The Network Behind FTX with Marty Bent & Michael Krieger

evermore apparent. Yet some major outlets like the New York Times and covering the FTX collapse have avoided portraying Venkman fried as a criminal or fraud. They haven't even bothered to call out what he was actually doing it FTX which is more or less running a massive

Ponzi scheme. Yet beyond the brazen criminality, the story has taken on some interesting new dimensions following revelations about Sam Beckman Fried's connections, particularly those of his family and his ties to a bizarre somewhat cultish movement of self-styled philanthropist known as Effective Altruism. Not only that, but some of these connections involve cozy ties to those leading the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the revolving door between congressional staff and one of

FTX is subsidiaries. Did Sam Beekman fried really accomplish all of this on his own? No, but narrative is quickly being spun that he conducted all of this fraud avoided regulatory scrutiny and amassed billions of dollars of wealth without the help of a network that benefited from and protected his

activities. Such a narrative is oddly reminiscent of the mainstream narrative about another brazen financial criminal Jeffrey Epstein to help me make sense of this complete hive of financial fuckery and apparent conspiracy. I am joined today by Marty Bent and Mike Krieger. Marty is the founder of t ftc.io. A media company focused on Bitcoin beauty and freedom in the digital age. He is also a partner at 1031, a leading investment platform focused exclusively on investing

in the Bitcoin ecosystem. And he hosts the Tales from the Crypt or TF TC podcast. Mike formerly worked on Wall Street as an oil and gas general commodities analyst and equity research and later on a trading desk he ultimately left and discuss over the state of the industry can't blame him, and started the website Liberty blitzkrieg. Though he doesn't blog much anymore, Mike still shares his insights on social media and elsewhere in between homeschooling is for kids and

gardening. So hey, guys, thanks for being here today. Welcome to unlimited hangout. Hey, Whitney, great to be here. Thank you. It's always a pleasure, Whitney. Well, thanks so much for being here, because we have a lot to get into. So I'm sure by now most people are familiar at least have heard of FTX. And Sam Venkman. Fried since it's been in the news so much over the past several days, but maybe we should start off giving a summary of of the collapse. Exactly. You know, how it

happened? What was the lead up to it? And what was FTX? And what did it claim to be doing versus what it was actually doing? Yeah, so I guess I can take that. And we'll start with, I guess we have to start with what was FTX? How did it start? In short, FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange, where people could deposit Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and trade those currencies against each other, and then trade them with

leverage, as well. So this was a spot where many individuals and hedge funds in the crypto space would would come to trade, different altcoins and Bitcoin, using leverage to try to try to make a return. But FTX spun out of a trading research firm known as Alameda and Alameda, their claim to fame was their ability to arbitrage the price of Bitcoin between across Western and Asian markets in around

2018 2019. I mean, the origin story, and the lore behind Alameda that SPF would put out there was that they were somehow able to recognize that Bitcoin was trading at say, $10,000 in the US and $10,100 in Japan. And apparently, they were able to spin up a bunch of bank accounts across the world and arbitrage that price difference. So they would buy Bitcoin for $10,000 in the US, and then sell it for 10,100 in Japan immediately, and they claimed to have been wildly profitable with that particular

trade. And they brought it over to South Korea to at least that's the story. I'm not sure. Do you buy that story? Because I've heard from people that talked about that we're talking about FTX being fraudulent basically, in October, I think Mark Kehoe did go holidays or something like that is his name. And he was saying that this origin story doesn't make any sense to him at all. He would have had to have like a ton of capital that wasn't his behind. until we've made this strategy work.

Yeah, some of its skeptical about it too. And I've been Michael could chime in here about the nature of the type of infrastructure that would have to be set up from multiple bank accounts across the world to actually make this trade possible in the first place. Yeah, so I'm just chime in a few

things to add there. One is that there were some chat releases or messages recently, I don't know if you to saw but from ex former employees, talking about how they did make a decent amount of money on that trade, somehow we can get into that the details later and how the Effective Altruism network apparently made all that happen. But these employees claimed that it was squandered that whatever money

they made was squandered. So you're still left with this gaping hole of Where did all of that initial money come from to launch FTX. And remember that FTX didn't just, you know, sort of launch, you know, out of a basement or a garage, and then slowly, you know, gain share it, it came out of nowhere. And we still don't know, you know, really the origin of the money

where it came from. And it absolutely exploded, I believe that it started only a few days after Biden announced his present presidential candidacy. So sometime in 2019, then, but it just came out of nowhere. And it very quickly became one of the biggest so That's bizarre. The one I think, you know, Whitney, we've I know you've done so much work on Epstein.

But when you first look at him, right, one of the one of the, you're looking for the money, you know, sort of where did the initial kind of big money or sort of injection come from? I think Wexner was one of the first correct me if I'm wrong. In this case, it seems like the only name that I can attach to money. early on was this guy, Jen Talon, who's a, a co founder of Skype and also an effective altruists. So that's sort of the

first. That's that's the only significant chunk of money that I've been able to find that that, you know, surfaces kind of early on in the origin story it was from it was from that individual. Yeah, so we'll get into the effective altruist stuff a bit later, because that's a real hive do explain because there's a lot of backstory to that, but I guess to, you know, sum it up briefly here. It seems like a lot of FTX is an initial

activities. And really Sam Bateman, Fried's career, from the time he left MIT on was effectively managed by this particular group of effective altruists, which is really quite a tight knit network. And, you know, again, we'll get into that later. So, origin story aside, so we, we've talked a little bit about, I guess, what FTX was. So, you know, a lot has come out, especially last week about what they were actually doing, or rather what they were supposed to be doing, but didn't

do. So maybe we could go over that a little bit. In terms of, you know, just the evidence of excessive fraud, and like, what, what has been exposed about FTX. That's significant. And on the business side, yeah. And this, this dovetails into the thread that was pulled on over the last couple of weeks that essentially uncovered the big massive fraud that was going on. And this revolves around FTX is exchange token FTT. So when.

So first, we'll say there's this big theme in the overarching cryptocurrency space, particularly with exchanges, where they'll essentially launch their own token exchange token in the market that this token will allow users to benefit from the profitability of the exchange. In my mind, this whole token mechanism doesn't make sense from first principles. But it has been trend over the last five to six years particular.

But by Nance has an exchange token crypto.com has an exchange token, and FTX hasn't had an exchange token as well. And so this is where the unraveling of that dx began. So they had their FTT token. And the way that these token mechanics typically work is the exchange will pre mined a bunch of these exchange tokens and FTX, this case FTT.

And what they'll do is they'll hold a lion's share of the supply off the market on their own balance sheet, and then they'll release a small fraction of the free float of the token to retail investors. And they can trade that in what this mechanism allows, since they're holding a lot of supply off the market and allows them to artificially increase the price of these tokens rather trivially with some washe trading. And so in the case of FTX, and FTT.

Many people believe what they were doing was wash trading, and be Alameda to push the price of FTT up significantly high, giving it a lot of value in a larger market cap, and artificial market cap, if you will. And so what happened a few weeks ago, was coin desk released an article of FTX, his balance sheet. And it's basically highlighted that a lion's share of ft X's balance sheet was their own FTT token and not actually Bitcoin, or other more established

cryptocurrencies. And what happened then is that the larger their largest competitor in the space by Nance, their CEO recognized this and basically saw it as an opportunity to take out in a competitor, or he simply saw this is insane, that their balance sheet is, is predominantly their their own exchange token, and that they don't have a significant amount of bitcoin, or cash on their

balance sheet. And so what happened after CZ, the CEO by Nance saw that that balance sheet and the coin desk article, he came out publicly and announced, we're not comfortable with the state of FTX. So we're going to dump our FTT tokens by Nance had upwards of $500 million worth of this FTT token.

