GuShiio.com In a prison where muffins and instant noodles are used in currency, SBF talked about his worldview in the latest interview after missing the changes in the outside world.
Tucker Carlson Show, Sam Bankman-Fried on Life in Prison With Diddy, and How Democrats Stole His Money and Betrayed Him
Compiled by: Odaily Planet Daily jk
Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), former cryptocurrency billionaire and founder of FTX, is now a numbered federal prisoner. He sat in a simple chair at a detention center in Brooklyn and was interviewed remotely by Tucker Carlson. The former Fox News host and political commentator is known for his sharp interview style, but this time he focused the conversation on a cryptocurrency figure who was once famous but now behind bars.
From the peak of digital finance to the bottom of the real world, the gap between SBF is not big. Two years ago, his company FTX was still one of the world’s largest crypto trading platforms, and he himself was a guest in Washington politics, providing huge political donations to politicians. However, today he lives in an economy that has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies-the medium of exchange in prison is not bitcoin or dollars, but plastic muffins and bags of cheap instant noodles. He once talked about liquidity mining and high-frequency trading, but now the real question is “is it cost-effective to exchange a few muffins for a banana?”
Original interview
Tucker Carlson: So, where are you now?
SBF: Well, I’m in a small room at the Federal Detention Center (NDC) in Brooklyn.
Tucker Carlson: How long have you been there?
SBF: I’m already in prison for about… God, how long has it been now? Almost two years.
Tucker Carlson: So what’s the situation here?
SBF: Well, it’s kind of dystopian. Fortunately, there is no physical danger where I am. And, to be honest, many of the staff here actually want to help, and they do their best under existing conditions. But you know, no one wants to be in prison. You can imagine locking 40 people in a room, all of whom had been charged with at least a crime, and throwing away the keys, and for years the most trivial things became the only thing they could care about.
Tucker Carlson: Have you had any problems?
SBF: There is no such serious problem. I wasn’t attacked or anything like that, but I had a lot of logistical difficulties. Frankly, the biggest problem was that it was almost impossible to obtain legal information during my trial. Generally speaking, the trial day process is to be woken up at 4 a.m., and then spend five hours in various buses, vans and waiting rooms until the morning trial begins. The trial lasted until 5 p.m., followed by a four-hour waiting room and drive, and finally returned to prison at around 9 p.m., when all legal work hours were long over. This is the most serious problem.
Tucker Carlson: So, what do you do all day when you’re not in court?
SBF: That’s a good question. There is not much that can be done in prison. I can read and recently started reading novels again. I can also play chess and study my legal cases as best as I can. I still have the opportunity to appeal, and I am trying my best to advance relevant work here. But the lack of meaningful things to do in prison may be one of the most disruptive parts.
Tucker Carlson: I have to say, we’ve never talked before, but obviously I’ve been watching you from a distance. Also, I want to say that I feel sorry for all those who are behind bars, no matter what they are charged with or what they have done. I don’t think locking people up is a good idea, I know it may be necessary, but I still feel sympathy for everyone in prison. You can call me liberal, but to be honest, after two years in prison, you seem healthier and less nervous than before.
SBF: You know, I have a lot of time to reflect on how to communicate better. Looking back, I don’t think I was doing a good job in communicating enough, especially at the beginning of the crisis and in the month that followed. I made a mistake I often make, which is to get too entangled in the details and ignore the overall picture.
SBF video interview site. Source: YouTube
Tucker Carlson: Every time I see you on TV, I think you’ve taken a lot of Adderall, but you don’t look like that now. Were you really using it?
SBF: No, I didn’t. But my brain was almost “frozen” at the time because there were so many things to deal with at the same time. In the FTX environment, I usually give interviews, but while interviewing, I may also have to deal with two urgent issues in the company. So I would give interviews, stare at Slack and respond to messages. And I also knew that there was something to deal with immediately after the interview that I hadn’t had time to prepare, so part of my attention had actually been preparing for the next thing.
Tucker Carlson: So, do you think the digital world is bad for us? You’ve been deprived of your mobile phone. Isn’t that a big change?
SBF: Oh, of course, I still prefer an environment with a digital world. In the final analysis, I say this not from a hedonistic perspective, but from a productivity and influence perspective. Without the digital world, getting anything done would become extremely difficult.
