By Bitcoin Tidskrift - 6 månader sedan - Läsningstid: 6 minuter
The Silicon Valley Socialist: Sam Bankman-Fried
"Människor vill ha en auktoritet som berättar för dem hur de ska värdera saker, men de väljer denna auktoritet inte baserat på fakta eller resultat – de väljer den för att den verkar auktoritativ eller bekant."
-Michael Lewis, The Big Short.
Den berömda författaren Michael Lewis publicerade sin bok, Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon, on the rise and fall of FTX on the first day of the trial of its notorious founder Sam Bankman-Fried (Bankman-Fried). The book has met with heavy criticism by commentators for its seemingly favorable portrayal of the millennial crypto founder.
Det är roligt eftersom berättelsen om Bankman-Fried i grunden är en väldigt gammal skola, Stor kort-liknande berättelse om en privilegierad skådespelare som för egen vinning utnyttjade vårt samhälles förkärlek att göra värdebedömningar på människor som inte beror på deras meritlista – eller som Lewis uttryckte det, "fakta" – utan snarare baserad på en uppsättning av heuristik och godkännande från "sofistikerade" människor.
Bankman-Frieds förmåga att övertyga dem vi litar på att vara de "smarta människorna" i vårt samhälle – inklusive Lewis – – är kuslig. Men varför föll de för honom?
Kanske beror det på att Bankman-Fried var någon de förstod. Han var en insider, som – liksom dem – såg krypto som en gemenskap de kunde dra nytta av, snarare än ett ekosystem att ge näring åt.
Kryptokolonialism
Fortune Magazine in deras profil of Bankman-Fried, wrote that the Bay Area native doesn’t look like the most powerful man in crypto. But is that really true?
If anything, a 20-something year-old man oozing social awkwardness, an MIT degree, and poor fashion-sense is the wet dream of many a modern “sophisticated” tech investor. Bankman-Fried could easily be a character on the HBO show Silicon Valley
Förena nu det med hans förstfödslorätt – två föräldrar som är juridikprofessorer vid en modern handelsbasilika – Stanford University, och du har en nästan messiansk figur av modern kapitalism.
One need not look further than the praise given to him by Kevin O’Leary, saying “I'm a big advocate for Sam because he has two parents that are compliance lawyers." the Shark Tank investor said i 2022.
O’Leary continued: “If there's ever a place I could be that I'm not going to get in trouble, it's going to be at FTX.” We later found out that the Canadian investor betalades close to a million dollars an hour to be a public spokesperson for Bankman-Fried.
Men bortom Bankman-Frieds bona fides var det verkliga försäljningsargumentet som fångade investerarnas uppmärksamhet Bankman-Frieds uppdrag.
inte "effektiv altruism” –– att prenumerera på trendiga, falska empatiska rörelser är verkligen ett bra marknadsföringssteg för elitfinansiärer. Men det som verkligen upphetsade hans investerare var hans övertygelse om att krypto inte var en seriös bransch som var värd att byggas upp, utan snarare en fantastisk möjlighet att ta en påse med pengar från spelare.
As a Sequoia Capital’s venture capitalist put it in a now deleted profile on Bankman-Fried, “Yes, crypto eventually could replace money, and, yes, it can eventually decentralize the web,” the investor said.
Han fortsatte: "Men alla dessa saker är inte sanna i dag. Och så, vad är det som människor gör idag? De handlar. Och om människor handlar, och människor gillar handel, vad är affärsmodellen som kommer att tjäna massor av pengar? Det skulle vara ett utbyte.”
Detta citat visar att investerarna i Bankman-Fried inte såg kryptogemenskapen som seriös. För dem har krypto i sig samma samhälleliga betydelse som att få tre uppsättningar körsbär i rad på en spelautomat i ett Vegas-kasino. Bättre att investera i kasinot snarare än bilder av körsbär.
Agree or disagree with them, the crypto, and specifically the bitcoin subsection, of the community is serious with their goals. They are largely a set of libertarian, hyper-principled people. They are profoundly serious about their view on how blockchains can be used to liberate the currently unbanked, protect the value of one’s labor from ever increasing inflation, and connect people around the world through payments, and specifically remove government interference in money.
