.

“Earlier today, Kalshi experienced minor glitches that temporarily affected some user experiences. No exchange outage occurred, no funds were affected, and the issues are now resolved,” the company said in a statement.

Earlier, a spokesperson denied there was an outage and said the exchange “never stopped functioning properly.” He added that there has been no impact on clearing, advanced trading, or institutional trading.

“There were some glitches and delays on our web and app product, which affected less than half of our user base,” the spokesperson said. 

A little over a week ago, Kalshi announced a $300 million Series D funding round that valued the company at $5 billion, more than double its $2 billion valuation in June after its Series C round. 

The round was co-led by Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) and Sequoia Capital, with participation from Paradigm. Additional backers included Coinbase Ventures, General Catalyst, Spark Capital and CapitalG. 

The company, founded in 2018, rose to prominence by offering bettors the ability to trade on a wide range of real-world events, from football games to who President Donald Trump could pardon this year.

WATCH: Kalshi CEO on $2B valuation: We’re one of the fastest growing companies in America

Kalshi CEO on hitting $2B valuation: We're one of the fastest growing companies in America

Continue Reading

Technology

AI headshots are changing the way job seekers are seen and get hired in tough labor market

Published

on

By

AI headshots are changing the way job seekers are seen and get hired in tough labor market

AI headshots are becoming popular on LinkedIn and in professional portfolios as job seekers look for affordable profile pictures to give them an edge.

Since first impressions happen almost entirely through a screen, a clean, appealing photo is as important as a strong resume. And in a competitive job market, a good headshot can make a big difference. But professional photography has long been a financial barrier for many job applicants with an average starting cost for a professional headshot in the U.S. that can easily run up to hundreds of dollars.

Now job seekers are using fast and inexpensive AI tools to replace costly studio sessions.

“When I was at Yale, it was $200 for a 15-minute session for students,” said Melanie Fan, head of growth at Plush, an AI-powered online search platform for personalized shopping. “It was really expensive. The process of getting the pictures back, rendering them, looking at which ones I looked the best in, and then sending it back to the photographer for edit.”

This frustration has fueled the explosion of AI headshot tools like InstaHeadshots, PhotoPacksAI, HeadshotPro and Aragon AI, services that promise a professional image in minutes starting at under $50. Users simply upload selfies, pick a background, and receive dozens and no photographer is needed.

“After I changed my LinkedIn photo, the amount of inbound I’ve been getting from companies has skyrocketed,” Fan said. “Three to four times more messages from companies.”

Design company Canva recently launched its own AI headshot feature, with the goal of offering users a quick way to create realistic headshots and still be able to retouch or restyle them.

According to a recent Canva job market research report, 88% of job seekers believe a polished digital presence influences hiring decisions, which is up 45% from the year before. This is in line with the general uptick in use of AI as part of the application and hiring process, with 90% of hiring managers saying they have used AI to help with the hiring process, and 96% of job seekers who used AI in the application process saying they received callbacks.

Danny Wu, Canva’s head of AI products, said the goal wasn’t to replace real photography, but to make high quality imagery attainable to everyone no matter the budget or location. Once a user uploads an image, Canva can use AI for adjusting or changing the background, placing something in a different place, and for styling. “This is just a more accessible way to get professional and unique headshots,” Wu said.

Risks and questions about authenticity among HR recruiters

Anyone with a phone can get a LinkedIn-ready headshot, but the technology’s rapid adoption has created new questions about ethics and trust. Many candidates fear looking fake or deceptive and recruiters are on the lookout for AI-generated portraits that look overly smooth or stylized, saying authenticity matters the most.

“It is perceived as risky to use an AI headshot,” said Sam DeMase, ZipRecruiter career expert. “While recruiters accept them, a bad AI-generated headshot will put off most recruiters,” DeMase said. “A poorly done AI-generated headshot is easily recognized, reads as inauthentic, and can hurt the candidate’s chances of being selected.”

However, recruiters are struggling to tell if a headshot is AI produced, and the technology will only get better. “It’s becoming more and more difficult to tell whether a headshot has been enhanced or generated by AI,” DeMase added.

Chris Bora, founder and principal AI architect of Bora Labs and a former Meta engineer, said he built his own headshot generator, Nova Headshot, after being disappointed by existing options. “Some made me look taller and skinnier,” Bora said. “The other ones, they made me look lighter, so it wasn’t really me,” he said. “You don’t need to spend thousands to look professional anymore. You just need a tool that makes you look like yourself on your best day. With Nova, it takes less than ten minutes,” Bora said.

Amber Collins, an AI headshot user, said she still feels uneasy about it, especially since not every app gets it right. “There are a lot of bad apps out there,” Collins said. “Seven fingers, half a necklace, and the rest of it is gone from your neck. I feel guilty using AI. There’s a stigma. I’d 100% prefer to get actual get headshots done,” Collins said.

