Original text: 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), once a cryptocurrency billionaire and founder of FTX, is now a federal prisoner with a numbered identity. In a detention center in Brooklyn, he sat in a simple chair and was interviewed remotely by Tucker Carlson. The former Fox News host and political commentator is known for his sharp interview style, and this time, he focused the conversation on a cryptocurrency figure who was once a high-profile figure but is now behind bars.
From the pinnacle of digital finance to the bottom of the real world, SBF has fallen a lot. Two years ago, his company FTX was still one of the worlds largest crypto trading platforms, and he himself was a guest of honor in Washingtons political circles, providing huge political donations to politicians. However, now he is in an economic system that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency - the medium of exchange in prison is not Bitcoin or US dollars, but plastic-wrapped muffins and bags of cheap instant noodles . He used to talk about liquidity mining and high-frequency trading, but now the reality is Is it worthwhile to exchange a few muffins for a banana?
Original interview
Tucker Carlson: So, where are you now?
SBF: Well, Im currently in the Brooklyn Federal Detention Center (NDC), in a small room.
Tucker Carlson: How long have you been there?
SBF: Ive been in jail for about... God, how long now? About two years.
Tucker Carlson: So whats the situation here?
SBF: Well, its a bit dystopian . Fortunately, theres no physical danger where Im at. And, to be honest, a lot of the staff here are actually trying to help, and theyre doing the best they can with the conditions they have. But you know, no one wants to be in prison. You can imagine when you put 40 people in a room, all of whom have been charged with at least one crime, and then throw away the key, and for years, the most trivial things become the only things they can care about.
Tucker Carlson: Did you run into any problems?
SBF: Not that serious. I wasnt attacked or anything like that, but there were a lot of logistical difficulties. The biggest problem, frankly, was that it was almost impossible to get legal materials during my trial. Generally, the trial day flowed like this: you were woken up at 4 a.m., and then spent five hours in various buses, vans, and holding rooms until the morning court session began. The court session lasted until 5 p.m., and then another four hours in the holding rooms and driving, and then you were back in jail at about 9 p.m., and by then, all the legal work hours were long over. That was the biggest problem.
Tucker Carlson: So, when youre not in court, what do you do all day?
SBF: Thats a good question. Theres not a lot you can do in prison. I read books and Ive recently started reading novels again. I play chess and I do the best I can to research my legal case. I still have an appeal and Im doing my best to move forward with that here. But the lack of meaningful things to do in prison is probably one of the most mentally draining parts.
Tucker Carlson: I have to say, weve never spoken before, but obviously Ive been following you from afar. Also, I want to say that I feel sorry for everyone whos in prison, no matter what theyre accused of or what theyve done. I dont think locking people up is a good idea, I know it may be necessary, but I still feel for everyone whos in prison. You can call me a liberal, but honestly, after two years in prison, you look healthier and less stressed than you were before.
SBF: You know, Ive had a lot of time to reflect on how I could have communicated better. Looking back, I dont think I did a good enough job of communicating, especially in the beginning of the crisis and in the month that followed. I made a mistake that I often make, which is to get so caught up in the details that I lost sight of the big picture.
SBF video interview scene. Source: YouTube
Tucker Carlson: Every time I saw you on TV, it looked like you were high on 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 because there were so many things going on at once. In the FTX environment, I would usually go in for an interview, but at the same time I was doing two urgent things at the company. So I would be doing the interview while I was staring at Slack and responding to messages. And I also knew that right after the interview, there would be something I hadn’t had time to prepare for, so part of my attention was actually preparing for the next thing.
Tucker Carlson: So do you feel like the digital world is bad for us? Youve been deprived of your phone, which is a big change, right?
SBF: Oh, absolutely, I still prefer the digital world. Ultimately, Im not saying that from a hedonic standpoint, but from a productivity and impact standpoint. Its incredibly difficult to get anything done without the digital world.
Tucker Carlson: Did you make friends there? Did you hang out with Diddy? I heard hes in the same cell with you.
SBF: Yeah, he was here. I dont know how to describe it... He was very friendly to me. I did make some friends, but it was a very strange environment. On the one hand, there were a few high-profile cases like mine, and on the other hand, there were a lot of so-called former gang members, or people who were accused of being gang members.
