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 Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Who Should Control Canada’s Pension Wealth?
Ottawa wants to compel large pools of Canadian money to be invested in Canada, instead of allowing investment funds to find the best return for Canadian investors.
Last week, another scandalous and potentially corrupt string of federal activities popped up.
This one has deep implications for pension plans in Canada, including the debate about an Alberta Pension Plan. Mark Carney’s double game of politics and profit enhances the drive to patriate Alberta’s pension wealth.
At issue is a report in the media saying that Brookfield may be looking to raise a $50 billion fund with contributions from Canada’s pension funds and an additional $10 billion from the federal government.
This report has drawn significant attention for several reasons. Toronto-based Brookfield is one of the world’s largest alternative investment management companies, claiming about one trillion in assets under management. Their portfolio spans real estate, renewable energy, infrastructure, and private equity, making them a significant player in domestic and international markets. The magnitude of Brookfield’s investments places them at the forefront of global financial movements, giving considerable weight to any fund they propose to establish.
The second reason is that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have voiced their ambitions to boost home-grown investments. One of the government’s strategies includes tapping into Stephen Poloz, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada. Poloz succeeded Mark Carney as the head of the bank. The Liberal government has tasked Poloz with leading a working group to identify “incentives” that would “encourage” institutional investors to keep their capital in Canada.
Moreover, Finance Minister Freeland has suggested implementing new regulations to ensure that more of Canada’s substantial pension fund reserves, which amount to an impressive $1.8 trillion, are allocated toward Canadian ventures. This comes when a staggering 73% of Canadian pension funds are invested abroad.
On its face, a plan to invest more Canadian wealth in Canada might sound reasonable. However, the plan avoids the crucial question of why money experts prefer investing outside Canada. Considering that question, one must consider the Trudeau government’s economic record.
Put differently, Ottawa is looking for ways to compel large pools of Canadian money to be invested in Canada instead of allowing investment funds to find the best return for Canadian investors. Those large cash pools typically belong to hard-working Canadians, such as teachers’ pensions. They would be forced to earn less for their pension money.
Forcing such large sums to remain in Canada would mask the continuous slump in productivity in the Canadian economy.
Given current economic policies and layers of taxation that do not exist elsewhere (such as the unpopular carbon taxes), Canadian companies are less competitive. Forcing pools of money to stay in Canada rather than seeking the best return for their clients offers an artificial boost that makes Ottawa policies seem less harmful.
It is, therefore, a politically motivated move. That level of government intervention historically always results in disastrous consequences. Politics directing traffic for the movement of capital rarely achieves good outcomes. The real issue is sagging productivity.
But that is only half the problem. The other significant issue is ethics.
Prime Minister Trudeau has recently named Mark Carney as his special economic advisor. Carney is the Chair of Asset Management and Head of Transition Investing at Brookfield. The Brookfield website shows Carney is responsible for “developing products for investors.” Carney is also the most mentioned name among people likely to succeed Justin Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
In short, the man who closely advises the government of Canada on how to compel gargantuan pools of money to be invested in Canada conveniently oversees the development of the “product” for the private Toronto firm, through which that money would be forced to be invested in Canada. Furthermore, the same firm reportedly seeks (read lobbying) from the federal government an infusion of $10 billion for the new fund.
As a Liberal and a potential party leader, given Justin Trudeau’s fortunes, Mark Carney could become prime minister in the immediate future. This means that Carney would benefit from creating new rules forcing investment money to stay in the country in two ways: As a leading man at Brookfield, Carney and the firm stand to make tens of millions from the policy. Second, as a carbon tax enthusiast, once squarely in political office, Carney would benefit from masking the ill, underproductive effects of the radical green agenda and carbon taxes he supports.
When Alberta progressives oppose the desire of many Albertans to patriate Alberta pension funds to the province, they cite concerns that the province might use the funds for political purposes, undermining the maximum return. This is not an outlandish concern, in some respects, given the history of the Alberta Heritage Fund.
However, it is not an exclusive danger inherent to the Alberta government. It does not warrant the presupposition that the federal government is a better steward of Alberta’s pension wealth, as demonstrated by the developments above. All things being equal, and unless human nature is outlawed by federal statute, the risks are the same.
