Jump to content

Talk:United States v. Bankman-Fried

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

[edit]

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)[reply]

SBF testimony

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]