Tucker Carlson: Of course, that’s just “allegedly.” So, what was Diddy like in there?
SBF: You know, I only saw one side of him, the real Diddy. He was very friendly to the people in our area, and to me. Of course, this is a place that no one wants to be in, obviously he doesnt want it, and I dont want it either. As he said, this is a mentally debilitating place for anyone. And what we saw was only the people around us who were in prison, not the outside world.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I can imagine that. And you two are probably two of the most famous prisoners in the world , and youre in the same block. How do other people, like the armed robbers, view you?
SBF: Well, thats an interesting question. Certainly some of them might see it as an opportunity to meet people they wouldnt have met otherwise. Thats a little surprising to me, but its actually understandable from their perspective. Its just... thats not how I view prison at all.
Tucker Carlson: Sorry, I couldnt help laughing. So that wasnt your idea?
SBF: No. But sometimes, laughing is the only thing to do , there is no better choice. I also found something very interesting - they are very good at chess. This is something I learned here. Many people who have committed armed robbery, some of whom dont speak English and may not have graduated from junior high school, are surprisingly good at chess. Of course, Im not saying they are international masters , but I often lose to them , which really surprised me.
Tucker Carlson: Thats very interesting. Does this change your perspective at all?
SBF: Well, I would say its just part of a much bigger realization. Its probably one of the most profound things Ive learned in my life, but I still dont fully understand it. Clearly, what we call intelligence or IQ does matter, and hard work is also critical, and these are factors that cannot be ignored.
But there are some things that we don’t have the right words to describe, and I still haven’t found the right words to describe them. These factors can make a person extremely good, successful, and effective, and even exceed the expectations of the outside world. Of course, not everyone has these qualities, and everyone’s situation is different. But at FTX, we have encountered this situation many times. We may see a person with no highlights on the resume, no relevant experience, and no particularly recommendable background. But in the actual work, they perform far better than most people in the company, just because they have perseverance, intuition, commitment, and know how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to find solutions to problems.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of really dumb people get rich in the financial world. They obviously had some kind of “gift” that I couldn’t see, but it seemed to me like they were…
SBF: Hmm? Im curious what type of people youre talking about? I used to work on Wall Street , and there were all kinds of people there.
Tucker Carlson: So, in the bigger picture, we don’t get into all the details of your case, but it appears that your company made a decision to build political alliances through political donations. I’m not singling you out specifically because this is not something you do alone, it’s something that a lot of business people do.
But you donated so much to the Democratic Party that I would have thought they would have bailed you out eventually. After all, Democrats usually protect their allies from going to jail. Tony Podesta never went to jail, so why did you?
SBF: Oh, thats a great question. Obviously, I can only guess at the answer, I cant be sure what they think. But one fact that might be worth noting is that even in 2020, my political position was only slightly left of center, and I donated to Bidens campaign at the time. I had high hopes that he would be a stable left-of-center president.
In the years that followed, I went to Washington frequently, spent a lot of time in DC, and went back and forth dozens of times. But I was honestly shocked by what I saw, and I didnt like the direction of government policy. By mid-2022, I began to privately donate to the Republican Party, and the amount of donations to the Democratic Party was roughly the same. This fact began to be known to the outside world shortly before the FTX collapse. So... maybe this has something to do with what happened later.
Tucker Carlson: Why were you shocked? I know youve been in Washington for a long time, and there are pictures of you hanging out with almost every important person. What was it that shocked you?
SBF: Some things are just things I was worried about that have become more extreme. Crypto regulation is a good example. To be honest, I never expected the Democrats to do a good job on financial regulation, but there are good people and bad people in both parties, and there are a lot of thoughtful policymakers. However, the SEC under Gary Gensler has been a nightmare.
For example, a company launches a business in the US, and Gensler sues them because they are not registered. Then the company goes to the SEC and says, We would love to register, please tell us how to register? The SECs response is usually, Well, there is no category that you can register in. They require companies to obtain certain licenses, but they themselves dont know how to provide these licenses.