But if something goes wrong with Albertans’ pension wealth, would they rather deal with people in Alberta than people in Ottawa, half a continent away Raising Alberta voices in Ottawa when Ottawa has been bent on doing the opposite of what is good for Albertans has never produced good results or reversed the nefarious effects on Albertans.
Ottawa politicians will do what is best for Laurentians every single time. The history of the Dominion, from the national policy to Crow rates and the National Energy Policy to Carbon Taxes, shows Ottawa policies always favour vote-rich Laurentia first and foremost.
Mark Carney’s product development for Brookfield shows, at worst, that Alberta’s pension wealth is just as much as risk with federal policies driven by political motivations. This one would be doubly bad because it is meant to serve and benefit Carney and his Bay Street friends as much as it is designed to help his future colleagues in Ottawa. And on both counts, Carney would benefit as a financier and politician.
Albertans should take their money and run.
Marco Navarro-Genie is Vice President Research with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of COVID-19: The Politics of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2020).
Business
Canadians largely ignore them and their funding bleeds their competition dry: How the CBC Spends its Public Funding
If we want to intelligently assess the value CBC delivers to Canadians in exchange for their tax-funded investment, we’ll need to understand two things:
- How CBC spends the money we give them
- What impact their product has on Canadians
The answer to question #2 depends on which Canadians we’re discussing. Your average young family from suburban Toronto is probably only vaguely aware there is a CBC. But Canadian broadcasters? They know all about the corporation, but just wish it would lift its crushing hobnailed boots from their faces.
Stick around and I’ll explain.
For the purposes of this discussion I’m not interested in the possibility that there’s been reckless or negligent corruption or waste, so I won’t address the recent controversy over paying out millions of dollars in executive benefits. Instead, I want to know how the CBC is designed to operate. This will allow us to judge the corporation on its own terms.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
CBC’s Financial Structure
We’ll begin with the basics. According to the CBC’s 2023-24 projections in their most recent corporate plan strategy, the company will receive $1.17 billion from Parliament; $292 million from advertising; and $209 million from subscriber fees, financing, and other income. Company filings note that revenue from both advertising and legacy subscription pools are dropping. Advertising is trending downwards because of ongoing changes in industry ad models, and the decline in subscriptions can be blamed on competition from “cord-cutting” internet services. The Financing and other income category includes revenue from rent and lease-generating use of CBC’s many real estate assets.
The projected combined television, radio, and digital services spending is $1.68 billion. For important context, 2022-23 data from the 2022-2023 annual report break that down to $996 million for English services, and $816 million for French services. 2022-23 also saw $60 million in costs for transmission, distribution, and collection. Corporate management and finance costs came to around $33 million. Overall, the company reported a net loss of $125 million in 2022-23.
The corporation estimates that their English-language digital platforms attract 17.4 million unique visitors each month and that the average visitor engages with content for 28 minutes a month. In terms of market relevance, those are pretty good numbers. But, among Canadian internet users, cbc.ca still ranked only 43rd for total web destinations (which include sites like google.com and amazon.ca). French-language Radio-Canada’s numbers were 5.2 million unique visitors who each hung around for 50 minutes a month.
Monthly engagement with digital English-language news and regional services was 20 minutes. Although we’re given no visitor numbers, the report does admit that “interest in news was lower than expected.”
CBC content production
All that’s not very helpful for understanding what’s actually going on inside CBC. We need to get a feel for how the corporation divides its spending between programming categories and what’s driving the revenue.
The CRTC provides annual financial filings for all Canadian broadcasters, including the CBC. I could describe what’s happening by throwing columns and rows of dollar figures at you. In fact, should you be so disposed, you can view the spreadsheet here. But it turns out that my colorful graph will do a much better job:
 |
As you can see for yourself, CBC spends a large chunk of its money producing news for all three video platforms (CBC and Radio-Canada conventional TV and the cable/VOD platforms they refer to as “discretionary TV”). The two conventional networks also invest significant funds in drama and comedy production.
