Shown: From a Semafor article this week that doesn't disclose funding of the news startup by Sam Bankman-Fried (top left).
Legally, the issue may be murky--could the many creditors of a bankrupt FTX try to claw back SBF’s investment? I have no idea. But morally, it seems almost open and shut. Maybe Bankman-Fried wasn’t a felon: The jury is still out —or, more accurately, has yet to be empaneled. Butthe stench of sleaze and scamming is unmistakable and familiar. SBF's empire seems to have opportunistically incorporated bits of Elizabeth Holmes (selling people on a crypto "box" that may or may not have been empty), Lehman Brothers (massive overvaluation of assets), Tyco (SBF helped himself to a loan of a billion dollars); John Corzine (using client deposits to cover for investment losses) — with a little bit of Bernie Madoff (Ponzi) thrown in. People were ripped off and are in the process of losing their savings, including many people in West Africa, a target of SBF’s marketing. Semafor has an African bureau. Maybe it can interview them while it keeps their fellow victims’ money.
Would the Smiths be willing to found their grand new enterprise -- catering to an “elite global audience",” promising to end “polarization, distrust of journalists” -- on mob money? No. On Madoff money? I doubt it. Semafor's origin story is filled with mentions of Davos - where Justin Smith first pitched Ben the idea -- as well as the aspirationally highbrow Atlantic, with its “elite group of intellectual bloggers” (Smith’s description). Does fleecing crypto fools fit with this image? If only to be able to hold their heads up, they should send the money back.