The result is that the entire crypto industry is hitting a wall on this issue. The SEC has basically failed to get any companies to register successfully, and has instead left the entire industry in a stalemate. This is one of the most disturbing things Ive seen in Washington.
Tucker Carlson: Can you elaborate on that? Even someone like me who doesnt know much about financial regulation can see that Gary Gensler is clearly corrupt, theres no doubt about 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, he likes to be in the center of power, 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 doesnt really want to use these powers to promote the development of the industry, but just to hinder the entire industry.
Why does he require all companies to register with the SEC? Because if companies dont register with him, his power will be weakened, even if he doesnt 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 on media such as CNBC, create enough influence and increase his popularity, he may have the opportunity to become a candidate for Treasury Secretary or other higher positions in the future. Moreover, he has indeed become one of the few most well-known faces in the field of financial regulation under the Democratic government, which may be a success for his political career.
Tucker Carlson: Interesting, sounds very Washington-style. Ive seen this before, right?
SBF: Yeah, its not from a moral standpoint. Thats not how it works, right?
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I understand. He didnt have any firm beliefs, and it was mostly about self-promotion. So, when things started to go downhill and you were charged, or realized that you might be charged criminally - given that you donated so much money to the Democratic Party, this is actually very common in the business world, and donors often call the politicians they have supported and say, Hey, Im in trouble, can you help me? So, did you call Chuck Schumer or other politicians you had supported and ask them to help, and get the Biden administrations Department of Justice to help you?
SBF: I didnt, for a number of reasons. First, I didnt want to do anything inappropriate. Second, when it happened, a lot of people were quick to take sides and distance themselves as quickly as possible. In fact, by that time, I was probably better connected with the Republicans in Washington than I was with the Democrats, even though it wasnt obvious to the outside world.
In addition, there is a longer story here, involving a law firm that played an extremely unusual role in this case. (Note: If you want to know SBF’s views on the law firm, you can go to SBF’s first interview in prison: Behind 25 Years of Imprisonment: SBF’s Personal Account of the Political and Judicial Struggle Behind Bankruptcy in Prison ) But more importantly, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had already made a decision before I gave up control of FTX and the company filed for bankruptcy.
Tucker Carlson: So you didnt ask for any help or try to use your connections? Interesting. So, what do you think about the future of cryptocurrencies? You must have mixed feelings about this, after all, you run a cryptocurrency company, and you are now in jail for cryptocurrencies. But you know a lot about this industry, how fast do you think the crypto industry is developing? Is the direction positive? I know this is a bit strange, but I still want to ask.
SBF: My answer is, hopefully. You can look at the Trump administration’s attitude toward the crypto industry in the early days of its administration, and some of their positions were very favorable, and they were completely different from the approach taken by the Biden administration and the SEC led by Gary Gensler. Of course, the key in the end is execution, and we are now at this stage - how future policy execution will develop.
As expected, the change of leadership has a big impact on the industry, but financial regulators are still huge federal bureaucracies, and they don’t change overnight. Over the past decade, U.S. financial regulators have been hindering the development of the crypto industry. The U.S. accounts for about 30% of the global financial system, but only 5% of the global crypto market, all because of regulatory issues.
The regulatory environment in the United States is too unique and difficult to work with. So the central question now is: when the choice is made, will the government take the necessary actions and find the right way to do it?
Tucker Carlson: I remember when the idea of cryptocurrency first started appearing in the popular media, the core idea was that this would be a currency that would allow individuals to take back control of their own business freedom.
I can buy and sell freely, without government control, while still protecting my privacy. This was the promise of cryptocurrency, but it has obviously never been a reality and it never seems to be. I don’t hear anyone talking about it anymore. Cryptocurrency now looks like just another asset scam. So what happened to the privacy thing?
SBF: Oh, thats a good question. Actually, this question also touches on another aspect related to crypto technology. For example, payment and remittance, these are not just investment tools, but areas where we believe that cryptocurrencies can really bring value to the world.
But the problem is that the implementation and popularization of such technologies takes much longer than the investment market cycle. In todays social media environment, we see that market bubbles expand and burst almost in days or months, while real technological development is promoted in decades.
