I enjoyed reading this analysis. What I find distressing is the lack of basic editing. I'm not a professional writer but even I can see numerous and obvious editing oversights. And I encounter this absence of very basic editing in electronic journalism everywhere. Any english teacher I ever had would have had plenty of opportunities to exercise their red pencil on this story. But I did like the story.
Oct 22, 2023·edited Oct 23, 2023Liked by Cody Kommers
I've read of the book, but not the book.
The pile-on struck me as being a rather rapid consensus, which either meant the book was rubbish, or that something wrong with the picture.
Unlike books about Elizabeth Holmes, for example, which were eagerly written and consumed after her gross and knowing fraud finally saw the light, Lewis was researching and writing the SBF book when everything was intact. Should he have torn up the manuscript and written another book, with the business collapse as the starting point? Written the all-knowing and all wise in hindsight book? Should he have declared guilt of any of the people involved right before and during SBFs trial? Really??? Other people have no doubt been writing those books since last year. Lewis wrote the prequel.
Your perspective makes a great deal more sense and has more veracity than any other commentary I've read. Although one reviewer acknowledged that it's an excellent and rollicking good read, equivalent in quality to his previous books. Obviously a lot of people just don't like what he said or how he said it. It's his book, he gets to choose.
Imagine having unprecedented access to Bernie Madoff prior to, during his downfall and then writing this book. That’s why people with understanding of the level of fraud and crypto/ finance are so upset. He might not have set out to write that book- but it become the only book that should have been written given the circumstances. And it’s a shame he couldn’t come to that realization.
This is close to my own read. One thing is that I worked for years with young techies from elite schools. They are prone to being technically brilliant but incredibly naive (as well as infamously bad at understanding people). The incompetence SBF showed was breathtaking but not unprecedented. I think he should go to jail, but the people who thought he was a genius on the way up have some culpability
Seems to me the heart of the issue is whether you believe (and it is still a matter of belief at this point), crypto is finance or tulips. If finance, you want to demonstrate that professionalism can make crypto work, thus, SBF was just a goofball. If tulips, you want to demonstrate that crypto facilitates fraud, thus, SBF shows how easy it is to do. Lewis wants crypto to be finance. Most of us are awake to crypto as, at best, a tulip for the foolish to buy and, at worst, something you have to buy to trade to some anonymous Russian for a code to unlock your hacked computer. Simple.
Surely whatever the "real" story is behind SBF''s intentions, if it is not simply a case of criminal intent, it is also not simply a case of incompetence. It could, of course, be some measure of both, but in any case it seems clear that whatever intentions were at play, they were accompanied at all points by an overwhelming degree of hubris. And when you freely play with other people's money to the tune of billions of dollars and maintain no regard for the security of those funds, it matters little whether you seek to defraud or are simply incompetent. Your hubris and the actions that hubris leads you to, (again with no regard for the people your actions are impacting), make you a very bad guy.
I'm not entirely up on this story, but I know his parents were involved and their investment outcome could serve as a litmus to decide on malice or incompetence.
The distinction between defrauded and knowingly defrauded is a bizarre obfuscation. There is no such thing as unknowingly defrauded. Either it’s fraud or it isn’t. In this case it’s pretty clear that it was fraud.
Not sure what your attitude is post-verdict and I don't know if you've already seen it, but you may be interested in this account of Sam's side of things: asecondglance.org (it's the only extensive exploration of the incompetence thesis that I know of, other than Going Infinite and the formal defense itself)
I enjoyed reading this analysis. What I find distressing is the lack of basic editing. I'm not a professional writer but even I can see numerous and obvious editing oversights. And I encounter this absence of very basic editing in electronic journalism everywhere. Any english teacher I ever had would have had plenty of opportunities to exercise their red pencil on this story. But I did like the story.
Finally an intelligent reading of Lewis’ book. And moderate. And smart and I think accurate
There seems to be a posse out to get SBF and Lewis and that is totally suspicious. Totally
Cody,
Quite welcome. Your work was readable, and the few poor word choices (perhaps via A.I.) didn't deter my learning.
