Business
The SBF Scandal: The Players and the Money
From the Brownstone Institute
The complexities of the FTX scandal with Sam Bankman-Fried at the helm boggles the mind. Unlike the Madoff scandal, which was incredibly simple, the funding, influence, and political networks sounding the $32 billion collapse of FTX is byzantine by design.
Just have a look at the org chart of the company to get a sense. It’s all the better for avoiding oversight.
What we really need in the months or even years in which it will take to sort all of this out is some kind of key to the major players. What follows is a list which we’ve put together in order of network importance for easy reference. This small effort is made necessary because there seems to be very little attention being given to the entire SBF empire, both in terms of the players with whom he worked and where the money ended up.
It’s nowhere near being a guide to the fullness of the networks of funding and influence, and can only begin to hint at the real story of what was really behind this magic bean factory in the Bahamas. Their operations and networks are deliberately obscure and fan out over many countries, institutions, and individuals. There is a strange silence in the air about the details other than the general observation that Sam Bankman-Fried was up to no good.
And yet there were obviously many people involved. It’s probable that the main point was to fund political causes in a way that gets around federal election law, as the indictment suggests in count eight. However, a close examination of the networks keeps coming back to the strange theme of pandemic planning and support for various methods of controlling the population in the name of controlling infectious disease. Aside from political donations, this was a central concern. What that has to do with a crypto exchange is another matter.
All of which should raise a question given the time of the life of FTX (2019-2022): to what extent was the network surrounding this institution useful in providing back-channel funding support for (and lack of opposition to) the most unprecedented attack on human liberty in our lifetimes? This question applies to both the direct political contributions and the various other donations to institutions and individuals.
Corrections to this list are welcome.
Family
Sam Bankman-Fried: Went to MIT, worked for Centre for Effective Altruism (fundraising 2017) and started Alameda Research in November 2017, and then the crypto trading company FTX two years later, which he ran until 2022 when it all collapsed after becoming the second-largest donor to Democrats ($38M).
Barbara Helen Fried: mother of Sam, Harvard Law graduate, professor at Stanford University, booster of Effective Altruism, and founder of Mind the Gap, a secretive political action committee in Silicon Valley.
Alan Joseph Bankman: father of Sam, Yale Law graduate and later clinical psychologist, law professor at Stanford, and author and expert on tax law.
Linda Fried: Sam’s aunt on his mother’s side and Dean of School of Public Health at Columbia University and on the board of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Aging.
Gabriel Bankman-Fried: Sam’s brother who ran Guarding Against Pandemics, a lobbying organization supporting “pandemic planning” also known as lockdowns and vaccine mandates. It has a Capitol Hill headquarters that cost $3.3 million. He previously served on a Congressional staff.
Associates
Caroline Ellison: Schooled at Stanford, she is daughter of Glenn Ellison and Sara Fisher Ellison, both professors at MIT. She became CEO of Sam’s Alameda Research and reported girlfriend of Sam’s.
Sara Fisher Ellison and Glenn Ellison: Caroline’s mother is professor of economics at MIT with a research specialization in the pharmaceutical industry while her father has written at least four papers on epidemiological modeling.
Nishad Singh: former MIT roommate of Sam’s who is said to have built the FTX platform. He seems to have left the Bahamas for India.
Zixiao “Gary” Wang: Co-founder with Sam of FTX and Alameda. He graduated from MIT and worked for Google. Beyond that hardly anything is known about him. He seems to have left the Bahamas and is reported to be in Hong Kong.
Ryan Salame: Graduate of UMass-Amherst and head of FTX Digital Markets, plus proprietor of R Salame Digital Asset Fund through the Berkshire Taconic Community Foundation, allegedly for charitable purposes.
William David MacAskill: real name Crouch, William is an author and philosopher and founder of the Centre for Effective Altruism and a close colleague of Sam’s. He served on the board of FTX Future Fund until it collapsed. He is a media personality who gives TED talks and is a leader purveyor of the view that one should get very rich and give it away.
Funded Institutions and Individuals (some taken from here)
Together Trial: This elaborate trial of therapeutics ended up inveighing against Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and was generously funded by FTX. But that has been scrubbed from the public website. This is a continuing problem.