So when CZ came out, and publicly signaled that by Nance was going to dump their FTT tokens, the price of FTT starts to fall significantly, because others saw that and by Nance being one of the largest holders that they're going to sell their FTT tokens, I mean, the price is going to go down. And so others who did not want to get taken out with a tie to that trade decide to follow along with CZ. And so that drove the price of FTT token down below when many are claiming to be a critical

point, which was $22. Eventually it fell down to I believe, for $4. But when that happened, when CZ started selling, and other started selling as well, the price of FTT fell significantly, obviously, in this is what began the unraveling of the giant fraud that was FTX. And so once the price fell below a critical point, the market became aware that what FTX was doing is they were giving large amounts of

FTT. To Alameda, their trading arm, which are supposed to be separate, I think that's should be important to note is FTX and Alameda were posturing publicly that they're completely separate entities that had no involvement with each other, but it's become glaringly obvious that they were commingling funds and working very closely with each other. And so when the price of FTT fell, it became known that FTX was giving a bunch of FTT tokens

to Alameda. And then the Alameda was using those FTT tokens as collateral to take out loans for many other actors in this space, loans and Bitcoin and stable coins. And so when the price fell, the collateral with all the loans that Alameda had taken out, became essentially worthless, and they became the debt that they had taken out, they couldn't pay it back. And so they became essentially insolvent overnight. And that's where the cascading effect began.

So in the aftermath of this, and they're filing for bankruptcy ongoing, has been put in charge of FTX. And most of the, you know, people that had previously been in charge of it, including bank been freed, of course, are out at this point. But this guy, John Ray, right, he was previously brought in to clean

up Enron. And he had a bunch of revelations, I guess, that he produced on the court filing or elsewhere, some sort of documentation came out where he was basically going over that, you know, this is even worse than Enron and torn in terms of corporate controls. And some of the stuff he's he said, was just insane, like didn't even have a bank account. And like, you know, I mean, loads of stuff that's really just mind boggling. Do you guys want to go over that for a little bit?

I wanted to just add some clarification on what Marty was saying, as well, because some people listening may get really confused, as far as you know, FTT, how could it possibly, you know, sort of collateralize this gigantic Ponzi scheme? And, you know, what is it even right? From what I've from my reading, and maybe Marty can correct me if I'm wrong here, because I've never traded or had any funds on

FTX. But I read that apparently, FTX was offering discounts on their on trading or something like that to customers or users that were using the FTT or holding the FTT token. So that might have been the carrot that was being used because remember, the these these tokens are not equity, right? It's not an equity stake in FTX. It's there's no like ownership of anything that comes along with holding a token. So they have to put out some sort of rationale. For what is this going to do?

And I think that's what it was. Are you? Are you aware of any anything like that, Marty? Or is that does that sound right? Yeah. And to be clear, I've never traded on FTX or use that TT token. That yeah, that's typically how these exchange tokens work. They try to basically give benefits to users that that token on the exchange, that others who aren't using the token would not get.

Right. And so again, that's sort of a way to tie some sort of utility to it to then that's how the that's one of the ways that the value can get just crazily inflated, because users might just choose to hold that token on on the exchange, you know, because there's some some marginal value to it some some discount or something like that.

Yes. Yes. And that's actually I believe, how ft TX originally launched, I believe the FTT token was part of an Ico that they that they launched to actually fund or market that they were funding the exchange with the FTT. Ico. Right? So for people that don't know that Ico is an initial coin offering, yeah. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I don't know, if everyone's up

to speed on crypto isms. On my podcast, you know, I'm certainly not I'm, you know, a crypto person myself in terms of being as knowledgeable as you guys about this type of stuff, which is, you know, part of why you are here. So anyway, to get to get back to the conversation, you know, about FTX. And so we can spend more time sort of unpacking a lot of these, you know, revelations that aren't getting a lot of lip service in the media, you know, about this

whole situation. We're turning to what I mentioned a minute, a minute ago about the extent of criminality and fraud and how the person that's been brought into clean up previously brought in to clean up, Enron says it's the worst, worst thing he's ever seen in his whole career, you know, there was no board, no board meetings. You know, like I mentioned earlier, no bank account. So, I mean, if it was this egregious how, and why was nothing done before its collapse? Well, I mean, I'll take this

just to start. You know, I think Marty actually called out SBF publicly on Twitter. Earlier a few times, I think I recall that, you know, I never did, but I've also been very much not paying close attention to a lot of different things over the last year or so I've been much less active than I was historically, however, I do recall, you know, earlier this year, you know, when I saw him on stage with Clinton and Tony Blair, at I believe was telling,

I saw this guy. And then also when I just saw him sort of disparaging Bitcoin, very, what I thought would be a very snake like fashion, very publicly calling for regulations. I mean, even someone like me, who's not paying that close attention, that definitely made me you know, sort of caused me to say, wait a minute, why, first of all, where did this guy come from? Who is this guy? What is

he doing? It felt to me, like it was some sort of a op, or he was somebody's, you know, beard or something that he was there for some purpose. And I just didn't bother to look into it at all, I had no stake in any of this, right. But it was always weird to me, like, because the talking points that he was using, it was it was almost as if I was the WTF, and I wanted to, you know, wreck Bitcoin as much as possible, you know, I'd be this guy, you know, I just create this guy in a laboratory and put

them out there. So that, to me, was always super bizarre. And I think that in some way must tie into the question you're asking, which is, how is this allowed to get so big, so fast? And go on? And I think the clear answer to that, at least from my perspective, based on what I'm seeing is that it was it was an intentional thing, you know, he was he was meant to. He was meant to push forward some sort of, quote unquote, elite narrative and agenda. I think

that much is clear. And obviously even more clear now that we can unpack a lot of these weird connections and webs that we will do. But that's my take. And I sort of had that feeling from, you know, when I first saw him, but now it's just becoming too obvious. Yeah. Mark, do you have any thoughts? Yeah, I just echo what Michael said. I mean, Michael mentioned, I've been calling SPFL since

July of last year of 2021. And, again, I haven't been I focused on Bitcoin only, I really don't trade any of the other cryptocurrencies and had no use for FTX at all, or my involvement in Bitcoin, but I would echo what Michael just said, the reason I started calling them out in July of last year, that's because he was going on CNBC, and being wanted as this expert that knew everything about the space and there was one particular enter interview He conducted with Joe

Kernan, from CNBC, one of their shows and it just became glaringly obvious to me that he really didn't grasp the nature of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies at all and the conversation. That particular conversation revolved around the consensus mechanisms that these cryptocurrencies use proof of work or proof of stake, and, in that particular interview, he completely mischaracterized the

nature of the two. And it became obvious to me that he didn't understand what these things how they work, or why these consensus, consensus mechanisms work the way they do. And that seemed very fishy to me. Well, you know, what's really crazy too, though, is that it's not just him like the the person that was in charge of the Alameda side of things, Caroline Ellison, who is allegedly like his SPF x, or current or something, girlfriend, some sort

of romantic partner. There's videos of her that have resurfaced, where she is also, like, she doesn't know what to say, when asked basic questions about the industry that she's, you know, her company's supposed to be like, you know, one of the market leaders have just totally clueless about loads of stuff.

