FLACKBACK: Something Very “Wrong” With Sam Bankman-Fried?

By ProCoinNews • November 23, 2022 5:58 pm • Comments

This is a repost of an article we originally wrote on October 30, 2022, which is BEFORE the #SBF fraud was exposed.

ProCoinNews told you the truth BEFORE the the scandal broke…

Full original story below.

Trending: XRP News: Ripple Expands Its Offices To Canada For The First Time

👇

In case you don’t immediately recognize the name, Sam Bankman-Fried is the CEO of FTX, a (suddenly) surging crypto trading platform.

The Digital Asset Investor frequently mentions that while he keeps close tabs on the crypto space, he had never heard of FTX before they suddenly appeared in a SuperBowl ad with Tom Brady as spokesman.

Things that make you go “hmmm”.

So we’ll call that Red Flag #1.

Interesting, but by no means definitive of anything.

But recently, things started to escalate.

Next we had this:

So Elon Musk is widely reported to have “overpaid” for Twitter and for months the deal was on-again, off-again.

It was unclear if Elon had the funding needed.

It was unclear if he needed to sell more Tesla stock or if the bankers funding his debt would try to back out.

In the midst of all of that, he was allegedly offered a $15 billion (with a “B”) investment by FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and Elon declined.

Who declines $15 billion?

Unless you REALLY do not want to be associated with that person.

Again, interesting but no evidence of any wrongdoing or malfeasance.

Just interesting.

Then we have Bitboy, infamous in his own regard.

Bitboy has been absolutely going off on some rants recently.

In one, he got so mad someone remixed it and turned it into a death-metal mix.

It worked.

But this latest one is Bitboy absolutely going off on Sam Bankman-Fried.

I mean, no holds barred.

Bitboy says SBF is the devil and out to destroy crypto.

I’ll just let you watch in his own words:

Here’s more on the Bitboy takedown:

And now I just want to add my two cents…

I posted this yesterday.

NOTE: this is speculation.  Wild speculators only.  Do not continue reading if you don’t like wild speculation…or critical thinking. 

I’m not making any allegations, I’m just pointing out that the name “Sam Bankman-Fried” is quite coincidental if it’s his given birth name.

Sir Isaac Newton pointed out another part I had not noticed:

If the name was created to make you think he’s going to “free us from the Bankers” then I direct you only to the “Patriot Act” which was about 180 degrees from anything patriotic, to suggest that whatever name the powers-that-be give to something, you can usually assume the truth is the exact opposite.

And is that not exactly what Bitboy is saying?

I think so.

Again, no accusations here just reporting on various puzzle pieces.

And back to Elon…Elon is no dummy.

I’ll defer to his judgment any day of the week (1) because I assume he has access to more inside information than I do, so I assume he’s making more informed decisions based on info we are not privy to, and (2) the man is freaking smart.  As in, he’s a rocket scientist.  Better yet, a self-taught rocket scientist.

It doesn’t mean we should dismiss SBF.

No, if anything, I think he’s here to stay and he’s one to watch:

Here’s more from Axios on the Elon/SBF saga:

Crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried backed off helping Elon Musk acquire Twitter, after a phone call with the Tesla and SpaceX founder, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: The call, previously unreported, is a missing link to last week’s court filing, in which Musk’s text messages suggested that he had brushed off Bankman-Fried’s interest.

What’s in the court docs: In late March, Musk received texts from William MacAskill, an adviser to Bankman-Fried’s philanthropic fund, encouraging Musk to meet with the FTX CEO. Soon, there were similar messages from Morgan Stanley tech banker Michael Grimes.

  • Bankman-Fried said investing between $1 billion and $3 billion would “be easy,” and that be “could do” up to $8 billion without securing outside financing, MacAskill wrote in a message to Musk.
  • Grimes told Musk that Bankman-Fried had put $5 billion in writing, but verbally suggested an investment up to $10 billion.
  • Grimes added that the deal could be sealed with just a one-hour meeting, and that Bankman-Fried had offered to “do the engineering for social media blockchain integration,” were Musk interested (he wasn’t, per a thumbs-down reply).

What’s not in the court docs: Bankman-Fried and Musk spoke via phone following the intros. Afterward, the crypto billionaire told Musk that he was no longer interested in participating on the Twitter deal.

  • The text messages disclosed in the court filing do not include any messages from Bankman-Fried to Musk in this time period. They do, however, include one from Musk to Bankman-Fried, asking: “Sorry, who is sending this message?”
  • It’s unclear if Musk was truly confused, or if he was trying to shade Bankman-Fried for bailing on the investment.

We started this article with the Digital Asset Investor and now that’s where we need to finish it.

Because this just happened:

The man says his gut is not often wrong…

Looks like he may have sniffed this one out from Day 1.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

 

Search ProCoinNews