One example, if I remember right, was the word "investment" when it should have been "investing".
No big deal, but was a few rain drops on your otherwise sunny day.😊
I've read of the book, but not the book.
The pile-on struck me as being a rather rapid consensus, which either meant the book was rubbish, or that something wrong with the picture.
Unlike books about Elizabeth Holmes, for example, which were eagerly written and consumed after her gross and knowing fraud finally saw the light, Lewis was researching and writing the SBF book when everything was intact. Should he have torn up the manuscript and written another book, with the business collapse as the starting point? Written the all-knowing and all wise in hindsight book? Should he have declared guilt of any of the people involved right before and during SBFs trial? Really??? Other people have no doubt been writing those books since last year. Lewis wrote the prequel.
Your perspective makes a great deal more sense and has more veracity than any other commentary I've read. Although one reviewer acknowledged that it's an excellent and rollicking good read, equivalent in quality to his previous books. Obviously a lot of people just don't like what he said or how he said it. It's his book, he gets to choose.
I listened to this on audio, while walking the dog. I had no problem with the structure, the language, the logic, or any apparent typos.
Imagine having unprecedented access to Bernie Madoff prior to, during his downfall and then writing this book. That’s why people with understanding of the level of fraud and crypto/ finance are so upset. He might not have set out to write that book- but it become the only book that should have been written given the circumstances. And it’s a shame he couldn’t come to that realization.
Not surprised at everyone's reaction. Self delusion is vital for every wealthaholics journey into the abyss. This hits too close to home.
This is close to my own read. One thing is that I worked for years with young techies from elite schools. They are prone to being technically brilliant but incredibly naive (as well as infamously bad at understanding people). The incompetence SBF showed was breathtaking but not unprecedented. I think he should go to jail, but the people who thought he was a genius on the way up have some culpability
Excellent point of view about the expectations of the reader, that is, what they want versus the work that the writer produces.
The latter may be top notch, but if it veers off expectations it will be panned.
Thanks.
BTW - you need have someone edit your work, there are many word choice issues. 😉
Lewis is basically attempting to waffle on his prior error of judgement. He’s a good wordsmith covering his mistakes.
Seems to me the heart of the issue is whether you believe (and it is still a matter of belief at this point), crypto is finance or tulips. If finance, you want to demonstrate that professionalism can make crypto work, thus, SBF was just a goofball. If tulips, you want to demonstrate that crypto facilitates fraud, thus, SBF shows how easy it is to do. Lewis wants crypto to be finance. Most of us are awake to crypto as, at best, a tulip for the foolish to buy and, at worst, something you have to buy to trade to some anonymous Russian for a code to unlock your hacked computer. Simple.
Surely whatever the "real" story is behind SBF''s intentions, if it is not simply a case of criminal intent, it is also not simply a case of incompetence. It could, of course, be some measure of both, but in any case it seems clear that whatever intentions were at play, they were accompanied at all points by an overwhelming degree of hubris. And when you freely play with other people's money to the tune of billions of dollars and maintain no regard for the security of those funds, it matters little whether you seek to defraud or are simply incompetent. Your hubris and the actions that hubris leads you to, (again with no regard for the people your actions are impacting), make you a very bad guy.
I'm not entirely up on this story, but I know his parents were involved and their investment outcome could serve as a litmus to decide on malice or incompetence.
The distinction between defrauded and knowingly defrauded is a bizarre obfuscation. There is no such thing as unknowingly defrauded. Either it’s fraud or it isn’t. In this case it’s pretty clear that it was fraud.
Well, Zaphod's just this guy, you know...
A bold and perceptive review, Cody.
Not sure what your attitude is post-verdict and I don't know if you've already seen it, but you may be interested in this account of Sam's side of things: asecondglance.org (it's the only extensive exploration of the incompetence thesis that I know of, other than Going Infinite and the formal defense itself)