Tucker Carlson: Did you make friends there? You and Diddy (note: refer to Sean Diddy Combs, a well-known American hip-hop singer, producer and entrepreneur. In September 2024, he was arrested in New York and faces multiple felony counts including extortion, conspiracy and transportation for prostitution.) Any exchanges? I heard he’s locked up with you now.
SBF: Yes, he’s here too. I’m not sure how to describe it… He was kind to me. I did make some friends, but the environment here is very strange. On the one hand, there are several high-profile cases like mine, and on the other hand, there are many so-called former gang members, or people accused of having been gang members.
Tucker Carlson: Of course, it’s just “alleged”. So, what does Diddy look like in there?
SBF: You know, I’ve only seen one side of him, the Diddy in real life. He is very friendly to people in our district, and he is also very friendly to me. Of course, this is a place where no one wants to be. Obviously he doesn’t want to be, and neither do I. As he said, this is a mentally disruptive place for anyone. And what we see is only those around us who are in prison, not the outside world.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I can imagine. Besides, you two should be one of the most famous prisoners in the world, and you are still in the same district. What do other people, like armed robbers, think of you?
SBF: Well, that’s an interesting question. Of course, some of them may see this as an opportunity to meet people they might not otherwise have known. This surprised me a little, but from their perspective, it was actually understandable. It’s just… that’s not the way I look at prison at all.
Tucker Carlson: Sorry, I couldn’t help but laugh. So that’s not what you think?
Tucker Carlson: This is so interesting. Does this change your opinion?
SBF: Well, I would say that this is just part of a larger perception. This may be one of the most profound things I have learned in my life, but I still don’t fully understand it. Obviously, what we call “intelligence” or “IQ” is indeed important, and hard work is also key. These are factors that cannot be ignored.
But there are still some things that we don’t have the right words to describe, and I haven’t found the right way to express them yet. These factors can make a person extremely good, successful and efficient, even exceeding what the outside world expects of them. Of course, not everyone has these characteristics, and everyone’s situation is different. But at FTX, we have encountered this situation many times. We may see a person on his resume with no highlights, no relevant experience, and no particularly recommended background. But when it comes to actual work, they perform far better than most people in the company, just because they have perseverance, intuition, and dedication, know how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to find solutions to problems.
Tucker Carlson: Yes, I’ve seen a lot of very stupid people get rich in the financial world. They obviously have some kind of “talent” that I don’t see, but to me, they seem like…
SBF: Hmm? I’m curious what type of person are you talking about? I used to work on Wall Street and there were really all kinds of people there.
Tucker Carlson: So, from a larger perspective, we won’t go into all the details of your case in depth, but it seems that your company made a decision to build a political alliance through political donations. I’m not specifically targeting you, because you’re not the only one doing this at all. In fact, many businessmen do this.
But you donated so much to the Democrats, I thought they would eventually save you. After all, Democrats typically protect their allies from going to jail. Tony Podesta has never been in prison, so why did you go in?
SBF: Oh, that’s a good question. Obviously, I can only guess the answer, I can’t be sure what they think. But one fact may be worth noting-even in 2020, my political stance was only center-left, when I donated money to Biden’s campaign. I had expectations for him at the time that he would become a stable centre-left president.
In the next few years, I often went to Washington, spent a lot of time in DC, and traveled back and forth dozens of times. But to be honest, I was shocked by what I saw, and I didn’t like the direction in which government policies were going. By mid-2022, I will start donating privately to the Republican Party, which is basically the same amount as the Democratic Party. Shortly before FTX collapsed, this fact began to become known to the outside world. So… maybe this has something to do with what happened later.
Tucker Carlson: Why are you shocked? I know you’ve been in Washington for a long time and even have pictures of you with almost everyone important people. What shocked you?
SBF: Some things just became more extreme what I was worried about. Cryptocurrency regulation is a good example. To be honest, I never expected the Democrats to do a good job in financial regulation, but there are good and bad people in both parties, and there are a lot of thoughtful policymakers. However, the SEC under Gary Gensler was a nightmare.
For example, if a company launches a business in the United States, Gensler will sue them on the grounds that they were not registered. Then the company went to the SEC and said,”We’d love to register, please tell us how to register?” The SEC’s response is usually: “Well… there’s nothing right for you to register.” They require companies to obtain certain licenses, but even they themselves do not know how to provide them.
As a result, the entire encryption industry has hit a wall on this issue. The SEC has largely failed to get any company to successfully register, but has left the entire industry deadlocked. This is one of the most disturbing things I have seen in Washington.
