The #SBF (#FTX) conundrum might be solvable by throwing these propositions into the mix:
1. He's “earning to give”
1. He's an utilitarian
1. He thinks that “the end justifies the means”
1. He's explicitly risk-neutral
He simply computed the probability of getting away with financial engineering and deception times the potential increase in well-being (by tossing billions at #EffectiveAltruism causes), and that seemed to him higher than the odds of being caught times {investors and customers' funds lost plus the huge reputational damage that would inflict to the #EA cause}.
So he pressed the red button and bet the world. And he lost.
It's not trivial to find the flaw in his reasoning, though.
@tripu Is there any strong hint he actually wanted to be altruistic? I only heard the bancrupcy news, nothing about motives yet.
He was a utilitarian from the cradle, an EA before he was a billionaire, and used to donate a lot of his income. Apparently Alameda Research donated 50% of their profits in the early days, too. After he became so wealthy he donated a lot of money to EA-approved organisations.
That at least seems true. It would be impossible to bribe or deceive so many people and organisations who, by all we know, _did_ receive actual money from him already.
@tripu So he was scamming scammers to donate to a well-curated list of charitable organizations? That, i approve of whole-heartedly!