And then another top executive at FTX, I guess, Ryan, Salah May, or I'm not sure how you say his last name, but he, there was also a video that surfaced of Him from before the collapse, and he's asked about like trading and crypto and stuff. And he's like, Oh, I can't talk about that. I mean, he's they're very evasive, about, you know, answering really basic questions of stuff you think they would be knowledgeable about? For being, you know, such a visible face of

the crypto industry? Right. And to go back to something that CanSat a bigger network that was so I don't I don't think we quite touched on is that when these guys around, you know, sort of the hype around them. There was this huge marketing campaign that was paid for by some means that involved involved like very big name, people like Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen. The guy from what's his name, Larry David, the actor, they had like a Superbowl

commercial. They got their name on the Miami Miami Heat arena. And then that that conference where he were SBF is up speaking with Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton, that was a crypto conference in the Bahamas that was backed in organized by FTX.

I mean, they've been doing a lot of organizing in terms of PR and but like very flashy and expensive PR and like creating these conferences, but they have no you know, if you listen to them, and what you brought up, Marty, too, is that they have no, like, actual knowledge when pressed on this stuff. I mean,

that's pretty nuts. And if people like you can see this, and some, I think there were some other people that were also calling them out, well, before the collapse as well, you know, I mean, if these people could see it, why couldn't you know, the regulators? And also, here's another thing that, you know, I think needs to be explored further, is, with all of these campaigns, I still, it's still not clear how they were paid for. In other words,

did Larry David accept FTT? Did Tom Brady and Gisele accept FTT? Was it all paid for and FTT? Can you actually, you know, sponsor and arena with FTT tokens? I think that seems unlikely, right? For sure. Some of it probably was right. But but the rest of it, you know, I just don't see a sports team taking FTT tokens for you know, 10s or hundreds of millions of dollars. And so then you have to ask yourself, Okay, well, it really does seem like this entity had

an unlimited budget. And if they're not paying for it with FTT, and FTT was the only thing that was really collateralizing this entire Ponzi scheme. Well, where was that unlimited budget coming from? Was it just customer funds? Was it something else? Clearly, in the beginning, it was something else, okay, the money, this money was coming from somewhere. And again, to go from zero to the extent of, let's say market share that they eventually had at their peak.

That's not, you know, that takes as we as we discuss money, it takes money, it's capital. And it's still not clear to me where that's from and again, just just donating font, you know, even though they donated a lot to politicians, it's not enough to do, you know, to sort of have the rise that they had there was it felt like they were meant to be, you know, in this not in a universal sense, but in a sort of sketchy sense.

Yeah, definitely sketchy? Well, there's a couple of things that have sort of a reason relatively recently on the front of potential collusion with government authorities and regulators. There, for example, is the donations that SBF made not just to the Democratic Party, but also to members of Congress, that sit on the Financial Services Committee, including Maxine Waters, and another congressman, and those two congressmen are congress

people. I don't know are the ones that are due to investigate FTX on behalf of the government, which is pretty insane because there's pictures that have resurfaced and videos of Maxine Waters, blowing Sam Venkman free to kiss and you know, they're very chummy and Huggy and a lot of these photos so that, you know, that's convenient to have the people investigating you,

like you that much. And then on the other side of this, there's this apparent connection to Gary Gensler, who's head of the SEC or Securities and Exchange Exchange Commission. Yes. It was coming to light that there was a particular meeting, I believe, earlier this year between Gary Gensler and SPF and

the meeting notes. The the highlight of the topic of the meeting was something like figuring out a way to give FTX amnesty for breaking securities law with a certain form of legislation that would get pushed through. And do we know the conclusions of that meeting or what came of it, or that's up in the air. It's up in the air right now. But we do know, that they certainly met and the nature of the conversation is public. What exactly was said is, is not?

And of course, I mean, at this point, maybe it makes sense to just throw out some of those connections that I think everyone's heard by now. But it makes sense to mention here I believe, which would be that, you know, Alameda one of the key figures in the Alameda collapse. Caroline Ellison. Interestingly enough, she went to Stanford, where Sam Venkman Freed's both of his parents are law

professors at Stanford. And then Sam bank, been freed went to MIT, where Caroline Ellison's father is, I believe, the chair of the Economics Department at something like that. Yeah. And then, of course, Gary Gensler was at MIT for a period of time involved with I believe that MIT's digital currency initiative or something like that, so yeah, I mean, it's just a strange, very incestuous, some FET family connections there. And of course, there, there's

there comes up Gary Gensler. And then, as Marty mentioned, that they were working on some sort of a carve out at CES for FTX. It's it's certainly worth noting, and people can come to their own conclusions about that, but it's certainly interesting.

Yeah. And then we have the situation where this legislation, I guess it's in the Senate right now, I'm not really sure which house of Congress is dealing with it, but it was a bill related to regulation of the crypto industry, and FB SPF was very involved in drafting

it. And despite everything that's exploded around FTX, in this guy's reputation, over the past couple of weeks, just a few days ago, they announced they're still going to roll with it, they're not going to make major changes, they're not going to scrap it, they're gonna, you know, roll ahead with a bill that was partially written by a guy behind a massive Ponzi scheme to regulate the industry in which he conducted his Ponzi scheme. It seems a little odd,

right? And then you've seen Of course, we've all we've all seen the mat, the mainstream media, articles and headlines trying to sort of say, mean, the narrative that's coalescing around this post, you know, exposure of this Ponzi fraud is oh, he you know what this guy still was JP Morgan. I think that was actually a headline like, Kramer was calling.

Originally called him the modern day JP Morgan, right, which, yeah, but But what I'm saying is that then there was an article, there was an article in The New York Times and said, despite what happened, I'm saying after he blew up, he's still like, a JP Morgan. So it's very, it's very bizarre. It's in this is where I don't I have conflicting thoughts on this one, I don't know if Marty would want to expand and sort of his views is he's more in the weeds of, of

this industry, or than I am. But I go back and forth with, you know, he was he was like this nuclear bomb that was meant to detonate inside of this industry and sort of caused so much damage that they could do whatever they wanted with regulation, sort of like the equivalent of 911 in this industry. But then on the on the flip side, it feels to me like it the plug was pulled early, you know that this whole thing wasn't supposed to go down just

yet. And, and so it blew up on the timeline that I guess they perhaps his handlers or others were not quite ready for. And that's how they're sort of responding. Right. So I don't know, I'm very conflicted on that. On that view. I clear. I definitely think this was, you know, this entire thing was created intentionally for some major purpose, but I'm just not, I'm not clear in my own head as to whether he was supposed to blow up now or later. Do you have any thoughts on that, Marty?

I think I think the fraud was definitely uncovered way earlier than they expected. Just seeing how quickly it all unraveled, and like you mentioned the scramble to tighten up the narrative from the media's purse. Bective immediately after does seem a bit fishy, and I do believe that they were not ready for this fraud to be unraveled at this particular point in time. In Yeah. In the con in to speak to OSPF and FTX being assets of the state or some,

some group that had an agenda. I certainly think that is the case too, because when you add up all the inconsistencies around

Alameda and FTX is history. And again, you mentioned it earlier, Michael, but just the marketing budget alone, the fact that they were able to buy the naming rights to two stadiums that have Superbowl commercials to have the FTX patch on the MLB umpires uniforms throughout the season, they were sponsoring f1 as well and had a large billboard campaign, and never really made sense to me. That they, they had the marketing budget that they

did. And like you mentioned, Michael, it seemed like, via that marketing budget, that the powers that be whoever they are behind Alameda and FTX, were trying to imbue a sense of legitimacy that simply wasn't there. Yeah, I mean, it's like pure hype at this point with what they were attempting to, you know, get people hooked on it. See, I don't know, I mean, it's

just a totally insane story. So in terms of motives for collusion there between FTX and the state, or the people ultimately backing this enterprise. Do you think crypto regulation, like a, you know, forcing that through, which was meant to be the main motive from the off? Or do we see any other sort of, you know, reasons behind, you know, the promotion of FTX and SPF at this particular time? Aside from that? Yes, I mean, I think that's something Bitcoiners have been

preparing for for some time. And it seems that SPF and FTX were the chosen vessel to bring about what we've been warning about, which is overbearing regulation, that would make it significantly harder for individuals to use Bitcoin. The way it was meant to be used in a peer to peer fashion. And it seemed like, SPF and FTX were lobbying particularly for stringent control around how individuals interact with with

cryptocurrencies. And what he was pushing for is that if people are using these things they should be if they should be using them, via highly regulated entities, like FTX. Enough more free market options?