Tucker Carlson: Can you explain it in detail? People like me who don’t know much about financial regulation can see that Gary Gensler is obviously corrupt, and there is no doubt that. But his motives are less clear. What does he want? What are his goals?
SBF: That’s a good question. Of course, I have no way of knowing his true thoughts, but I can share some of my observations and impressions.
First of all, he likes to stand at the center of power very much, which many people like, and he is no exception. Part of this is a power struggle-he wants the SEC to have more regulatory powers, even if he doesn’t really want to use those powers to advance the industry, but just to hinder the industry as a whole.
Why does he require all businesses to register with the SEC? Because if the company does not register with him, his power will be weakened, even if he does not know how to handle these registration applications.
In addition, there are many rumors about his political ambitions. He seems to think that if he can make frequent appearances in media such as CNBC, create enough influence and increase his popularity, he may have a chance to become a candidate for finance minister or other higher-level positions in the future. And, he did become one of the few most well-known faces in the Democratic administration’s financial regulation, which could be a success for his political career.
Tucker Carlson: Interesting. It sounds very consistent with Washington’s style of doing things. I’ve seen this before, right?
SBF: Yes, it’s not on a moral basis. That’s not how it works, is it?
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I understand. He also has no firm beliefs, mainly for “self-improvement”. So, when things start to go downhill and you are charged, or you realize you may be charged with criminal charges-given how much money you donate to the Democratic Party, which is actually common in the business world, donors usually call directly to politicians they support and say,”Hey, I’m in trouble, can you help me?” So, have you called Chuck Schumer or any other politician you’ve supported and asked for their help and asked the Justice Department of the Biden administration to help you?
SBF: I didn’t. There are multiple reasons. First of all, I don’t want to do anything inappropriate. Secondly, when things happen, many people quickly express their position and distance themselves from each other as quickly as possible. In fact, by that time, I may have a better relationship with the Republicans in Washington than with the Democrats, although this may not seem obvious to the outside world.
In addition, there is a longer story, involving a law firm that played a highly unusual role in this case. (Note: If you want to know what SBF thinks of the law firm, you can go to the first interview in SBF prison: “Behind 25 Years in Prison: SBF Prison Self-talk about the Political and Judicial Struggle Behind Bankruptcy”) But more importantly, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had made a decision long before I gave up control of FTX and the company filed for bankruptcy.
Tucker Carlson: So you didn’t ask for any help or try to use connections at all? Interesting. So, what do you think of the future of cryptocurrencies? Your feelings in this regard should be very complicated. After all, you run a cryptocurrency company, and your current imprisonment is also related to cryptocurrency. But you have a deep understanding of this industry. How fast do you think the encryption industry is developing? Is the direction positive? I know it’s a strange question, but I can’t help but want to ask.
SBF: My answer is, hopefully. You can look at the Trump administration’s attitude towards the crypto industry in its early days in office. Some of their positions were very favorable and completely different from the approach taken by the Biden administration and the SEC led by Gary Gensler. Of course, the ultimate key is implementation, and now we are at this stage-how policy implementation will develop in the future.
As expected, the change will have a big impact on the industry, but financial regulators remain a huge federal bureaucracy that will not change overnight. Over the past decade, financial regulators in the United States have been hindering the development of the crypto industry. The United States accounts for about 30% of the global financial system, but only 5% of the global crypto market, which is entirely due to regulatory issues.
The regulatory environment in the United States is too unique and extremely difficult to cooperate. So, the core question now is: When it is really faced with a choice, will the government take the necessary actions and find the right way to implement it?
Tucker Carlson: I remember when the concept of cryptocurrency first appeared in the mass media, its core idea was that it would be a currency that would allow individuals to regain control of their own business freedom.
I can buy and sell freely, without government control, while protecting my privacy. This was supposed to be a promise of cryptocurrency, but obviously it never became a reality and it never seemed to happen. I don’t hear anyone talking about this topic anymore. Cryptocurrency now looks like another asset scam. So, what happened to privacy protection?
SBF: Oh, that’s a good question. In fact, this issue also involves another level related to encryption technology. For example, payments and remittances are not just investment tools, but areas where we thought cryptocurrencies could really bring value to the world.
But the problem is that the implementation and popularization of such technologies are much longer than the investment market cycle. In today’s social media environment, we see market bubbles expanding and bursting almost in days or months, while real technological development is advancing in a decade.