Moncef Slaoui: The head of Operation Warp Speed, he received $150,000 from FTX to write SBF’s autobiography, according to a Washington Post investigation.
HelixNano: A vaccine company that claims to be developing mutation-resistant vaccines, which received $10M in funding from FTX Future Fund, according to a Washington Post investigation.
Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security: This institution ran the Event 201 lockdown tabletop exercise in 2019, and received at least $175,000 for a single employee, from FTX coffers. We don’t know the full extent but it was enough for the head of the Center to defend Sam and FTX in public. Nor do we know Alameda Research’s funding reach of this institution.
Guarding Against Pandemics: Run by Sam’s brother Gabriel, this 501c4 gave at least $1M to campaigns in 2022. We do not know how much money Alameda/FTX funneled to this institution. Sam fequently recommend it as a target for charitable giving.
Protect Our Future: run by the two brothers, this PAC gave $28M to candidates in the 2022 cycle. We do not know how much Alameda/FTX gave.
Center for Innovation in Global Health, Stanford University: FTX and its network gave $1.5M to the institution.
ProPublica: A grant of $5M from FTX Future Fund. Other reports say $27 million.
Centre for Effective Altruism: FTX Future fund gift of $14M
Effective Ideas Blog: It promised to pay $1K to good blogs, and its Twitter frequently links to other institutions and individuals in the FTX network. Funded by Future Fund: $900K
Piezo Therapeutics: “Work on technology for delivering mRNA vaccines without lipid nanoparticles with the aim of making vaccines more safe, affordable, and scalable.” FTX gave $1M
Council on Strategic Risks: “a project which will develop and advance ideas for strengthening regional and multilateral cooperation for addressing biological risks.” $400K from FTX
AVECRIS Pte. Ltd: “support the development of a next-generation genetic vaccine platform that aims to allow for highly distributed vaccine production using AVECRIS’s advanced DNA vector delivery technology.” $3.6M from FTX
University of Ottawa: “a project to develop new plastic surfaces incorporating molecules that can be activated with low-energy visible light to eradicate bacteria and kill viruses continuously.” FTX gave $250K
1Day Sooner: “work on pandemic preparedness, including advocacy for advance market purchase commitments, collaboration with the UK Pandemic Ethics Accelerator.” FTX gave $300K.
SAGE: “creation of a pilot version of a forecasting platform, and a paid forecasting team, to make predictions about questions relevant to high-impact research.” FTX gave $700K
Longview: “global priorities research, nuclear weapons policy, and other longtermist issues.” Advisor: William MacAskill. FTX gave $15M
Confirm Solutions: “support development of statistical models and software tools that can automate parts of the regulatory process for complex clinical trials.” FTX gave $1M
Lightcone Infrastructure: “ongoing projects including running the LessWrong forum, hosting conferences and events, and maintaining an office space for Effective Altruist organizations.” FTX gave $2M
Rational Animations: “the creation of animated videos on topics related to rationality and effective altruism to explain these topics for a broader audience.” FTX gift: $400K
Giving What We Can: “to create a world in which giving effectively and significantly is a cultural norm.” FTX gift: $700,000
The Atlas Fellowship: scholarships for talented and promising high school students to use towards educational opportunities and enrolling in a summer program. FTX gift: $5M
Constellation: “support 18 months of operations for a longtermist coworking space in Berkeley.” FIX coughed up $3.9M
Longview Philanthropy: “creating a longtermist coworking office in London.” FTX committed $2.9M
Long Term Future Fund: “longtermist grantmaking.” FTX committed $3.9M
OurWorldinData: graphs and charts portal. FTX committed $7.5M
Institute for Progress: “research and policy engagement work on high-skilled immigration, biosecurity, and pandemic prevention.” FTX was in for $480K. Additional support came from Emergent Ventures, which was modeled on Fast Grants that funded Neil Ferguson’s pandemic modeling at Imperial College London, which seems to have an entangled relationship with the SFB empire, one yet to be fully disclosed.