Yeah. And I think also, for a long time, we've been aware, you know, people that are in the Bitcoin world, that one of the most effective attack vectors for, you know, undermining, let's say, Bitcoin is an hour, you know, the narrative, the big narrative, the narrative push, and clearly FTX, as I said earlier, he was like a lab created, you know, entity that would eventually morph, you know, this cryptocurrency industry into, you know, more of like a cbdc, you know, the Fiat

world. Yeah. You know, sort of a thing. So, that to me, and also, let's not forget that one of his big things was climate change right now, that could because he's just, you know, supposedly, this like, incredibly selfless guy who just wants to make the world better, you know, we'll get into that later. Right. But that right there, it's a clever way to put the seed into Bitcoin is a problem, you know, because they'll go into the whole mining stuff. And that's been an attack

vector for a long time. And it's certainly ramping up now. And so he was like a perfect kind of guy to be in there, you know, wildly successful, one of the biggest exchanges, he's, he's connected with everyone. Oh, look, how he cares about the, you know, he cares about saving

the world. And if this wonderful messiah of crypto, you know, points out how bad and evil bitcoin is, in particular, that that can go a long way into infecting the minds of, you know, let's just say the average person, and especially regulators. So I definitely think that was a part of part of what was going on here for sure. Yeah. So I think one angle that I haven't seen talked about very much, but I think is very telling to the overall purpose behind this op of FTX. And Sam

Venkman. Fried is related to his his desire, I forget where I read this, it might have been that deleted Sequoia Capital article, he talked about, in some past interview, his desire to have FTX become the everything app. And to me, that's a very telling term, right? Because we've also heard Elon Musk Last Great when he bought Twitter talk about turning Twitter into the everything at modeling it after WeChat. And so in China WeChat. Right is the most dominant app,

you use it for everything. It's you know, it's social media, but it's also tied up with your finances, it's tied up with all different aspects of your life, not unlike the digital ID system that's being piloted in different areas of the west right now. And as part of this broader, you know, control grid of which the central bank digital currency cbdc is planned

to be part. And that's why I think it's interesting use SPF, right, he's in FTX, they're having like this crypto conference down where they're based in the Bahamas, and they have someone like Tony Blair, come down, who's a huge proponent of this system going back decades. And is currently you know, through his NGO, I forget what it's called, like the Blair Institute for Global change, or some crap like that has been pushing really hard for digital ideas more than ever.

And so, you know, you the everything app is definitely you know, the model that a lot of you know, the people pushing this type of technocratic agenda are looking to sort of segue us as a segue for people into this particular control system, you know, oh, look how convenient this app is, and sort of sell it that way. And he seemed to have had the backing to be the everything app. And as we'll talk about later, you know, even Elon Musk has some sort of weird intersections with the movement

behind SBF. This effective altruist movement, to varying

degrees. And it's just I think that's sort of pretty telling if true that, you know, he Well, not it is true that SPF said that that was his ambition for FTX to have it be the everything out, but he had a lot of prominent, you know, venture capital funds and other very powerful people in the DNC even I guess, you know, very much behind him, or he was at least heavily cultivating him very much positioning FTX to become that dominant, everything app and sort of usher in this new

paradigm of money, you know, as they're trying to get the CBDCs off the ground. Yeah, I just quickly add to that, I do think again, it feels without a doubt that SPF and FTX word, you know, meant to be some sort of a bridge. And that's what I think Marty said that the, you know, they blew up sooner than they were supposed. Yeah. It seems like that was not, you know, what I mean, they hadn't finished that yet. It was, there was more to be done to

transition. This, the, maybe the maybe the world, you know, into into a new way of thinking with new regulations, and trap them. And that's where the FTX budget comes, came into effect again, like, how did it grow that fast? Yeah, so this kind of makes me wonder, too, if, you know, maybe the people that helped pull the plug on SPF and FTX. They themselves wanted to be the everything app,

right. And, and so there's sort of like infighting over who gets to, like, control that because obviously, you know, if you get to be the person that runs and gets all the data from that, like, you're really securing your position. In the future, if this, you know, technocracy really takes off and takes hold, which, you know, of course, we hope it does not, but these people are planning, you know,

for it, obviously. So if you can have be the person in charge of that, you know, app that's like, ultimate power in this in this type of society, into which we're being ushered in. So it would make sense to me to have different factions trying to duke it out for who's gonna get to be the, you know, have that power and have that data over

people's lives. Yeah. And it could even be the, you know, the some elements of the state itself, you know, in the sense that come in and say, we'll see, yeah, we still need in everything out, but we can't have these row crazy, you know, capitalists do it, we need to, you know, we need it needs to be government run, or the UN. They're not giving up on you know, this this this agenda. It's anything more like, oh, well, he just didn't you know, it hasn't been tried yet. Hasn't

hasn't been done properly. Yeah, yeah. But every time these days, I hear someone talk about the everything app, I definitely, like, pay attention, because that's part of where this agenda is going. I think that's how they're gonna get people try to get people hooked on it. And maybe what they were going to do here was trying to make, you know, promote FTX create this everything app, get a bunch of

people on it. And then you know, as other economic stuff unravels, and it's easier to blame that, you know, for the fraud that was already going on in FTX. That was exposed early, right? And then sort of be like, Oh, well, how convenient. We have all this infrastructure here. And we can just replace you know, our crappy FTT token with the I don't know the digital dollar USDC or something like that. You know, it's really interesting that we're talking about this everything app and you have TX

blow up happen. And then only a few days after the blow up happened, the Fed announces that they're piloting it A digital dollar campaign with a bunch of the banks here in the United States. So maybe that's an opportunity to say, hey, this crazy kid in the Bahamas can't run this app, and maybe maybe the Federal Reserve and our consortium of banks needs to. Did you see, I just want we can

go into this more later. But there were messages released between McCaskill and Elon Musk, where he was trying to push SPF into being going in with Musk to buy Twitter. So that's very interesting as well. Wow. Yeah. Well, I think we'll be getting to Yeah, exactly. We'll get the effect of altruism and EA pretty soon here. But I think before we do that, we've brought up a couple of times this, these narratives being pushed about SPF both before and

after the collapse. And we've already talked about a bit what it seems like he was probably possibly being groomed for and some of the other things here we're talking about the climate connection. But we also so first off, I want to talk about just briefly some of the insane narratives that are coming about mainstream media not just about sandbank Ben free, but also like Carolyn Ellison and some of the other big names here. Because, I

mean, they're pretty insane. And I also after that want to talk about some of just briefly some of his family connections, so his parents and his brother, before we get into Effective Altruism, and William McCaskill. So to start off on that, I would definitely like to point out that Forbes had this insane article about Caroline Ellison, who again, we've mentioned a few times was in charge of this, an Alameda side of FTX, the trading firm, and didn't really know very much about trading at all.