At present, cryptocurrency has not developed to the point where it can become a daily tool for a quarter of the world’s population, and the technology is not yet fully mature, but it is not far away. If-and this is a prerequisite-the entire industry can continue to improve rather than be distracted by market price fluctuations, then in the next 5 to 10 years, we may see a world like this:
–Anyone can have a crypto-wallet;
–Billions of people around the world use it to conduct transactions every day;
–Transactions are private and secure;
–The transaction speed is fast, the cost is low, and it can flow freely across countries.
All of these were the visions originally promised by cryptocurrency, but now they are disrupted by hype and speculation, causing people to deviate from that direction.
Tucker Carlson: Do you think governments around the world will allow this to happen? If the global population is really allowed to freely conduct financial transactions without government control, wouldn’t the government collapse in an instant?
SBF: That’s an interesting question. In fact, the government’s supervision and control are of varying degrees and cannot be generalized.
If you look at Bitcoin, its wallet is anonymous, but every transaction is recorded in the public ledger. Therefore, although the government cannot directly control transactions, it can still obtain transaction information to some extent.
Of course, not all governments have the same position. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. government’s control of the financial system has not been limited to the United States itself, but has expanded to the global monetary system. At the same time, we can also see a completely different approach-in some authoritarian countries, governments have stricter control over financial transactions than in the United States, but these countries ‘economies tend to be closed and have limited influence.
In fact, about half of the world’s countries have not tried to intervene deeply in daily financial transactions like the United States. The United States ‘intervention in this regard is unique.
Tucker Carlson: So, after all this, do you still have money?
SBF: Basically, no. The company I once owned no longer belongs to me. I don’t know what the current situation is, it’s in bankruptcy proceedings. If nothing had happened, the company would now have approximately $15 billion in liabilities, but assets would be approximately $93 billion.
So, in theory, the answer should be yes-then or now, the company could have repaid everyone’s money, with interest, and investors would have left tens of billions of dollars. But this is not the case.
On the contrary, everything was involved in bankruptcy proceedings, assets were quickly exhausted, and the people who were taken over the company sold assets in a row, selling tens of billions of dollars in assets. This was a complete disaster, and the most regrettable thing in my life was that I didn’t prevent it from happening.
Tucker Carlson: Before FTX went bankrupt, you knew all the big names in the crypto industry, and you were one of the most well-known people in the industry. Now please answer as honestly as possible, do you consider yourself the biggest criminal in the crypto industry?
SBF: I don’t consider myself a criminal, so the answer is absolutely no. Of course, I know the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) may think so, but I don’t care what they think.
Tucker Carlson: You’re in prison now, at least that’s what the Justice Department believes. But I’m curious. Although I’ve criticized your company and other similar companies in the past, I don’t want to delve into the details of your case here because it’s just too complicated. I just want to ask, do you think there is a lot of improper behavior in the encryption industry as a whole? Please answer honestly.
SBF: Ten years ago, the answer to this question was clearly yes, or at least relative to the size of the industry. If you look at the situation between 2014 and 2017, the scale of the entire industry was much smaller then it is now, and a considerable proportion of the transactions I saw at that time were… how to put it, different people had different opinions. Take Silk Road as an example, when using cryptocurrency to buy drugs online was a fairly common use at that time.
Of course, there are criminals in any industry, but over time, the proportion of such transactions in the industry has dropped significantly. This is partly due to the rapid development of other areas of the crypto industry, and partly due to the increasing government’s supervision of anti-money laundering. So there are still some illegal transactions, but far less common than in the past.
Tucker Carlson: You once attracted widespread attention for a worldview or philosophy, and some even called it a belief, the so-called “Effective Altruism.” The core idea is that you make wealth to help as many people as possible.
However, many people point to the ironic fact that your company went bankrupt, causing 1 million people to lose their money. Your goal is to “seek the greatest welfare for the greatest number of people,” but the result is to harm a large number of individuals. Have you wavered from the core concept of “effective altruism”?
SBF: This incident didn’t make me rethink the concept. Obviously, I feel extremely painful about what happened, which was not the outcome I wanted or anyone wanted. If we look at it from another perspective, if everyone can finally get their money back, the results may be different. But the reality is that the process is extremely painful, and they can only pay in dollars, not in the form of original assets.