At present, cryptocurrency has not yet developed to the point where it can become a daily tool for a quarter of the worlds population, and the technology is not yet fully mature, but it is not far away. If - this is a premise - the entire industry can continue to progress instead of being distracted by market price fluctuations, then in the next 5 to 10 years, we may see such a world:
Anyone can have a crypto wallet.
Billions of people around the world use it to trade every day.
Transactions are private and secure.
——Transactions are fast, cost-effective, and can flow freely across borders.
All of these are the visions that cryptocurrencies originally promised, but have now been distracted by hype and speculation, leading people away from this direction.
Tucker Carlson: Do you think the governments of the world would allow this to happen? If the global population were allowed to freely conduct financial transactions without government control, wouldnt governments collapse in an instant?
SBF: This is a very interesting question. In fact, there are different levels of government supervision and control, and it cannot be generalized.
If you look at Bitcoin, its wallets are anonymous, but every transaction is recorded on a 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 US governments control over the financial system has expanded beyond the United States itself to the global monetary system. At the same time, we can also see a completely different approach - in some authoritarian countries, the governments control over financial transactions is more stringent than in the United States, but these countries economies are often closed and their influence is limited.
In fact, about half of the world’s countries do not try to intervene as deeply in day-to-day financial transactions as the United States, which is unique in this regard.
Tucker Carlson: So, after all of this, do you still have money?
SBF: Basically, no. I own the company, I dont own it anymore. I dont know whats going on, its in bankruptcy. If nothing happens, it would have about $15 billion in liabilities and about $93 billion in assets.
So, in theory, the answer should be yes — the company could have paid everyone back, then or now, with interest, and investors would still be left with tens of billions of dollars. But that’s not the case.
Instead, everything was thrown into bankruptcy proceedings, the assets were quickly depleted, and the people who were taking over the company sold off assets for tens of billions of dollars . It was a complete disaster, and the biggest regret I have in my life is not preventing it from happening.
Tucker Carlson: Before FTX went bankrupt, you knew all the big names in crypto. You were one of the most well-known people in the industry. Now, please answer as honestly as possible, do you think you are the biggest criminal in the crypto industry?
SBF: I dont consider myself a criminal , so the answer is definitely no. Of course, I know the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) might think so, but I dont care what they think.
Tucker Carlson: Youre in jail now, at least according to the DOJ. But Im curious, and although Ive criticized your company in the past, and others like it, I dont want to get into the details of your case here because its too complicated. I just want to ask, do you think theres a lot of bad behavior in the crypto industry as a whole? Please answer honestly.
SBF: Ten years ago, the answer to that question was clearly yes, or at least relative to the size of the industry. If you look at what happened between 2014 and 2017, when the industry was much smaller than it is now, a significant portion of the transactions I saw back then were… well, different people have different opinions. Take Silk Road, for example, when buying drugs online with cryptocurrency was a fairly common use.
Of course, there are always criminals in any industry, but the proportion of such transactions in the overall industry has dropped significantly over time. This is partly due to the rapid development of other areas of the crypto industry, and partly due to the increasing government supervision on anti-money laundering. So, there are still some illegal transactions now, but they are far less common than in the past.
Tucker Carlson: Youve been widely recognized for a worldview or philosophy, some have even called it a religion, called Effective Altruism , which is the idea that you make money in order to help as many people as possible.
However, many people pointed out the irony that your company went bankrupt, causing 1 million people to lose their money. Your goal was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but the result was to hurt a large number of individuals. Does this shake your core belief in effective altruism?
SBF: It didn’t make me rethink the philosophy. Obviously, I’m extremely distressed about what happened, and it’s not what I wanted or anyone else wanted. If you look at it from another perspective, if everyone got their money back in the end, it might have been a different outcome. But the reality is that it was extremely painful, and they could only pay out in dollars, not in the form of original assets.
More importantly, all the goodwill I had hoped to bring to the world was essentially wiped out the moment the company closed.
Tucker Carlson: I would say that most people have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that helping a stranger is more valuable or noble than helping someone close to them. In other words, for most people, helping your wife, girlfriend, mother, daughter, brother, co-worker, or friend is far more important and meaningful than helping a village in a country youve never been to. Thats what people intuitively think, but you obviously see it differently, right?