And when asked if, you know, she could, you know, her advice about like, bad trades or anything like that. She couldn't like recall details of any relevant trade she'd ever made. Like the I don't know. I mean, it's really crazy. A lot of these current clips are going, you know, around Twitter and in social media right now, but this Forbes article framed her as, among other things, a darling of

the alt right. Is the narrative being out supposedly, because like Curtis, some Curtis Yoruban followers have created a cult about her called like Queen,

they call her Queen Carolyn. And this is the type of stuff that they're trying to focus on, instead of like the obvious fraud, and some of the other connections like her father's apparent connection that you mentioned, you guys mentioned earlier to Gary Gensler, among other things, and then you have the New York Times covering this and they don't, they're talking about sandbank Ben freeze, they don't mention fraud at all.

They're basically like, Oh, these are millennial kids that were just totally out of their depth. And, you know, the more evidence that comes out, especially from the guy who's in charge of FTX now and trying to clean up the mess the best, it's like, it definitely seems like that cannot possibly have been so why is mainstream media rolling with this narrative? That's just so divorced from reality?

Yeah, the, the alt right article that Forbes wrote, if you actually like, dig into the roots of that narrative, the the author of that article, DM, somebody who is associated with urbit, which is the project that Curtis er been started since left, but it's pretty obvious that the individual was trolling her, like, hey, you know, we call her Queen Caroline here. And she took that and ran with

it. In the Forbes article. On an attempt to distract from the overt fraud and the weird connections, it's been happening a lot though, just in the past few days, like a big playing off of sort of these salacious bits that have popped up with the story. It's very, it's very much what was done with Jeffrey Epstein. Right. Just focus on the salacious bits that grab people's attention and ignore, like a lot of the actual crimes that aren't being prosecuted at

all, you know, yeah. I mean, I don't know, like Bernie Madoff, when he got exposed for fraud, wasn't he like arrested immediately. And, you know, Sam bank been free Caroline Ellison, Ryan, Salomon, and all these other guys, nothing's happened to them. They're just let's wait and see.

Right, which again, goes back to this, this, this over whelming feeling that, you know, these this entity and what it was supposed to achieve, it got, you know, it got cut short in some way that's bothersome to people that essentially have the ability to frame the mainstream

narrative. You know, one thing that is very interesting that you pointed out about Caroline, you know, to the point that you know, is she acting when she just acts this clueless, and it doesn't seem like she is you know, it's like she's that

clueless. But if you really think about it, if this whole thing was never meant to be a serious exchange, it was meant for something else, then it sort of makes sense to have someone like Caroline there because she she's never gonna, you know, she's never going to realize how messed up things are even that she's potentially being used. She's, she's someone that actually knows what they're doing or has experienced is gonna go in there and in two seconds just be like, what come

out of here, you know. So she was actually in some ways perfect for for her position. You know, she she thought she was a special and super smart and you know, destined to be this queen of trading. And, you know, I think that that in itself maybe allowed us to go on a little bit longer the fact that she actually just, you know, I had no idea what was going on or where the money was coming from or anything but sort of enjoyed the ride. That's what it seems like to me.

I think it is important to note too, that Caroline wasn't always the CEO of Alameda, there's a gentleman by the name of Sam trabuco, who was the CEO until earlier this year. And he left leaving her in charge, they

might have been co CEOs. But there was another individual who was CEO of Alameda, or at least Co Co Well, for the, for the for like a large amount of time since Alameda was launched and that Sam trabuco right, and a few people, I believe, not just him, but I think there were several people that sort of got out of Alameda and FTX as well, like a few months before, you know, sort of like right before so that that probably is worthy of some more investigation from people as

well. And I think the group trabuco was in that in that camp like he left shortly before it all blew up. Yeah. So. So to end this, this bit of it. So post collapse, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream media sort of stepping in to manage the reputation of SBF. And this is weird to me, because like when Epstein got outed, you know, and in comparing, like the similarities there, there was agreement across the board that he's a bad guy in a criminal,

right. And it was just like, you know, they're covering up the fact that he had a lot of supporters and a support network. But with SPF, they're just being like, Oh, forgive him, for he was too young to know what he was doing. You know, there's nothing about like, he was a brazen criminal, and blah, blah, blah, and let's all distance ourselves from him. Now. It's a, you know, a very

different strategy. And so I'm one I mean, I don't know what makes you think maybe we should look at his family a little, I guess, maybe, you know, there's some other connection there that might be helping him at this point with mainstream media or even beyond that. I mean, it's really hard to know, but it's definitely bizarre that they're covering for him this extensively, because it is, you know, pretty extensive.

You should should we just mentioned, I don't know if you're planning on doing it later, but mentioned his parents real quick, and sort of, yeah, let's go. So there's saw on his side, right, there's, this is well known, but we should put it here. His mother, Barbara fried, is a Stanford professor, as is his dad, Joe Joseph freed. Both Stanford professors. She is part of an organization called Mind the Gap, which is concerned with raising money from Silicon Valley, wealthy people to

Democrats. So there's that. And his dad is an interesting figure that I haven't looked into too much. But the reason I want to mention him is because he seems like he had some, like serious involvement with FTX. Like, he wasn't just this, um, the father of SB. Yeah, he was he was

involved. So you know, you've got this Stanford Law professor, Father, who also was involved with tax legislation in the United States, I believe one of Elizabeth Warren's proposed tax bills, she actually celebrated the endorsement of Joseph Venkman of the legislation. So that's, you know, this is this is a this is a real figure out

here. And again, he he was he's, he's been seen in the Bahamas with SPF and I don't know if it's regulators or other these celebrities, but he was also reportedly to be there now, as they're winding it down the DAT. Yeah. So here's. So he's an expert on tax policy and securities, which according to the SEC, pretty much all the crypto that was being traded by FTX they classify as a security except for Bitcoin, I guess which they Gary Gensler said they're going

to view as a commodity. But if you look at his CV on Stanford, and has like selected publications, a lot of focus on tax shelters, so I'll just read off a couple that are here modeling the tax, shelter world substitutes for insider trading. The in academics view of the tax shelter battle, has California broken the tax shelter legislative logjam? You know, these are some of the things that he has written about

relatively recently. According to his CV, just you know, worth pointing that out, because you know, Bahamas, the Caribbean in general on, you know, tend to be used very extensively in the offshore banking system. Yep. And then, of course, his aunt as well. Linda fried. She is a I think she's the head of health department at a university. But she's also a part of the WTF. Not just a picture on the web, but she's like, formally involved with the

web. So she's in charge of some kind, I think the council on aging or something like that. Yeah, that's right. So you know, again, I mean, this this guy is just, he's just hooked up all over the place. And that's just this one guy. So yeah. So there's also his brother. And we might get to him here in a second when we talked about the Effective Altruism movement because of the pandemic funding stuff. guarding against

pandemics. Yeah. So anyway, and I think he worked for Chuck Schumer as well, if I'm not mistaken, if that's the similar that his brother was working for at one point. Yeah. Anyway. So I think now it's probably time to get into something I think all of us were really interested in exploring on this podcast, which is the people that are effectively behind SPF, which is this effective altruists movement, which is ostensibly

led by William McCaskill. But if you look around, there's really supposed to be three, you know, creators or co founders of this movement. So there's William McCaskill, there's a guy named Toby Ord, and then there's a Australian guy named Peter Singer. So I guess maybe we should start off and say what effectively what the effective altruist idea ethos is supposed

to be. And how William McCaskill the you know, the face of it, that's put out everywhere, because Toby ord and Peter Singer aren't as much the face of this movement, as as McCaskill is, should talk about a little bit about how, you know, it's quite apparent if you look at his activities in relation to SPF that he recruited SPF out of undergrad at MIT, and basically guided his whole career, including through FTX, and then had a role at FTX, as well. So let's get into it.

