This question results positively if Going Infinite contains an explicit assertion that SBF was aware that he was using customer funds in a way which was illegal or broke "commonsense" morality but did it anyway because of consequentialism/utilitarianism.
The resolution of this question is independent of how compelling the evidence presented in favor of this assertion is; if the book asserts it with poor evidence then this question still resolves positive.
The book must either make this assertion itself or quote Sam in a way that makes this assertion clear; if the book says something like "some people believe that SBF did this because of utilitarianism," that does not count. If the book raises this as a possibility but does not explicitly assert it, that does not count.
This question is only about the book; if there are movie or other adaptations they do not count for the resolution of this criterion. Similarly assertions made by the author outside this book in e.g. interviews do not count for the resolution of this question.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ55 | |
| 2 | Ṁ19 | |
| 3 | Ṁ9 | |
| 4 | Ṁ6 | |
| 5 | Ṁ4 |
"To this day, Bankman-Fried claims that the collapse of FTX, and the more than $8 billion in missing customer funds, is all the result of mismanagement and sloppy record-keeping, but not intentional fraud. By writing a book that largely backs up Bankman-Fried’s claims, Lewis seems to be staking his own substantial reputation on this being the truth — or, at least, on the government being unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it isn’t. If Bankman-Fried is convicted in the upcoming trial, Lewis’s book will take an awkward place on the shelves of history."
https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/review-michael-lewiss-going-infinite
@Benthamite Does it fail to present Sam as misusing funds or does it present him as not misusing funds? Again, different meanings.
I don’t even have a position in this market since it closed before I could get the needed clarifications, but it’s still important to be precise. This one is more out of curiosity though since either way this doesn’t make it resolve YES!
Clarification request: are you interested in what SBF himself believed or what Lewis believed of SBF? Lewis might assert that SBF misused funds because... while SBF was either not aware he was breaking rules or was deluding himself into thinking he was not. On the other hand, Lewis might assert that SBF was aware of it (or even told him as much). These seem like different claims.
@NicoDelon I'm not sure I understand what you are asking – does this part of the market description answer your question?
contains an explicit assertion that SBF was aware that he was using customer funds in a way which was illegal or broke "commonsense" morality but did it anyway because of consequentialism/utilitarianism
@NicoDelon
> The book must either make this assertion itself or quote Sam in a way that makes this assertion clear
@Benthamite I read the whole description several times, that’s why I’m asking a question. I’m asking because these are different assertions. ‘I defrauded customers’ and ‘Sam defrauded customers’ have different meanings. So ‘this assertion’ here is ambiguous. I was wondering if you wanted the assertion to be that Sam consciously and deliberately defrauded customers or if it’s sufficient for Lewis to say Sam defrauded customers even he Sam believed otherwise.
But it seems like you’re leaving it open who says what so that should be fine.