Conclusion
What is listed above only scratches the surface of the admitted $160 million given out, but the promise had been for fully $1 billion to go to various nonprofits in this network that seems to be supported or even founded in order to receive money from FTX-connected institutions.
We could only list some of the names and a fraction of the dollar amounts. There are many other institutions and names that could be part of this list but we lacked enough documentation to verify for this article. There is still the task of listing all political campaigns that were in receipt of the money as well as the public-relations boosters of the whole effort.
Building off the success of Bill Gates, Sam Bankman-Fried, and his many associates, clearly saw philanthropy as the path to influence, power, and protection. At the same time, many nonprofit organizations saw an opportunity too; to build their own empires through promised millions and billions from a crypto genius in the Bahamas who had an unusual passion for pandemic planning.
For three years, many of us have wondered how it came to be that the critics of lockdowns and mandates were so few and far between. There are surely many explanations but, as usual, it helps fill in the dots to follow the money.
Author
From the Fraser Institute
By Callum MacLeod and Jake Fuss
The only taxes corporations face are on profits they distribute to shareholders. This allows the profits of Estonian firms to be reinvested tax-free permitting higher returns for entrepreneurs.
A new study found that the current decline in living standards is one of the worst in Canada’s recent history. While the economy has grown, it hasn’t kept pace with Canada’s surging population, which means gross domestic product (GDP) per person is on a downward trajectory. Carolyn Rogers, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, points to Canada’s productivity crisis as one of the primary reasons for this stagnation.
Productivity is a key economic indicator that measures how much output workers produce per hour of work. Rising productivity is associated with higher wages and greater standards of living, but growth in Canadian productivity has been sluggish: from 2002 to 2022 American productivity grew 160 per cent faster than Canadian productivity.
While Canada’s productivity issues are multifaceted, Rogers pointed to several sources of the problem in a recent speech. Primarily, she highlighted strong business investment as an imperative to productivity growth, and an area in which Canada has continually fallen short. There is no silver bullet to revive faltering investment, but tax reform would be a good start. Taxes can have a significant effect on business incentives and investment, but Canada’s tax system has largely stood in the way of economic progress.
With recent hikes in the capital gains tax rate and sky-high compliance costs, Canada’s taxes continue to hinder its growth. Canada’s primary competitor is the United States, which has considerably lower tax rates. Canada’s rates on personal income and businesses are similarly uncompetitive when compared to other advanced economies around the globe. Uncompetitive taxes in Canada prompt investment, businesses, and workers to relocate to jurisdictions with lower taxes.
The country of Estonia offers one of the best models for tax reform. The small Baltic state has a unique tax system that puts it at the top of the Tax Foundation’s tax competitiveness index. Estonia has lower effective tax rates than Canada—so it doesn’t discourage work the way Canada does—but more interestingly, its business tax model doesn’t punish investment the way Canada’s does.
Their business tax system is a distributed profits tax system, meaning that the only taxes corporations face are on profits they distribute to shareholders. This allows the profits of Estonian firms to be reinvested tax-free permitting higher returns for entrepreneurs.
The demand for investment is especially strong for capital-intensive companies such as information, communications, and technology (ICT) enterprises, which are some of the most productive in today’s economy. A Bank of Canada report highlighted the lack of ICT investment as a major contributor to Canada’s sluggish growth in the 21st century.
While investment is important, another ingredient to economic growth is entrepreneurship. Estonia’s tax system ensures entrepreneurs are rewarded for success and the result is that Estonians start significantly more businesses than Canadians. In 2023, for every 1,000 people, Estonia had 17.8 business startups, while Canada had only 4.9. This trend is even worse for ICT companies, Estonians start 45 times more ICT businesses than Canadians on a per capita basis.
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor’s (GEM) 2023/24 report on entrepreneurship confirms that a large part of this difference comes from government policy and taxation. Canada ranked below Estonia on all 13 metrics of the Entrepreneurial Framework. Notably, Estonia scored above Canada when taxes, bureaucracy, burdens and regulation were measured.