More importantly, all the goodwill I had hoped to bring to the world was basically wiped out the moment the company collapsed.
Tucker Carlson: What I want to say is that most people actually have difficulty understanding the idea that helping a stranger is more valuable or noble than helping the people around them. In other words, for most people, helping their wives, girlfriends, mothers, daughters, brothers, colleagues or friends is far more important and meaningful than helping a village in a country they have never been to. It’s people’s intuition, but your opinion is obviously different, right?
SBF: I really disagree with this view, but there is an important premise here.
A common mistake is that people often think they know what strangers need when they don’t. I have made this mistake myself sometimes. Many international aid projects ultimately fail because the donors simply did not understand the real needs of local people. This approach sometimes seems condescending or even self-righteous.
For example, many aid agencies may donate a bunch of water pumps to an African village rich in water but short of food, but the locals don’t need them at all. Then, you will see a group of “elites” from Harvard holding these water pumps that no one cares about and trying to distribute them to the villagers… This is completely different.
Moreover, similar examples abound. Obviously, when you are helping people you know well, you do have a clearer idea of what they need and how to truly help them. There is no doubt about this.
But even if I believe that everyone’s life is equally important, no matter where they are, that doesn’t mean that I can know exactly how to help strangers far away as I know the people around me.
Tucker Carlson: I understand, but you sound like you’re rebutting your own position. Are you inadvertently questioning “effective altruism”?
I think the problem with “effective altruism” is that it’s too easy. For example, eradicating polio is an easy task, but making the same woman happy for 30 years is extremely difficult. So, should we do something more difficult but important?
SBF: My opinion is that taking malaria as an example, the disease has almost disappeared in the United States, and almost no one has died from malaria. But globally, nearly 1 million people still die of malaria every year, which is really sad.
This is a disease that no one should ever die of because we have the way to eradicate it. In this case, we should do our best to eliminate it.
But just because these problems are somehow “easier” to solve doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help these people. If you look at the poorest regions in the world, the resources needed to solve these problems are not much. As long as they are implemented efficiently, these assistance will not impose a huge burden on our own society.
Of course, efficiency of execution is the key. If we just keep sending useless water pumps to villages that lack food, no matter how much resources we invest, we will ultimately not be able to really help anyone.
Tucker Carlson: What you say is obvious, and the past 60 years of aid to Africa have proven it-despite increasing aid, life expectancy in parts of Africa is declining.
But from a moral perspective, I have a question: How can you worry about malaria when your loved one is deeply addicted to drugs, such as your cousin is relying on Xanax? Shouldn’t you solve your family problems first?
SBF: If I could do it, of course I would do it.
But at the end of the day, we each have different responsibilities. If I know my cousin well and know how to help him get off drugs, then of course I have a responsibility to help him.
But if I have tried my best and still can’t find a solution to really help him, while at the same time I can find a way to save the lives of other countries, or others can do that, then I don’t think that will diminish the good deeds they are doing around the world.
In other words, just because a person fails to solve the problems around him does not mean that he should not help a wider group of people.
Tucker Carlson: Right? So keep doing it. I don’t think this view is crazy. One final question on the topic: Can you think of a recent international aid project that is an unquestionable success?
SBF: Sort of, but let me be clear, it’s not a government project, it’s a privately sponsored project.
In fact, malaria prevention and control is a good example. Globally, the incidence of malaria has dropped significantly, thanks largely to the efforts of private donors. They have provided large amounts of resources to sub-Saharan Africa and India, and now may save hundreds of thousands of lives each year at a cost of about several thousand dollars per life, which is indeed a huge success in terms of relative effectiveness.
Of course, this is not a trillion-dollar plan, but just a few billion dollars in investment, but through careful planning and efficient execution, philanthropists let the money make a real difference.
On the other hand, you can look at many government-led aid projects, which are often ineffective and some fail completely. If you want a successful government aid case, then… well, maybe the Marshall Plan is a success case. This needs to go back to history, but rebuilding Germany after World War II was indeed a huge success in many ways.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, but we may have destroyed all of these results by blowing up the North Stream pipeline (laughter). But your point is reasonable. So, how old are you now?
SBF: You know, this question stunned me for a moment, and it took me a few seconds to remember the answer.
When you are in prison, the concept of time completely changes. Every day is like a copy and paste of yesterday, and all the days are blurred together and become an indescribable perception.