As Erik Voorhees’ puts it –– in what is now one of the final debates with Bankman-Fried –– “what we are doing here is in effect bringing the same separation that occurred between church and state to state and payments. In effect freeing people around the world.”
The earnesty of belief held by people like Voorhees doesn’t compute for people like Sequoia VC or Bankman-Fried. For them those beliefs were useful in that they got a community to work hard for close to no reward until the first few bitcoin bull runs. But the belief itself? For the jaded elite, a company mission often is a means to a single end: Enrich one’s bank account.
För dem är ett uppdrag lika viktigt som att göra en "välgörenhetsorganisation" eller att åka på en serviceresa på gymnasiet för att se bra ut för en antagningstjänsteman i murgrönaligan. Det är bara en del av "spelet".
This is quite problematic, since their investments in immature crypto companies –– and overall childish behavior, like when FTX insamlat $420,690,000 from 69 investors –– is a large part of the reason the “crypto” industry isn’t respected by the general public.
Moreover, Bankman-Fried regularly made statements criticizing bitcoin, for being “slow, and bulky.” Keep in mind, the bitcoin community not only birthed crypto, but are –– for bättre eller sämre –– perhaps the most ideologically pure people in technology.
Moreover, Bankman-Fried sought to influence legislation that would impact the earnest bitcoin. Since he was –– prior to FTX’s collapse –– one of the biggest Washington donors, he likely would succeed in lobbying the government to follow his view.
But this here is a form of colonization. The crypto community was a vibrant ecosystem prior to Bankman-Fried’s entry. It was a bunch of misfits that came together to build something that was unique and important. A chance to feel empowered in a system they feel marginalized in. For Bankman-Fried and his cohorts to come into it aiming to make a percentage off of the trading fees of investors –– rather than create products and businesses in the ethos of bitcoin –– was their original sin.
Ska vi bli så förvånade att det så småningom gick sönder?
En kiselsocialist
In a similar vein to a young child who asks “why doesn’t the government just print more money and give it to the homeless?” –– Bankman-Fried’s claim to fame was to make a lot of money and give it away. Like some benevolent patrician. Andrew Carnegie in board shorts.
Men var det verkligen en autentisk impuls till välgörenhet, eller var hans empati bara någon sorts spelstrategi för att öka sitt sociala kapital?
In a phone call with crypto reporter Tiffany Fong, Bankman-Fried said that he donated as much money to Republicans as he did Democrats, but did so quietly in order to gain favor with journalists who he felt were predominantly left wing. In other words, Bankman-Fried manufactured a public persona of humanitarianism, but in reality his raison d'être was to gain more power and clout
His former business partner Anthony Scaramucci sa att he saw Bankman-Fried as having a sort of “superiority complex.” So, perhaps in Bankman-Fried’s head he thought that he could single-handedly solve all of the world’s problems if only he had all of the money.
Whatever the truth may be –– what is it that made Bankman-Fried think that he had the right to use other’s money at his own discretion? Or for him to enter a space that he, once again, had close to nothing to do with creating. What made him think that he should be the authority who decides what aspects are kosher or haram? Or write legislation for it?
At its core is a belief he was the smartest person in the room. A belief certainly had the innate privilege to feel given his parents’ societal standing, and his undeniable analytical wit. But, what was missing in the matrix of Bankman-Fried was a soul. A soul that would allow for him to truly respect community that he was entering as a stranger.
Historien är fylld med exempel på människor som liknar Bankman-Fried, som tog sig till makten och lovade att vara förvaltare av en ny, mer rättvis utopi. När, i verkligheten, den största förändringen de letar efter är att vara de som har makten. Bankman-Fried tog den tropen och stänkte i Silicon Valley-kulturen.
As Michael Lewis writes, for Bankman-Fried, most of life is just some kind of game. One which –– if most legal experts är korrekt –– he won’t be getting any restarts on.
Detta är ett gästpost av Jacob Kozhipatt. Åsikter som uttrycks är helt egna och återspeglar inte nödvändigtvis de från BTC Inc eller Bitcoin Tidskrift.
Ursprunglig källa: Bitcoin magazine