The chart doesn’t cover CBC radio, so I’ll fill you in. English-language production costs $143 million (roughly the equivalent of the costs of English TV drama/comedy) while the bill for French-language radio production came in at $94 million (more or less equal to discretionary TV news production).
CBC Content Consumption
Who’s watching? The CBC itself reported that viewers of CBC English television represented only 5.1 percent of the total Canadian audience, and only 2.0 percent tuned in to CBC news. By “total Canadian audience”, I mean all Canadians viewing all available TV programming at a given time. So when the CBC tells us that their News Network got a 2.0 percent “share”, they don’t mean that they attracted 2.0 percent of all Canadians. Rather, they got 2.0 percent of whoever happened to be watching any TV network – which could easily come to just a half of one percent of all Canadians. After all, how many people still watch TV?
According to CRTC data, between the 2014–15 and 2022–23 seasons, English language CBC TV weekly viewing hours dropped from 35 million to 16 million. That total would amount to less than six minutes a day per anglophone Canadian. Specifically, news viewing fell by 52 percent, sports by 66 percent, and drama and comedy by 51 percent.
CBC Radio One and CBC Music only managed to attract 14.3 percent of the Canadian market. What does that actually mean? I’ve seen estimates suggesting that between 15 and 25 percent of all Canadians listen to radio during the popular daily commute slots. So at its peak, CBC radio’s share of that audience is possibly no higher than 3.5 percent of all Canadians.
A recent survey found that only 41 percent of Canadians agreed the CBC “is important and should continue doing what it’s doing.” The remaining 59 percent were split between thinking the CBC requires “a lot of changes” and was “no longer useful.” Those numbers remained largely consistent across all age groups.
It seems that while some Canadian’s might support the CBC in principle, for the most part, they’re not actually consuming a lot of content.
CBC Revenue sources
CBC’s primary income is from government funding through parliamentary allocations. Here’s what those look like:
 |
Advertising (or, “time sales” as they refer to it) is another major revenue source. That channel brought in more than $200 million in 2023:
 |
But here’s the thing: the broadcast industry in Canada is currently engaged in a bitter struggle for existence. Every single dollar from that shrinking pool of advertising revenue is desperately needed. And most broadcasters are – perhaps misguidedly – fighting for more government funding. So why should the CBC, with its billion dollar subsidies, be allowed to also compete for limited ad revenue?
Or, to put it differently, what vital and unique services does the CBC provide that might justify their special treatment?
It’s possible that CBC does target rural and underserved audiences missed by the commercial networks. But those are clearly not what’s consuming the vast majority of the corporation’s budget. Perhaps people are watching CBC’s “big tent” drama and comedy productions, but are those measurably better or more important than what’s coming from the private sector? And we’ve already seen how, for all intents and purposes, no one’s watching their TV news or listening to their radio broadcasts.
Perhaps there’s an argument to be made for maintaining or even increasing funding for CBC. But I haven’t yet seen anyone convincingly articulate it.
Subscribe to The Audit.
Hillary Clinton Calls for Stricter Online Censorship as Establishment Fears Losing “Total Control”
Retired judge slams Trudeau gov’t for promoting ‘false’ accusation about residential school deaths
Is the Senate in Violation of the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and Hindering Reconciliation?
Cost of Ottawa’s gun ban fiasco may reach $6 billion
-
National1 day agoJudge slams Trudeau, media for false claims about deaths, ‘secret burials’ at residential schools
-
Alberta1 day agoLawyers ask Alberta court to allow businesses to seek damages from gov’t for COVID shutdown
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta aggressively recruiting resident physicians from across Canada
-
Crime1 day agoNumbers don’t lie—crime up significantly in Toronto and across Canada
-
Alberta1 day ago“It’s Canada’s Time to Shine” – CNRL’s $6.5 Billion Chevron Deal Extends Oil Sands Buying Spree
-
Education1 day agoFired Alberta Professor Largely Vindicated
-
Energy1 day agoPutin’s uranium export restrictions are a gift for Canada
-
Crime1 day ago‘Do You Hear Yourself?’: JD Vance Stunned After Raddatz Minimizes Migrant Gang Takeover Of Apartment Complexes