Okay, I'll start here. This is the area that I've been focused on the most, because when I when I sort of asked myself two questions, you know, so what were What do all roads lead back to? Number one? And what is the aspect of the story that the media is focusing the least on comes to Effective Altruism, or EA, which I'll try to summarize as, as good as well as possible? I have tons of thoughts on this.

But essentially, if you, if the social credit score world had a philosophy, it would be effective altruism, essentially, I in a nutshell, It's concerned with at least ostensibly doing the most good for the most amount of people. But in practice, I think where this sort of forks from just all sorts of different philosophies that have been around forever, is that these, this, this network, or this organization is, is obsessed with a

technocratic approach to it. So in other words, it's almost as if, if you wanted to take the idea of doing good or being an ethical person, and then turn it into a hard science, that's where it gets very dangerous, because what these people claim is essentially, that by using technology and research, you can determine what the most good is in the world. And so it really, it starts off on an individual

level, it sounds fine, right? It starts off with, oh, if I don't have this beer tonight, and I can, you know, put that $5 toward, you know, mosquito nets in Africa, that's a moral choice, you know, I should make that choice every time, which is fine, right? I mean, if you want to have that, if you want to make that decision on an individual basis, that's fine.

But very quickly, it devolves into, you know, which life is worth more than another, you know, is is is it worth letting one life go in your neighborhood to save five, you know, on another continent, and so and so very, and by the way, they they claim and they think that you can have a like a hard science around this, that you can essentially figure out using a computer and data, what the right choice for everyone is worth more, who gets to live and who gets to die ultimately is

what is it sort of boils down to when the interesting are up to you really quickly. Peter Singer who's willing McCaskill is mentor, and one of the founding guys here was very controversial, I think, in the early 90s In the US, because he argued in favor of infanticide that it would it was okay to kill a baby as long as it was like under a month old, based on his metrics about like, what constitutes a human which was

all based around preferences. So if a baby doesn't show preferences, you can just kill it. Yeah, basically. And what happens too, is it's inch Staying in. It just goes to show how completely absurd this philosophy gets when you when you keep when you go beyond a couple of steps from the individual how absurd it gets, you have some factions of EA that argue that life in the developing world is worth more than a life in the developed

world. And then you have another faction that saying no, no, you actually need to, you know, a life in the developed world is worth much more than the developing world. So again, this this goes right back to the idea that a technocratic group using technology will be able to to command the ethical choices of everybody or should be able to. And and when you think about it,

this is absolutely right. The the end goal for the web for all of these like nefarious characters, the direction they're trying to push us and right. Because historically, you know, if you look at if you look at sort of how we think about human behavior, we think of there's certain things you really shouldn't do, like Thou shalt not kill things like that. And as long as you avoid those things, you know, you're you're free to kind of live your life.

This Effective Altruism philosophy is the almost the exact opposite. It's all about telling people what they need to do, as opposed to do what they can't do. So again, back to this is why it's so dangerous. Because if this gets foothold in the halls of power, which clearly is the intent, it's, it's, there's no step from that to the social credit system. If people are convinced that a social credit system can spit out, you know what you need to do, then you need to do that.

And if you don't, you're a bad person, because the computer sets Oh, yeah, it definitely has a lot of issues with it, to say the very least, but it's increasingly looking like at least in the case of SPF, who was poster child for it in terms of like, Look at this guy that was originally an effective altruist and made this pact to get ultra rich and then use give away a bunch of his money for quote

unquote, good. But you know, a lot of that that movement in earlier iterations in the quote unquote, philanthropic world, you know, there's been this effort to claim that impact investing in philanthropy or analogous or that altruism is impact investing and like blurring the lines between what those mean, basically so you know, a lot of you know, this supposedly altruistic behavior, once you have a bunch of money, it's basically it's not exactly altruism, as most people would,

would care to define it. All right, the average person would define it, or even the term philanthropy. It's not really that but it was definitely built up a lot in the case of SPF and you have this now deleted Sequoia Capital article. That's, I mean, it's totally insane. You have this guy interviewing SPF, SPF isn't even paying attention to him, really, because he's playing a video game and not even looking at the guy why the guy is interviewing him. And then the journalist is just

fawning over him. And then a few lines after describing how this guy just like, doesn't even bother to, like, look him in the eye, starts praising him and being like, I really think he is selfless. As everyone claims. I can't shake this feeling that he's just the selfless Christ figure. And then SPF, apparently I think in this Vox article, or this recent interview, post collapse has basically said, Yeah, I was kind of faking a lot

of this altruism stuff. So the question is, how many of these other people are faking the altruism stuff, and what else is going on in this?

Well, considering the the connections that that particular Vox journalist has with the EA movement and Parliament, the tenor, the tenor of that article are some people that believe that that was like an overt attempt to have SBF distanced himself from the EA movement to make them look a little better seemed like this was just one bad apple that really didn't

believe it. But I think in the overarching discussion about Effective Altruism, I think it is really important to hone in on this particular detail of Effective Altruism, which is essentially an extension of utilitarianism, which Peter Singer is the founder of that philosophical belief where school of thought I think the iteration of Effective Altruism really focuses on acumen accumulating as much wealth as possible to dedicate to these causes that they deem worthy

over others. So I think that's the the iteration on utilitarianism that Effective Altruism brings, again, you mentioned at the impact investing, Whitney, because these people want to get as rich as possible and use the lion's share of their funds to bring about what they deemed to be the most virtuous on the planet and that again, is very elitist,

very technocratic. And I believe that is how McCaskill positions Effective Altruism is like, hey, we believe that the planet is going to have a trillion people at some point in the future. And so we have to think of those 8 trillion future humans and to make them as comfortable and well off as possible, we may need to make some sacrifices today with the people living on the planet right now. Yeah. So let's talk about McCaskill for a second and how

he views altruism. So I guess before we get into McCaskill specifically, it's worth pointing out that if you look at a lot of these organizations in the EAA movement, if you'd like look at their finances, and who they're making grants to ostensibly altruistic grants, there's a lot of money passing around between all these different groups either tied to McCaskill or tied to people that are, you know, part of the close knit power structure of this

movement. You know, they're making grants to one and then that one's making grants back to the people that gave the grant to them. And it's like, very circular movement of money. Just, you know, for a lot of other people would look sort of, like not so much like altruism, but more like you're moving money around within, you know, own movement, that's a good way to cover up money laundering. Just something FTX has been

accused of, of enabling. Yeah, anything you guys want to say on that front, before we get into McCaskill himself and who he is, as it pertains to FTX. It seems like they had a very similar model, because they had 134 shell companies, as well, and to essentially disguise the movement of funds from FTX, Alameda and their other associated subsidiaries. Yeah, and you know, in that in the Vox article, you mentioned, Whitney, which was written by another EA adherent who's Dylan

Matthews. And it's, in fact, you know, sponsored by future perfect, which is a project within Vox that is specifically effective, altruistic, super weird. He actually throws out some figures as far as the, the money at the disposal of this network. And it's anywhere from 26 to 40. Something billion.