The answer is… well, my birthday is actually tomorrow. (March 6) So, as of today, I am 32 years old, but tomorrow I will be 33.
Tucker Carlson: How do you plan to celebrate your birthday?
SBF: I will not celebrate. When I was out there, I didn’t care much about birthdays, but celebrating another year in prison was really nothing to be excited about.
Tucker Carlson: So you won’t tell Diddy tomorrow is your birthday? I don’t believe it.
SBF: Maybe others will tell him, but I won’t take the initiative to say it myself.
Tucker Carlson: Okay, so you’ll be 33 tomorrow. If you had not been granted amnesty, how old would you be when you were released from prison based on the current sentence?
SBF: This calculation is quite complicated. I don’t fully understand all the details, such as whether the First Step Act will affect sentences. If I simply add my sentence, the answer is-I will probably be out of prison in my fifties.
Tucker Carlson: Can you accept this result?
SBF: Oh, I’m sorry, I miscalculated just now. If the sentence is simply added, it should be close to 60 years old. If you factor in all possible sentence reductions, you might be able to get out of prison in your 50s. But the most basic calculation is that I was convicted at the age of 32 and sentenced to 25 years, so theoretically I was 57 when I got out of prison.
Tucker Carlson: Now that you have served two years, you have 23 years left. Do you think you can hold on?
SBF: It’s a difficult question to answer and I’m not sure. The hardest part is that there is nothing really meaningful to do here.
You can look at those studies-of course, I’m not sure about their accuracy, but it’s said that the death rate in prison is about three times that of the general population. So if I triple the time lapse rate, I was imprisoned at the age of 32 and sentenced to 25 years… maybe you can get an answer. Maybe.
Tucker Carlson: So, I mean, it feels a little weird to me…you may have fallen from one world to a completely different world more completely than anyone I have interviewed.
You used to be in the world of digital currency, but now you are in a world without money at all. So, what is the medium of exchange in prison?
SBF: Well, it’s what people can exchange for in their hands. For example, muffins are a common “currency”. Imagine plastic-wrapped muffins, like the ones that sit next to the checkout counter at a gas station, an entire box of individually wrapped plastic bags of muffins that might have been left at room temperature for a week.
In addition, a package of instant noodles, or a very disgusting looking canned fish in oil (canned fish wrapped in aluminum foil at room temperature), these things can be traded.
Tucker Carlson: So, you went from the world of cryptocurrency to the world of the muffin economy?
SBF: Yes, that’s right.
Tucker Carlson: So how do you compare the two? Of course, muffins are obviously not easy to transfer internationally, right?
SBF: Well… as a currency, I don’t think muffins will become a global strategic reserve asset anytime soon. They are just a demand-based medium of exchange and will have no other use.
However, muffins do have certain “funtability”. Although they are not perfect homogeneous goods, the two muffins are roughly the same, so they can be replaced. As long as the transaction amount does not exceed $5, the system can still work.
But if you want to complete a $200 deal with muffins, that’s completely unrealistic. Imagine how many muffins would you need to use to close the deal? It doesn’t work physically.
Tucker Carlson: It’s too much trouble, right?
SBF: Yes, extremely inconvenient. And, you quickly realize in prison that the scale of everything has been greatly reduced.
For example, you might see two people fighting over a banana. Not because they really care about the banana, but because-apart from that, they have nothing to care about.
Tucker Carlson: Sounds desperate. Anyway, do you eat those muffins, or do you just use them as currency?
SBF: No, I won’t eat it. I just save them for trading. But I mainly eat rice, beans and instant noodles.
Tucker Carlson: Well, it seems to be a little good for your health (laughter). Do you have a tattoo?
SBF: No, I didn’t. I know some people who have tattoos in prison, but I don’t have one myself.
Tucker Carlson: Have you ever thought about getting a tattoo?
SBF: Well, you know, I did think about tattoos before. But when I talked to my fellow inmates about their “disinfection procedures”-or there was no disinfection at all-my idea was completely dispelled.
Now, I have no interest at all.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, after all, it’s not worth the risk of contracting hepatitis C.
SBF: Not worth it. I heard that they would probably “consider” disinfecting the needle after using four or five people.
Tucker Carlson: Oh… well, you’re definitely not going to get a tattoo.
So, since you went to prison, you will serve another 23 years. I keep thinking-you have helped a lot of people, and even though you were sentenced for hurting people, you have also donated millions of dollars to many people in Washington.
