My take away was that he actually made everyone a boat load of money.

It appeared as though it was his lack of rigor and discipline (keeping books properly) which did him in, not dishonesty.

In the end, I had the impression there was a witch hunt for cons when the crypto market dipped.

Is that not how it was? I didn’t follow too closely and I’m not a fan or anything. It only seemed like he was an idealist born of privilege on cloud nine without appropriate formal training in finance.

Oh no, he's found HN! :p

> It appeared as though it was his lack of rigor and discipline (keeping books properly) which did him in, not dishonesty

"Gosh, how was I supposed to know it was wrong to lie and secretly 'borrow' other people's money without permission for my own gambles at the casino over and over!? I was going to put it back eventually, when I finally won enough back. It's society's fault for not ensuring I was properly educated in these extremely fine points of post-graduate human behavior."

I can't imagine accepting that from, say, a random manager of a gas-station convenience store, let alone someone with Bankman-Fried's wealth and advantages in life and a full-time job in fancy finance.

I'm sure Bankman-Fried also make a ton of "technical" breaches... But mostly in the same way a bank-robber also has an improperly licensed firearm and a double-parked getaway vehicle with old license-plates. They are not so much "mistakes" at that point as details of how the Big Crime was committed.

> he actually made everyone a boat load of money.

Like Bernie Madoff did? No, lots and lots of people lost money, and—in order to disguise it for a while—he ensured a much smaller number of people got some of the dwindling pile.

That is not at all how it was and this is strangely similar to the (also untrue) astroturf narrative that got repeated about Martin Shkreli after he got imprisoned for fraud.

FTX users lost money to Alameda by Alameda being able to trade without collateral. He literally stole money from users of his exchange by allowing this.

It absolutely is not lack of rigor and discipline - He was dishonest about it.

Isn't it the opposite? He gambled with other people's money and lost big. This is criminal because he won, he kept everything, if he failed, everyone else loses.

> My take away was that he actually made everyone a boat load of money.

What point are you trying to make? Should he not be prosecuted for fraud as long as a lot of people benefited, is that what you're suggesting?