TL;DR:
- SBF claims customers are receiving up to 143% of their funds, though the figure is disputed due to the 2022 valuation.
- The former CEO categorically denied rumors of sexual misconduct compared to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
- Bankman-Fried maintains that the 2023 trial was unfair and that he was barred from presenting evidence of solvency to the court.
From his cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, Sam Bankman-Fried launched a media counteroffensive to clear his reputation. In this new defense, the convict published a list of “10 Myths,” alleging that the company was never insolvent and that the judicial process against him was biased from the start.
One of the most controversial points is his claim that users are recovering more than 100% of their assets. However, some analysts point out that this calculation is based on November 2022 prices; therefore, a user who held one Bitcoin will receive only about $17,000, missing out on the cryptocurrency’s current appreciation.
SBF Clarifies Sexual Rumors and Questions the Liquidation Team
In addition to financial matters, Bankman-Fried took the opportunity to address comparisons between his social circle and Jeffrey Epstein’s environment. “There were no polycules or orgies,” the former executive stated, seeking to bury the narratives of debauchery that circulated during the platform’s collapse and were used to question his morality.
Furthermore, SBF accused the lawyers and the restructuring team led by John Ray III of taking control of the company solely to generate millions in fees. According to his version, external financing offers existed that would have covered the liquidity gap without the need to declare the exchange’s total bankruptcy.
In summary, as expected, this thread of publications generated volatility in the FTT token, despite the fact that the possibility of a presidential pardon has been ruled out. While Bankman-Fried serves his 25-year sentence, his insistence on changing the official narrative keeps the crypto ecosystem in a constant debate regarding the justice of the case.