Have people you helped ever call you and say,”Good luck, I hope you’re okay”, or at least dissuade you from joining a gang? Has anyone contacted you?
SBF: I did receive a lot of friendly messages in the early stages of the FTX meltdown, including from some people in Washington. However, six months later, the news was completely dead.
By the beginning of the trial and when I was officially imprisoned, no one contacted me. Politics makes everything too sensitive and no one wants to take risks. Everyone’s interests drive them away from me.
In fact, I have heard some people privately relay some “friendly remarks” about me by third parties, but no one wants to contact me directly.
Tucker Carlson: Really no one contacted you? I noticed that your ex-girlfriend testified against you in court. So, do you have any friends who are willing to stand by you, remain loyal and support you?
SBF: Well… yes, but very little.
To be honest, I was surprised by this, but looking back, it was actually understandable. Everyone who has ever been close to me ends up facing extreme pressure-they have only two options, one of which means decades in prison.
I think what happened to Ryan Salame (a former FTX executive) is the most sad and the most disgusting example of government behavior. They made a series of completely baseless accusations against him just to force him to surrender.
SBF: Ryan Salame initially refused to plead guilty, saying: “See you in court.”
Then, the prosecutor changed the threat and said to him: “What about your pregnant wife? What if we let her go to prison?”
So he was forced to plead guilty because he did not want his wife to go to prison.
No normal legal system should allow prosecutors to use this method to force defendants to confess guilt. But they did.
And, he has not even been charged with most of the crimes faced by other guilty pleas. But because he refused to lie and was unwilling to pander to the testimony the government wanted him to give in court, he was ultimately sentenced to four times longer than the other three combined-seven and a half years.
The signal from this case couldn’t be clearer. Did they do this because he was a Republican or because he refused to cooperate with the administration’s narrative in court?
Apart from these two points, I can’t think of any other reason that would explain why they sentenced him to seven and a half years in prison.
Tucker Carlson: That’s disgusting. I interviewed him at home, and I know they even sued his wife. This is simply completely immoral.
SBF: Exactly. They even reneged on their previous promise and suddenly sued her.
This completely shattered any illusion that the government acted in “good faith”.
Ryan is a good person and he absolutely deserves to be treated like this.
Tucker Carlson: Do you realize–I don’t know how much news you have, or how much contact you have with the outside world, which shouldn’t sound like much–but the outside world is changing at an alarming rate?
By the time you get out of prison, for example, artificial intelligence (AI) may have developed to AGI (General Artificial Intelligence), or even…
SBF: We may have entered the “Singularity”.
Tucker Carlson: Yes, it will happen soon. When you get out of prison, the world may be completely different from the one you left out.
SBF: Yes, I feel very strongly about this.
Being locked up here is like the world moving on without you, and you can only watch it go away.
Tucker Carlson: So, is having children part of your philosophy of Effective Altruism?
SBF: No. Different people in this community have different views on this issue.
But at the end of the day, I feel like I have 300 children every day for the past five years. My employees… Of course, I couldn’t treat them like a real father, but I felt responsible to them.
Now, all their efforts have been burned, which makes me feel very painful.
While running FTX, I had little time to think about my private life.
Not to mention, I am now in prison, and it is even more impossible for me to think about my children.
Tucker Carlson: Have any of those 300 employees come to see you?
SBF: No. I think the answer is no. Yes, none.
Tucker Carlson: Maybe you should seriously consider having some real children, don’t you think? Because when things go wrong, your real family will always be there for you.
SBF: It really got me thinking about what it means to be truly connected between people.
Also, our social system sometimes wields huge power, and can even make people feel great deterrence without saying it.
But other than that, I am also thinking about how important it is to have people you can truly rely on.
Tucker Carlson: At the end of the day, it’s the relationship that matters most. Sam Bankman-Fried, I appreciate you willing to do this interview, which may be the only interview you won’t be besieged by your business issues, after all, others have done it.
But I am very happy to talk to you, and I hope you will say hello to Diddy for us.
SBF: I will, absolutely.
Tucker Carlson: I still can’t believe you locked up with Diddy…
SBF: Yeah, if someone had told me three years ago,”You’ll be hanging out with Diddy every day.”
I probably thought, huh? Interesting, is he going to enter the cryptocurrency industry?
Tucker Carlson: Life is really weird. Good luck.
SBF: Thank you, thank you, thank you.
