FTX: $8B Shortfall? Just a Flesh Wound, Says Sam

by

The Tale of a Man, His Exchange, and a Hole So Deep It Could Swallow the Salinas Valley

  • The former numbers wizard claims FTX had more than enough treasure to keep the ship afloat, despite an $8 billion hole in its hull.
  • Court papers sing a merry tune: the U.S. arm was as solvent as a grape in August, ready to pay its debts with a wink and a nod.
  • Was it insolvency that sank the ship, or the bankruptcy itself? The plot thickens like a bowl of Ma Joad’s stew.

Sam Bankman-Fried, that modern-day Quixote tilting at windmills of public opinion, has once again taken to the digital square to proclaim the innocence of his fallen kingdom, FTX. Armed with a sworn declaration from Dan Chapsky, the former Head of Data Science, he rides forth to challenge the narrative that has clung to him like a stubborn burr.

In a missive on the platform X, Bankman-Fried declared, “FTX was always solvent,” as if the word itself were a magic charm to ward off the specter of bankruptcy. Chapsky, he claims, is the wise old owl of the story, the one who could peer into the financial forest and see the truth. When the lawyers came knocking, it was Chapsky they turned to, for who better to count the beans than the man who knew where they were buried?

The Declaration: A Tale of Numbers and Nonsense

Bankman-Fried, ever the showman, shared a link to the court filing alongside an image that highlighted the juiciest bits of Chapsky’s sworn words. The filing reads like a tragic ballad:

“12. Both analyses showed that while the international FTX exchange did have a substantial (roughly $8 billion) liquidity shortfall as of November 11, 2022, it was solvent – meaning that it had enough assets to cover customers’ deposits. In my professional opinion, given the nature and value of the assets in FTX’s possession on November 11th, customers of these solvent entities could have been made whole within months – not years – had the exchanges not been placed into omnibus bankruptcy proceedings and abruptly shut down.”

The U.S. arm, it seems, was as liquid as a summer rain, with cash reserves ready to repay customers faster than a jackrabbit on a hot griddle. The independent examiner, appointed by the court, nodded in agreement, though whether out of conviction or fatigue remains a mystery.

Liquidity vs. Solvency: A Dance of Words and Wallets

Chapsky’s declaration draws a line in the sand between liquidity and solvency, as if the two were estranged cousins at a family reunion. While the international exchange may have been gasping for cash like a fish out of water, its assets, he argues, were still plump enough to cover the debts. The U.S. arm, meanwhile, stood tall, its pockets jingling with enough coins to settle up immediately.

Yet, the question lingers: if the ship was seaworthy, why did it sink? Chapsky points a finger at the bankruptcy itself, suggesting that the decision to shut down the exchanges and lump them into a single process was the true harpoon in the whale.

Why This Matters: A Tale of Blame and Buck-Passing

This filing is more than just a salvo in the war of words; it’s a bid to rewrite the story of FTX’s collapse. If the court buys Chapsky’s tune, the blame game could take a sharp turn. Was it insolvency that did them in, or the hasty decision to pull the plug? The customers, left holding the empty bags, may yet find themselves in the middle of a battle not of their making, like Tom Joad wandering the dust bowl, searching for justice in a world gone mad.

Read More

2026-02-17 17:32