SBF: I certainly disagree with that view, but there is an important premise here.
A common mistake is that people assume they know what strangers need, when they don’t. I’ve made this mistake myself at times. Many international aid projects fail because the donors simply don’t understand the real needs of the people on the ground. This approach can sometimes seem condescending or even conceited.
For example, a lot of aid agencies might donate a bunch of water pumps to an African village that has lots of water but not a lot of food, and it turns out the locals dont need them. Then you have a bunch of elites from Harvard taking these pumps and trying to distribute them to the villagers... Its the exact opposite of what it should be.
And there are many similar examples. Obviously, when you help people you are familiar with, you can understand more clearly what they need and how to really help them. There is no doubt about this.
But even though I believe that every life is equally important, no matter where they are, that doesn’t mean I know exactly how to help faraway strangers as well as I do the people around me.
Tucker Carlson: I understand, but it sounds like youre contradicting your own position. Are you unintentionally questioning effective altruism?
I think the problem with effective altruism is that its too easy. For example, eradicating polio is an easy thing to do, but keeping the same woman happy for 30 years is extremely difficult. So, shouldnt we do something more difficult but more important?
SBF: My view is that, if you look at malaria, for example, its almost gone in the United States, and nobodys dying from it anymore, but it still kills nearly a million people a year worldwide, which is really sad.
This is a disease that no one should be dying from anymore, because we know how to eradicate it, and we should do everything we can to eradicate it.
But just because these problems are somehow “easier” to solve doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help them. If you look at the poorest parts of the world, the resources required to solve these problems are modest, and if done effectively, they won’t be a huge burden on our own societies.
Of course, efficiency of execution is key. If we just keep sending useless water pumps to food-starved villages, no matter how many resources we put into it, we won’t actually help anyone in the end.
Tucker Carlson: Its an obvious point that you make, and its been demonstrated over the last 60 years of aid to Africa - even as aid has been increasing, life expectancy has been declining in parts of Africa.
But from a moral perspective, I have a question: How can you worry about malaria when your loved ones are addicted, like your cousin is on Xanax? Shouldnt you fix the problem at home first?
SBF: If I could do it, I would definitely do it.
But at the end of the day, we all have different responsibilities. If I know my cousin well and know how to help him get off his drugs, then of course, it is my responsibility to help him.
But if I try my best and I cant find a solution and cant really help him, and at the same time I can find a way to save lives in other countries, or other people can do that , then I dont think that diminishes the good theyre doing around the world.
In other words, just because a person fails to solve the problems around him doesnt mean he shouldnt help a wider group of people.
Tucker Carlson: Right? So keep doing it. I dont think thats a crazy idea. One last question on this topic: Can you think of a recent international aid program that was an unquestionable success?
SBF: I guess so, but I want to make it clear that it is not a government project, but a privately initiated project.
In fact, malaria control is a good example. Globally, malaria rates have dropped dramatically, largely due to the efforts of private donors. They have provided a lot of resources to sub-Saharan Africa and India, and now probably save hundreds of thousands of lives each year at a cost of about a few thousand dollars per life, which is indeed a huge success in terms of relative effectiveness.
Of course, this was not a trillion-dollar program, but only a few billion dollars, but through careful planning and efficient execution, philanthropists made the money work.
On the other hand, you can look at a lot of government-led aid programs, and they often dont work, or even fail completely. If you want a successful example of government aid, then... well, maybe the Marshall Plan is a successful example. It takes a lot of time to go back in history, but rebuilding Germany after World War II was a huge success in many ways.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, but we probably blew up that by blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline (laughs). But you have a valid point. So, how old are you now?
SBF: You know, this question took me a moment to remember the answer.
When youre in prison, the concept of time changes completely. Every day is like a copy and paste of yesterday , and all the days blur together into one indescribable perception.
The answer is… well, actually my birthday is tomorrow. (March 6th) So, as of today, I’m 32, but tomorrow I’ll be 33.
Tucker Carlson: How are you going to celebrate your birthday?
SBF: I dont celebrate. I dont really care about birthdays when Im out there, and celebrating having survived another year in prison is not something Im excited about.
