Yeah, for sure NYT should have been pressing SBF hard on the customer funds "rumors," but this symptom of cluelessness has echoes beyond crypto. Does the Times even have a credible or important business section any more? I suspect it concluded some time ago, that anyone who seriously cares about business has indeed gone to Bloomberg, or reads the WSJ or the FT or (as in my budget case) the Economist, and that it can't compete with those entities. Or it may have concluded, given its focus and that of its target readers, that business is an unseemly preoccupation.
Or, to take a completely different tack, for which I have absolutely no evidence, the Times may be licking its own crypto wounds, about which it is at this point more rueful than angry.
Yeah, for sure NYT should have been pressing SBF hard on the customer funds "rumors," but this symptom of cluelessness has echoes beyond crypto. Does the Times even have a credible or important business section any more? I suspect it concluded some time ago, that anyone who seriously cares about business has indeed gone to Bloomberg, or reads the WSJ or the FT or (as in my budget case) the Economist, and that it can't compete with those entities. Or it may have concluded, given its focus and that of its target readers, that business is an unseemly preoccupation.
Or, to take a completely different tack, for which I have absolutely no evidence, the Times may be licking its own crypto wounds, about which it is at this point more rueful than angry.
Lots of possibilities.
Nouriel Roubini gets fired up: https://twitter.com/i/status/1592811336823889920
Look, there is no fucking way that the first risk Musk ever hedged in his life was that risk-free interest rates might rise.
BTW, that Trabucco thing about super powers is crazypants self-delusional. Still doesn't excuse fraud.
SBF gave huge amounts of money to the Democrats, which must have come even if
indirectly from customers of FTX. One can't help wondering if the NYT would like to obscure
that.