And, you know, this isn't just stuff, you know, money that's sitting in like EA bank accounts, but what he's doing is he's taking some of the high profile figures that are publicly associated with this with this network and taking their networks into account, which is, which is probably fair, because a lot of these people are claiming that they're going to give away most of their

money. Yeah, I'm chomping at the bit to go off on sort of McCaskill and how he, how we Yeah, SPF, if you don't tell us tell us who William McCaskill is, or at least his cover story, I guess, and his relationship with SPF. Yeah, I think, if anything that I want to get across on my end on this on this podcast is William McCaskill, or you know, his his birth name, apparently it was William crouch, and he took the knee McCaskill from from his ex wife or something.

It's bizarre to begin ex wife's grandmother, oh, exploits grandmother, right. So his, his surname now is actually his ex wife's grandmother's name, not even his original name. So that's, that's interesting to begin. But um, this is this is a guy who the more you look into him, the more there's clearly stuff there that we don't know. So SBF was this physics major at MIT, and he hadn't even graduated. When in I believe, 2013, it was right around there.

William McCaskill was at MIT giving a talk and was introduced to SPF somehow. And in that introduction, McCaskill immediately apparently, was, you know, enthralled by the sky and picked him out specifically as an individual to, I mean, there's no other way to put it to to groom. He, then this is, by the way, all of this is coming from that deleted Sequoia article. So I'm not inventing any of this. This is exactly also in the New Yorker piece on McCaskill and Effective Altruism.

Yes, yes. So so so McCaskill, you know, essentially pick plucks this guy out of MIT hasn't even graduated. And in the conversations with SPF, apparently convinced SPF that the best thing SPF could do for the world, is to make as much money as possible. And then you

know, fund EA causes. And then the interesting thing is SBF hadn't even interned at Jane Street capital yet, but McCaskill is the one that suggested Jane Street, the hedge fund, the New York hedge fund, where a lot of these you know, Alameda FTX people interned for a period of time. A lot of them a lot of the FTX and Alameda people have overlapping ties to Jane Street and Effective Altruism, the majority it turns out have overlaps with both so that's pretty good. interesting anyway, continue.

Yeah, cat Carolina, of course, was at Jane Street for a period. That's where she met FBF and also gave bank Winfried Sam's brother, I believe, also worked at chain street for a short period of time. So So that's weird. Okay, so So I worked on Wall Street, right? I mean, I was very deep in the hedge fund

industry and all that stuff. I didn't work at the hedge fund industry, but they were clients and for a PhD philosophy professor Jung at Oxford to for the first thought in his mind upon meeting this guy at MIT sandbank, Winfried, oh, you need to work at Chang street. That to me was one of the biggest red flags I've seen, because that's a very bizarre connection, the physics major, like he was a physical SBF was a physics major. It's a very bizarre

connection. So first of all, not only does McCaskill pick this guy out of out of the out of the crowd at MIT, he then convinces him that he needs to make as much money as possible. And then he and then he suggests, hey, you should go intern at James Street. So weird. I cannot come up with a a normal explanation for that sinkewitz. Yeah, there definitely isn't. And I think even after that, let's point out to that. Well, while SPF is at Jane Street, the McCaskill connection continues.

And he's involved I think, also in guiding SPF, after he leaves Jane Street, as well, which leads to the creation of lmao and FTX. Right, so So on this front, again, EA Effective Altruism, and William McCaskill are all over the entire origin story of FBF, like at least the one we know of. So So SPF works a Jane Street for a period of time, and then leaves and then he moves back out to San Francisco, you know, he's he's born, he was

born in that area. And at this point, he doesn't have a job and McCaskill offers, and this is from the Sequoia article, but Casco offers him a job at the Center for Effective Altruism at that point. Now, I don't, it's not clear whether SPF took that or not, but he was it was offered to him. So there's McCaskill again, in San Francisco offering this guy a job. Shortly after that, is when the whole arbitrage trade supposedly happened. And interestingly enough, as we discussed earlier, this was an

this was an ARB trade. That was the I guess the arbitrage opportunity was well known, right, that the price of Bitcoin was trading at a significant premium in Korea and Japan. And nobody really was able to make a lot of money out of it, because you needed bank accounts, you know, in various jurisdictions, you need to be able to move money around, right, something that, you know, you need to be connected, essentially very

connected to pull off. And the person apparently was a grad student in Japan, who helped make this trade happen for SPF was also in the EA effective altruists network. So SPF was somehow connected to a another EA in Japan, who allow them use a bank account. Exactly. Let me just make it so again, who even put SBF in touch with this guy to know about the

arbitrator? What would be your I suspect that some of you know again, like some some hand back there, and that network, tipped off SBF and said, Hey, by the way, there's this big trade. Oh, by the way, this guy can help you with bank accounts in Japan. It's all weird. And then, when SPF wants to raise more money, to apparently continue to exploit the ARB or for other reasons, he taps the EA network

once again. And this guy John Pollan, who is a co founder of Skype apparently puts together either it was all his own money or a group of EA money 50 million to give to SPF and supposedly from that, right, initial injection and the ARP trade FTX is born. And I would like to point out that even in the Sequoia article, I think it was Nishad Singh, he explicitly states that none of it could have happened without EA, none

of it. So, you know, objectively, the Effective Altruism network a, a supposedly some sort of philosophy from Oxford, is able to create almeyda and FTX, the the entire origin story, every single piece of it leads back to to William and EA, everything. I think even the part where SPF decides to leave Jane Street for the Sequoia article. It's because of a moral dilemma he has because of his EA philosophy, which now he's he's told these Vox people was bunk, but he doesn't actually care

about that philosophy. It was just like a front, right? Because he wasn't making because he wasn't making enough at Jane. So he needed to make more to save the world. Which by the way, I want to point out and I think everyone should Google this and look look at the pictures so He shared with it. Just to show you how EA itself I

believe is a front. It's no I don't think any of the higher ups in this movement believe any of it because if you read that New Yorker article, it begins with William McCaskill being so frugal that he wouldn't have beers with his friends because he could be saving, you know, the poor kids in Africa, right

with with his beer money. And then, you know, fast forward a few years later, and the Center for Effective Altruism has purchased one of the most exquisite and celebrated private residences in all of the UK called White them Abbey, which is outside of Oxford, it's a 1480s. Essentially, it looks like a castle. And so you go from a guy who claims he won't eat a chicken or have a beer because he could be saving the world to his center buying one of them private residences in all Britain that isn't

right. So the point that I'm trying to make is that this whole thing, and I don't want to disparage you know, like, you know, your useful idiot who comes out of college and thinks, wow, this is this is so good.

Like, there's idealistic, right, the rank and file that associated with EA are, are just, they really are they believe it, but I'm saying there's all indications point to the people who are actually, you know, at this point in charge of billions, do not believe any of of it, and in their, their their deeds show that. Yeah, one angle of EA, I think is interesting is this, you know, the same utilitarian

ideology, right? In theory, you know, the ends justify the means, and this is said in other pieces that talks about the EA movement. So in theory, you know, you can justify to yourself, running a giant Ponzi scheme and you know, stealing a bunch of people's money, because you know, how to spend it better than they do for, you know, greatest impact for good, right. Yeah, I mean, that's sort of part of this philosophy. This is This is precisely why it's such a dangerous

philosophy. And the fact that it's in has billions 10s of billions as its disposal and is influencing Paul politics, remember, SPF funded, a lot of his donations were actually he funded this one person who's running EA, in Oregon and the primary he was trying to get that person elected who was an effective altruists, this philosophy very, very clearly can justify anything. And in

fact, it does. And one of the areas that I think you've been interested in, is the fact that it's, it's shifted over time, of course, to long term ism is what they call it, EA, that's like the thing that SBF was also very interested in. And, as Marty mentioned, this is I mean, it's like mental masturbation to the extreme. They believe, not only that, they believe that not helping people that are that are dying or poor now isn't good

enough. They need to save the lives of the future trillions of humans, and they know how to do it, right. And so again, if you feel like you, you know how to effectively save the lives of trillions of human future humans, and you understand that you can and will justify doing anything at the current moment.