Tucker Carlson: So youre not going to tell Diddy its your birthday tomorrow? I dont believe it.
SBF: Maybe someone else will tell him, but I won’t say it myself.
Tucker Carlson: Okay, so youre going to be 33 tomorrow. If you dont get pardoned, how old will you be when you get out of prison under your current sentence?
SBF: Thats a complicated calculation, and I dont know all the details, like whether the First Step Act affects prison sentences. If I simply add my sentence, the answer is that Ill probably be out in my mid-50s.
Tucker Carlson: Can you accept this outcome?
SBF: Oh, sorry, I miscalculated. If you just add up the sentence, it should be closer to 60. If you take into account all possible sentence reductions, then maybe I can get out in my 50s. But the most basic calculation is that I was convicted at the age of 32 and sentenced to 25 years, so theoretically I will be 57 when I get out.
Tucker Carlson: Youve served two years now, and you still have 23 years left. Do you think you can handle it?
SBF: Thats a hard question to answer, Im not sure. The hardest part is that there is nothing really meaningful to do here.
You can look at the studies - Im not sure theyre accurate, but they say the death rate in prison is about three times that of the general population. So if you use three times the time, I was in prison at 32, and I served 25 years... maybe you can come up with an answer. Maybe.
Tucker Carlson: So, I mean, it strikes me as a little weird that you’ve probably fallen more completely from one world to a completely different world than anybody I’ve ever interviewed.
You were in a world of digital currency, and now youre in a world without money at all. So what is the medium of exchange in prison?
SBF: Well, its things that people can exchange. For example, muffins are a common form of currency. Imagine a muffin wrapped in plastic, like the ones you see at the checkout counter at a gas station, a whole box of individually wrapped muffins in plastic bags that have been sitting at room temperature for a week.
Other items that can be traded include a packet of instant noodles or a disgusting-looking can of fish in oil (aluminum foil-wrapped can of fish at room temperature).
Tucker Carlson: So, you went from the world of cryptocurrency to the world of the waffle economy?
SBF: Yes, that’s right.
Tucker Carlson: So how do you compare the two? Of course, muffins are obviously not very easy to transfer internationally, right?
SBF: Well… as a currency, I don’t think muffins are going to become a global strategic reserve asset any time soon. They are simply a medium of exchange based on demand and have no other use.
However, muffins do have a certain degree of “fungibility.” While they are not perfectly homogeneous goods, two muffins are roughly the same and can be replaced with each other. As long as the transaction amount does not exceed $5, this system can still work.
But if you want to use muffins to complete a $200 transaction, thats totally unrealistic. Imagine how many muffins you would have to use to complete that transaction? It just doesnt work physically.
Tucker Carlson: Thats a lot of trouble, right?
SBF: Yes, it was extremely inconvenient. And, you quickly realize in prison that everything is scaled down tremendously.
For example, you see two people fighting over a banana, not because they really care about the banana, but because there is nothing else they care about.
Tucker Carlson: Sounds desperate. So, do you eat those muffins, or do you just use them as currency?
SBF: No, I dont eat them. I just save them and trade them. But I mainly eat rice, beans and instant noodles.
Tucker Carlson: Well, it seems to be good for your health (laughs). Do you have any tattoos?
SBF: No, I dont. I know some people who have tattoos in prison, but I dont have one myself.
Tucker Carlson: Have you ever thought about getting a tattoo?
SBF: Well, you know, I had thought about getting a tattoo before , but when I talked to my fellow inmates about their sterilization procedures - or lack thereof - I was put off by the idea.
Now, I have no interest at all.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, after all, its not worth the risk of contracting hepatitis C.
SBF: Not worth it. I heard they only “consider” sterilizing a needle after using it on four or five people.
Tucker Carlson: Oh well, youre definitely not going to get a tattoo then.
Well, youre going to serve another 23 years since you went to jail. Ive been thinking - youve helped a lot of people, even though you were sentenced because you hurt people, but youve also donated millions of dollars to a lot of people in Washington.
Have you ever been contacted by people youve helped, whove called you and said, Good luck, I hope youre OK, or at least tried to dissuade you from joining a gang?