But ultimately, she says, the benefits outweighed the risks. “In this economy, you have to be mindful of where you’re going to put your money. I don’t need to have my face out there excessively, but having a couple of really good, solid, professional looking headshots is worth it to me,” Collins said.

Wu said the goal for job applicants seeking a headshot should be to use Canva’s tool to balance realism and creativity without losing their identity.

The tension between tech innovation and accessibility on the one hand, and authenticity on the other, will remain.

A LinkedIn spokesperson told CNBC what while the platform does allow the use of tools, including AI, to enhance or create profile photos, “the photo must reflect your likeness.”

“Profile photos that don’t comply with our user agreement or professional community policies may be removed,” the LinkedIn spokesperson said.

DeMase noted that many job candidates remain hesitant to use an AI headshot. “A headshot is one of the few places you can inject humanity into the job search,” he said.

But with job seekers now able to provide the appearance they had access to the same studio lighting, camera, and editing team as the pros, the trend is unlikely to stop.

A recent survey found that headshot use among job seekers is the highest within the Gen Z and millennial generations. And while recruiters may say they still prefer real photos, AI headshots are becoming harder to spot, and less likely to even be reviewed by humans in the first stages of the application process. A recent study from the HR trade group SHRM found that 66% of human resource professionals are using AI to generate their job descriptions, and 44% are using the technology to review or screen applicant resumes.

Continue Reading

Technology

Proxy advisor ISS recommends Tesla shareholders oppose Elon Musk $1 trillion pay plan

Published

on

By

Proxy advisor ISS recommends Tesla shareholders oppose Elon Musk  trillion pay plan

Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, attends the Viva Technology conference at the Porte de Versailles exhibition center in Paris on June 16, 2023.

Gonzalo Fuentes | Reuters

Top proxy advisor Institutional Shareholder Services is recommending that Tesla investors vote against a pay plan for CEO Elon Musk that would grant him nearly $1 trillion more in stock.

The “mega performance equity award” to Musk, designed to retain the CEO long-term, “has an astronomical grant value conditioned upon far-reaching performance targets that, if achieved, would create enormous value for shareholders,” ISS wrote on Friday.

Tesla’s 2025 annual shareholder meeting and proxy vote is scheduled for Nov. 5. The company is scheduled to report third-quarter results on Wednesday.

ISS said that while some shareholders may support the pay plan, “there are unmitigated concerns surrounding the special award’s magnitude and design.”

Musk’s plan, if approved, would be the largest ever awarded to a public company CEO. It could could net Musk up to an additional 12% stake in Tesla, should the company hit a market cap of $8.5 trillion and achieve other goals.

Tesla disagreed with the ISS recommendations.

In a post on X, which is owned by Musk, the automaker accused ISS of missing “fundamental points of investing and governance,” and complained that the advisors had previously “recommended against compensation that shareholders have voted on twice before (and that Elon has already earned), as well as the 2025 CEO Performance Award (where Elon receives nothing unless shareholders win big).”

The company urged shareholders to vote with the board’s recommendations on all proposals on the 2025 proxy.

ISS previously advised investors to reject a “ratification” of Musk’s 2018 CEO pay package, which was worth an estimated $56 billion at the time.

The Delaware Court of Chancery ruled early last year that the 2018 pay plan had been improperly granted by the Tesla board and must be rescinded. The ruling said Tesla hid crucial details from shareholders that they were entitled to before voting, and that Musk had controlled the board.

Musk has appealed that court’s decision to the Delaware State Supreme Court, with opening arguments in the appeal heard by a panel of judges this week.

Representatives for ISS declined to comment beyond the report.

ISS, along with Glass Lewis and smaller peers, can influence how shareholders decide to cast their votes at annual elections. Musk accused ISS and Glass Lewis in 2023 of effectively controlling the stock market because of their influence with passive or index funds in some matters. He also baselessly compared ISS to a terrorist organization.

Musk will be able to vote his own shares in the vote concerning his future pay. He holds at least 13.5% of Tesla’s voting power, according to the most recent available disclosures on his stake. Those holdings alone could be enough to secure approval for the nearly $1 trillion pay package.

In September, Musk added to his ownership of Tesla stock buying another $1 billion worth of shares.

Among other ISS recommendations, the firm also suggested that shareholders should vote against giving Tesla’s board authorization to invest in xAI, the AI company that Musk started in March 2023 but only disclosed publicly in July that year. Tesla has sold tens of millions of dollars worth of its Megapack battery energy storage systems to xAI.

ISS also recommended against voting to reinstate Tesla board member Ira Ehrenpreis, a longstanding and close friend of Musk.

In May, Tesla changed its corporate bylaws to limit shareholders’ ability to sue for a breach of fiduciary duties so that only a shareholder that owns at least 3% of the company’s stock can bring what’s called a “derivative” action. Ehrenpreis presided over Tesla’s governance committee at the time that change was made without a shareholder vote.

WATCH: Former Tesla board member says it’s hard to argue with valuation

Former Tesla board member: Hard to argue with Tesla's valuation

Continue Reading

Trending