Talk:United States v. Bankman-Fried

Rolling Stone: Who is Tiffany Fong? The Crypto Whistleblower at the Center of the Sam Bankman-Fried Storm

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/tiffany-fong-crypto-influencer-sam-bankman-fried-1234862132/

I know that Rolling Stone may not be considered a reliable source, but maybe there are other sources that cover the same material? I am sure she is mentioned as one of the people who has leaked some of the documents from SBF, and maybe could be included in the Wikipedia article here. 133.106.47.67 (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

SBF testimony

The text dedicated to the testimony of Bankman-Fried himself seems very long. It reads as a talking-points brief by his defense. It would be an improvement to trim it down to about half or at most two thirds of what we now have. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion to trim it down. Would you like to suggest what areas should be eliminated or slimmed down? With this information, we could begin the edits as we don't want to remove information that is pertinate to the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Parts of "Cross-examination" are ambiguous and/or ungrammatical

This is surely a dangling participle:

After acknowledging providing "input" on Alameda's trading decisions, the court heard interview excerpts in which Bankman-Fried claimed he was "walled off" from Alameda's trading and hadn't been "involved" in it for years.

As written this says that court acknowledged providing input on Alameda's trading decisions, which obviously isn't what was meant. Perhaps what's meant is simply that after SBF acknowledged (in court) providing such input, the court then heard the interview excerpts. But, given the incoherence of how it's written, I'm not totally sure - perhaps instead the idea is that SBF acknowledges that there was a period of time during which he provided input but he claims that after that period he was walled off, or something like that. Would need to dig into the sources to check.

This is also unclear:

Private conversations in which Bankman-Fried had said, "fuck regulators" and called people on crypto Twitter "dumb motherfuckers" were also raised, with Bankman-Fried clarifying that he had only been describing a "subset of them".

A subset of the regulators, or a subset of crypto Twitter, or both? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What are "Paper Bird" and "Apollo"?

These are mentioned in the November 2022 section with no explanation of what they are. The sentence about Paper Bird also appears nonsensical:

After Alameda's balance sheet was leaked by CoinDesk, Ellison tweeted that the sheet did not include more than $10 billion of additional assets. Bankman-Fried testified that he believed this to be "true" in virtue of his and Wang's stakes in the Paper Bird entity.

SBF testified he believed Alameda to have $10 billion of additional assets "in virtue of" a stake he personally had in some other company? Huh? There's no reason to think Alameda's assets are in any way related to SBF's & Wang's shares in another company, so on its face this seems to make no sense. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

More than SBF

Four other members of the crew were also convicted:

• Nishad Singh NYT - no jail time
• Caroline Ellison NYT 2 years jail
• Ryan Salame NYT 7 years jail
• Gary Wang [sentencing Nov 20]

I don't know, if they were found guilty in this case, or in separate cases. Where on Wikipedia do we add this? -- GreenC 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say FTX#Legal process would be a likely spot. Visviva (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)