SBF: In the early days of the FTX debacle, I did receive a lot of friendly messages, including from some people in Washington. But six months later, the messages completely stopped.
By the time the trial started and I was officially in jail, no one contacted me. Political factors made everything too sensitive and no one was willing to take the risk. Everyones interests urged them to stay away from me.
In fact, Ive heard some people privately relay some friendly remarks about me to third parties, but no one was willing to contact me directly.
Tucker Carlson: No one has contacted you? I noticed that your ex-girlfriend (Caroline Ellison) testified against you in court. So, do you have any friends who are willing to stand by you and be loyal and support you?
SBF: Well…yes, but very little.
Honestly, this surprised me, but in retrospect, it’s understandable. All the people who were close to me ended up facing extreme pressure—they only had two choices, one of which meant decades in prison.
I think what happened to Ryan Salame (former FTX executive) is the saddest and most disgusting example of the governments behavior. They brought a series of completely unfounded charges against him just to force him into submission.
SBF: Ryan Salame initially pleaded not guilty, saying, “I’ll see you in court.”
Then the prosecutor changed his threat and said to him: What about your pregnant wife? What if we put her in jail?
So, he was forced to plead guilty because he didnt want his wife to go to jail.
No sane legal system should allow prosecutors to use this method to force defendants to plead guilty. But they did it.
And he wasn’t even charged with most of the crimes that the other confessors faced. But because he refused to lie or conform to the testimony the government wanted him to give in court, he was sentenced to four times longer than the other three combined—seven and a half years.
The message from this case couldnt be clearer. Are they doing this because hes a Republican, or because he refused to cooperate with the governments narrative in court?
Apart from these two points, I cant think of any other reason to explain why they sentenced him to seven and a half years in prison.
Tucker Carlson: Its disgusting. I interviewed him at his home, and I know theyre suing his wife as well. Its just completely unethical.
SBF: Exactly. They even reneged on their previous promises and then suddenly sued her.
This completely shatters any illusions that the government was acting in “good faith”.
Ryan is a good man and he doesn’t deserve this at all.
Tucker Carlson: Do you realize - I dont know how much news you have access to or how much connection you have to the outside world, it sounds like it shouldnt be much - but the world out there is changing at an incredible rate ?
By the time you get out of prison, for example, artificial intelligence (AI) may have advanced to AGI (artificial general intelligence), or even...
SBF: We may have entered the Singularity.
Tucker Carlson: Yes, it will happen very quickly. When you get out of prison, the world may be completely different from the one you left.
SBF: Yes, I feel very strongly about it.
Being locked up here, its like the world has moved on without you and you can only watch it go by.
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, for the past five years, Ive felt like I had 300 kids every day. My employees... Of course, I cant treat them like a real father, but I feel a responsibility to them.
Now, all their hard work has been wasted, which makes me feel very painful.
While running FTX, I had little time to think about my personal life.
Not to mention, Im in prison now, so its impossible for me to consider the issue of my children.
Tucker Carlson: Did any of those 300 employees come to see you?
SBF: No. I think the answer is no. Yeah, none at all.
Tucker Carlson: Maybe you should seriously consider having some real kids, dont you think? Because real family is there for you when things get bad.
SBF: It really got me thinking about what it means to have real connection between people.
Also, our social system sometimes holds enormous power, which can make people feel extremely intimidated even without stating it explicitly.
But beyond that, I was also thinking about how important it is to have someone you can truly rely on.
Tucker Carlson: At the end of the day, it’s the human connection that counts. Sam Bankman-Fried, I appreciate your willingness to do this interview. This may be the only interview you get where you won’t be bombarded with questions about your business, as others have already done.
But Im glad I had the chance to talk to you, and I hope youll give Diddy your regards for us.
SBF: I definitely will, absolutely.
Tucker Carlson: I still cant believe you were locked up with Diddy...
SBF: Yeah, if someone had told me three years ago, “You’re going to be hanging out with Diddy every day.”
I was like, Oh? Interesting, is he going to get into crypto?
Tucker Carlson: Life is so weird. Good luck.
SBF: Thank you, thank you, thank you.
