I do not remember being entirely or even primarily motivated by that issue. Iâm not sure where Matt is getting this from, though in his defense heâs writing pretty flippantly.
Matt Levine is quoting from Going Infinite. I do not know who Michael Lewisâs source is. Iâve heard confirming bits and pieces privately, which makes me trust this public version more. Of course that doesnât mean that was everyoneâs motivation: Iâd be very interested to hear whatever youâre able to share.
Thanks, that makes sense. I didnât remember Going Infinite as having made such a strong claim, but maybe I was projecting my own knowledge into the book.
I looked back at the agenda for our resignation/âbuyout meeting and I donât see anything like âdidnât disclose misplaced transfer money to investorsâ. Which doesnât mean that no one had this concern, only that they didnât add it to the agenda, but I do think it would be misleading to describe this as the central concern of the management team, given that we listed other things in the agenda instead of that.[1]
To preempt a question about what concerns I did have, if not the transfer thing: see my post from last year:
I thought Sam was a bad CEO. I think he literally never prepared for a single one-on-one we had, his habit of playing video games instead of talking to you was âquirkyâ when he was a billionaire but aggravating when he was my manager, and my recollection is that Alameda made less money in the time I was there than if it had just simply bought and held bitcoin.
Iâm not sure if I would describe the above as a âbenign management disputeâ (it certainly didnât feel benign to me at the time), but I think itâs even less accurate to describe it as being about the misplaced transfers
that makes sense, sounds like it wasnât the concern for at least your group. He does describe it as âThe rest of the management team was horrified and quit in a huff, loudly telling the investors that Bankman-Fried was dishonest and recklessâ, so unless there were multiple waves of management quitting it sounds like the book conflated multiple stories.
Just to clarify, it seems that âThe rest of the management team was horrified and quit in a huff, loudly telling the investors that Bankman-Fried was dishonest and recklessâ is from Matt Levine, not from Michael Lewis.
Iâm quickly skimming the relevant parts of Going Infinite, and it seems to me that Lewis highlights other issues as even more relevant than the missing $4M
Unrelated â I really like this comment + this other comment of yours as good examples of: âI notice the disagreement you are having is about an empirical and easily testable question, let me spend 5 min to grab the nearest data to test this.â (I really admire /â value this virtue <3 )
I do not remember being entirely or even primarily motivated by that issue. Iâm not sure where Matt is getting this from, though in his defense heâs writing pretty flippantly.
Matt Levine is quoting from Going Infinite. I do not know who Michael Lewisâs source is. Iâve heard confirming bits and pieces privately, which makes me trust this public version more. Of course that doesnât mean that was everyoneâs motivation: Iâd be very interested to hear whatever youâre able to share.
Thanks, that makes sense. I didnât remember Going Infinite as having made such a strong claim, but maybe I was projecting my own knowledge into the book.
I looked back at the agenda for our resignation/âbuyout meeting and I donât see anything like âdidnât disclose misplaced transfer money to investorsâ. Which doesnât mean that no one had this concern, only that they didnât add it to the agenda, but I do think it would be misleading to describe this as the central concern of the management team, given that we listed other things in the agenda instead of that.[1]
To preempt a question about what concerns I did have, if not the transfer thing: see my post from last year:
Iâm not sure if I would describe the above as a âbenign management disputeâ (it certainly didnât feel benign to me at the time), but I think itâs even less accurate to describe it as being about the misplaced transfers
that makes sense, sounds like it wasnât the concern for at least your group. He does describe it as âThe rest of the management team was horrified and quit in a huff, loudly telling the investors that Bankman-Fried was dishonest and recklessâ, so unless there were multiple waves of management quitting it sounds like the book conflated multiple stories.
Just to clarify, it seems that âThe rest of the management team was horrified and quit in a huff, loudly telling the investors that Bankman-Fried was dishonest and recklessâ is from Matt Levine, not from Michael Lewis.
Iâm quickly skimming the relevant parts of Going Infinite, and it seems to me that Lewis highlights other issues as even more relevant than the missing $4M
Unrelated â I really like this comment + this other comment of yours as good examples of: âI notice the disagreement you are having is about an empirical and easily testable question, let me spend 5 min to grab the nearest data to test this.â (I really admire /â value this virtue <3 )