It was an attack from Binance that caused the entire episode. CZ chose the nuclear option of dumping FTT, which he knew would hurt people and most of all Sam. This started with the Bankless interview, CZ and others didn’t like SBF’s pragmatic approach to regulation and this was the response.
He could have gone to Sam and given him options and made it clear that if he didn’t change course both on regulation and the use of FTT then this is what he would do. However he didn’t, he went nuclear too soon.
Sam should have been more sensitive to the situation and prevented it before it got to this point.
In terms of bad faith, it’s very much in EA reasoning that he could have thought.
I’m taking X risk and the probability of massive failure is very low and the benefit is high. Therefore I can do more good but taking X risk. This fits his profile more than complete bad faith. If I do X over 10 years I can give more than if I didn’t do X.
Personally I think what Sam did is reckless and he shouldn’t have used FTT the way he did and he should have been the leader of merkle-tree proof-of-reserves.
However I think the probably of complete bad faith is very low.
It was an attack from Binance that caused the entire episode. CZ chose the nuclear option of dumping FTT, which he knew would hurt people and most of all Sam. This started with the Bankless interview, CZ and others didn’t like SBF’s pragmatic approach to regulation and this was the response.
He could have gone to Sam and given him options and made it clear that if he didn’t change course both on regulation and the use of FTT then this is what he would do. However he didn’t, he went nuclear too soon.
Sam should have been more sensitive to the situation and prevented it before it got to this point.
In terms of bad faith, it’s very much in EA reasoning that he could have thought. I’m taking X risk and the probability of massive failure is very low and the benefit is high. Therefore I can do more good but taking X risk. This fits his profile more than complete bad faith. If I do X over 10 years I can give more than if I didn’t do X.
Personally I think what Sam did is reckless and he shouldn’t have used FTT the way he did and he should have been the leader of merkle-tree proof-of-reserves.
However I think the probably of complete bad faith is very low.