While there’s no easy solution to Canada’s productivity crisis, a better tax regime wouldn’t penalize investment and entrepreneurship as much as our current system does. This would allow Canadians to be more productive, ultimately improving living standards. Estonia’s business tax system is a good example of how to promote economic growth. Examples of successful tax structures, such as Estonia’s, should prompt a conversation about how Canadian governments could improve economic outcomes for citizens.
Authors:
From the Fraser Institute
Business investment in the extraction sector (again, excluding residential structures and adjusted for inflation) has declined from $101.9 billion to $49.7 billion, a reduction of 51.2 per cent
Canada has a business investment problem, and it’s serious. Total business investment (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) declined by 7.3 per cent between 2014 and 2022. The decline in business investment in the extractive sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) is even more pronounced.
During that period, business investment in the extraction sector (again, excluding residential structures and adjusted for inflation) has declined from $101.9 billion to $49.7 billion, a reduction of 51.2 per cent. In fact, from 2014 to 2022, declines in the extraction sector are larger than the total decline in overall non-residential business investment.
That’s very bad. Now why is this happening?
One factor is the heavy regulatory burden imposed on Canadian business, particularly in the extraction sector. How do we know that proliferating regulations, and concerns over regulatory uncertainty, deter investment in the mining, quarrying and oil and gas sectors? Because senior executives in these industries tell us virtually every year in a survey, which helps us understand the investment attractiveness of jurisdictions across Canada.
And Canada has seen an onslaught of investment-repelling regulations over the past decade, particularly in the oil and gas sector. For example, the Trudeau government in 2019 gave us Bill C-69, also known as the “no new pipelines” bill, which amended and introduced federal acts to overhaul the governmental review process for approving major infrastructure projects. The changes were heavily criticized for prolonging the already lengthy approval process, increasing uncertainty, and further politicizing the process.
In 2019, Ottawa also gave us Bill C-48, the “no tankers” bill, which changed regulations for vessels transporting oil to and from ports on British Columbia’s northern coast, effectively banning such shipments and thus limiting the ability of Canadian firms to export. More recently, the government has introduced a hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions coming from the oil and gas sector, and new fuel regulations that will drive up fuel costs.
And last year, with limited consultation with industry or the provinces, the Trudeau government announced major new regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production.
Clearly, Canada badly needs regulatory reform to stem the flood of ever more onerous new regulations on our businesses, to trim back gratuitous regulations from previous generations of regulators, and lower the regulatory burden that has Canada’s economy labouring.
One approach to regulatory reform could be to impose “regulatory cap and trade” on regulators. This approach would establish a declining cap on the number of regulations that government can promulgate each year, with a requirement that new regulations be “traded” for existing regulations that impose similar economic burdens on the regulated community. Regulatory cap-and-trade of this sort showed success at paring regulations in a 2001 regulatory reform effort in B.C.
The urgency of regulatory reform in Canada can only be heightened by the recent United States Supreme Court decision to overturn what was called “Chevron Deference,” which gave regulators powers to regulate well beyond the express intent of Congressional legislation. Removing Chevron Deterrence will likely send a lot of U.S. regulations back to the drawing board, as lawsuits pour in challenging their legitimacy. This will impose regulatory reform in and of itself, and will likely make the U.S. regulatory system even more competitive than Canada.
If policymakers want to make Canada more competitive and unshackle our economy, they must cut the red tape, and quickly.
Author:
The Flood Of Energy Absurdities Never Slows
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
While Illegal Aliens Kill and Rape, Bogus Crime ‘Studies’ Ideology Still Blunt Solutions
Biden to propose term limits, new code of ethics for the Supreme Court: report
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
-
Alberta1 day ago‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial
-
National1 day agoLiberals offer no response as Conservative MP calls Trudeau a ‘liar’ for an hour straight
-
COVID-191 day agoLeaked documents: German gov’t lied about shots preventing COVID, knew lockdowns did more harm than good
-
illegal immigration2 days agoKamala Harris, Immigration Extremist
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoCowering before carbon
-
Business1 day ago
Federal government seems committed to killing investment in Canada
-
International1 day agoSwitzerland’s new portable suicide ‘pod’ set to claim its first life ‘soon’