Now that SBF has been actually convicted I think it might be good to have a simple explanation here of what he and rest of the EA-affiliated FTX leadership did.
[Edit: Hopefully I haven't accidentally given the impression that I don't think FTX did anything wrong (this question seems to have been downvoted). I absolutely believe they did wrong and committed fraud. I'm just not sure what it is that they did]
This is one of those times where Google has proved surprisingly useless. I see that he's been convicted of several counts of fraud, but the only explanation I've managed to piece together is this:
Alameda held a load of FTT and borrowed from customer deposits held by FTX. People tried to withdraw their deposits after it came out that Alameda held so much FTT, but FTX couldn't pay out because Alameda couldn't give back the customer funds it had borrowed.
I get the impression that Alameda sneakily holding loads of FTT was very bad, but not illegal, is this right? I guess this is bad because the value of FTT is linked to the value of Alameda and vice-versa so it looks like their assets give them more security if something goes wrong than they actually do, although I only just figured that out.
As for Alameda borrowing customer deposits - I don't understand any of this. What were the rules around lending out customer deposits? What made the lending out to Alameda fraudulent? This seems like THE key thing that FTX did wrong and I just can't find a basic explanation of what the crime was.
Would greatly appreciate any clarification!
[Edit 2: could someone who is downvoting briefly mention why they are doing so? I'm a little confused as to why this got such bad reception]
I want to quickly address a couple of points of disagreement I have with Jason's take. (Please don't take this to mean that I accept the rest -- there's a lot I disagree with -- I just don't have time to respond to it all right now.)
This is misleading. The complete line from Ellison is, "I understood that he was telling me to use FTX customer funds to repay our loans," then she proceeds to explain how she inferred this.
At no point in the trial does she say that he explicitly instructed her to touch customer fiat deposits.
The defense doesn't seem to think so. "Caroline testified to you that what happened was, Alameda ‘would have to take the money from our line of credit to pay the lenders.’ And that's at transcript page 763. And I asked her, Well, if that's true, if the lenders were being repaid off the line of credit, wouldn't the amount of the line of credit go up? She said, Yes, it would. And I said, How much did it go up by? Oh, 5 to 10 billion. But when you look at the actual data that was pulled by Dr. Pimbley——and that's Defendant's Exhibit 617——you see that in fact the line of credit did not go up during the period when the loans were being repaid. In fact, it went down for much of the period."