And so when you merge this philosophy with what the you know, political, and oligarchic elite are obviously trying to do now, it's the perfect fit, because it provides this justification for doing anything in the present to save the trillions in the future. And I would also want to add, because I don't I don't want to forget that McCaskill was an advisor to FTX. I think it was the fun Future Fund Future Fund until the blow up. I mean, he was he was right

there until the very end. And by the way, I also want to mention this too, because I want people to look into it. This is so bizarre as well. McCaskill, as I mentioned, was texting with Elon Musk about SBF not the other way around. Okay, so McCaskill knows his handler, right? He knows him so well, that he's texting Elon Musk, just like casually Hey, you know, how's your day going? By the way, SPF is a great partner to buy Twitter with you. I mean, that's what he's saying.

He's like, can I connect you guys, you know, so this obscure? Oh, didn't Elon Musk also tweet out that about mechanicals book that this is basically his philosophy also, correct? Yes. This is this book aligns most closely with my personal philosophy believes what he said. But there's another another. There's another interesting nugget here between

Twitter FTX EA as well. One thing that was highlighted in the balance sheet of FTX and Alameda that's been shared in the last few weeks, is that part of their balance sheet one of the assets on their balance sheet is Twitter stock, and this is private Twitter stock. Ah, so Uh, as we know, Elon has, has bought Twitter and taken it private. And there are only a few shareholders who were able to convert their public shares

and the private shares. And it seems like FTX made them one of those, those shareholders. Well, that's interesting. Yeah. Just going back to how does a young philosophy professor at Oxford, texting Elon Musk suggesting to Sam bank Ben free that he will work at Chang Street, helping this network providing all of the initial funding Yeah, and right capabilities to make the origin story happen? That just none of

it? I mean, as Marco hood is, I mean, none of it adds up and the edge end and again, nobody, nobody's really focusing on this angle. As far as I can tell. It's no I think it's a very telling angle because I mean, you look at this William McCaskill guy, he is 100% Sam Venkman. Fried's handler from the time he's an undergrad to now. And that's like a decade of guiding

everything this guy does. And this guy's being propped up, like we talked about groomed for this big role of like, crypto savior, one of the big faces in the entire industry, who's going to lead people to what we mentioned earlier, the bridge between the current financial system and cbdc. At least that's how it looked. And this is the guy behind him and Oxford philosophy guy, you know, I don't really buy that. And then you know, another Elon Musk connection, it's a little more

indirect. The building an Oxford that the Center for Effective Altruism has been out for several years, I think, at least before they bought this palatial estate recently, was called the future for humanity Institute, which is funded by Elon Musk. So they were in the same sharing the same office space,

basically. And the future for humanity Institute makes the same argument that's basically an argument for transhumanism where they say, you know, we have to augment because AI is inevitable, and it's going to take over everything. So to compete with this inevitable super AI, we have to become machines ourselves, and you know, plugs, the whole transhumanist stuff. So, you know, just interesting. These networks, you know, are so close together, and a lot of it's at

Oxford. And it's worth pointing out to you that like the Oxford, you know, has a long standing tie to British intelligence agencies. Just throw that out there. William McCaskill. Is he just a philosophy professor, I don't know. But it doesn't

really look like it. And I one thing I wanted to mention about him too, in terms of his role at the FTX Future Fund, I think it's the New Yorker article, it basically points out that while he's at FTX, he's basically looking at with this Future Fund, he has a role in moving a lot of the money at that Future Fund, to other organizations that are part of this umbrella are closely tied to the Center

for Effective Altruism. And as I was telling you guys before the show, we took a look at some of the financials, at least in the British system, for the Center for Effective Altruism, and something happened in August of this year, where it they basically split themselves into five different or maybe six. So they just splintered off in divided themselves into much smaller companies. And William McCaskill was using different variations of his name to get different ID numbers tied to

each company. So if you click on this guy's name, or anyone's name, like at companies house or something like that, you're gonna get you know, all of the entities they're tied to. So the fact that he used different variations of his name, you click on one and only one person comes up, and then that's the only entity tied to that

variation of that name. So instead of William McCaskill, its William David McCaskill, or Dr. William McCaskill, or Dr. William David McCaskill, you know, like all these different

iterations of his name. And then the other thing that is a red flag for me in terms of potential intelligence connections of this guy, he is using, as we mentioned earlier, his grand his ex wife's grandmother's surname, he's claimed that his surname is is crouch, that his real name is William crouch, but at least as far as we saw, and it's possible that you know, maybe he wasn't included and you know, the UK databases that are allow you to see like birth registration and

stuff but William crouched in a turn up any results for March 1987, which is the birth month and year that he supplied to the British government with the filings of this stuff. So it's very possible that William crouch isn't even his actual name. And isn't it weird that he's willing to McCaskill using a last name that's not tied up with his family at all. And but he's supplying his former name, but it turns out his former name might not actually be his former name. Okay, so and there's also

nothing about his parents. From what I've seen. You can't find out much about William McCaskill parents who presumably have the last name crouch if he used to be believed, but it seems like there's a lot of For it to obfuscate his lineage. That is, I mean, there's a lot of red flags around the sky. And you know, probably an even bigger red flag is that there's no interest from the media and looking into him in this movement at all, despite the fact that he's a, he's the handler 100%.

Right. And that's the thing, because a lot a lot of and this is very important, because the way it's being spun to the extent that it's being spun at all, is that SPF was some sort of successful guy who then became a convert to Effective Altruism when that's completely not what happened. What happened is the Effective Altruism that was sought out hated, yes, I created him, they, this is all

this is all laid out there. I'm now you know, he was created by the Effective Altruism nest network, specifically William McCaskill. And so again, who Who is this guy, you know, what, what is what is going on here. And they even say in the Sequoia article that the 50% of Alamitos original profits were being funneled right back to the center for Effective Altruism. It's all this money is going back and forth. And it'd be very curious to see, you know, where where the stolen money ends up, right.

If we will find out anything you want to add to that party?

That was gonna say just in the last few weeks to it seems like there's been a concerted effort to scrub information about William McCaskill from the internet one interesting one interesting thing that happened to me personally, in the last few weeks is I mean, I got on to the tip of Effective Altruism and willing McCaskill being behind it those doing research trying to find podcasts and interviews with him and one individual did a podcast episode with him was Lex Friedman.

Literally the day that I found the podcast episode I was able to get access to to the episode and the audio file but as I was listening to it literally like the hours the hour which I was listening to Lex Friedman pulled the podcasts from all those platforms. And white the tweet deleted the tweet announcing the podcast episode as well. So it seems like there's any blocky for calling it out? Yeah, yeah.

Yeah. Let me just throw one thing out there also, which I think is an interesting nugget that could you know, be useful to explore further is the Alameda right was co founded and almost nobody knows this, but it was co founded by SPF right. And a person no one's ever heard of called Tara Mack Holly. G and and she was the CEO of the Center for Effective Altruism. Now, she she's moved away from both Alameda and the the CEO position there, I think in 2018.

But isn't it interesting, that Alameda was co founded by the former CEO of the effective center for Effective Altruism? It's just it's just too bizarre to do.

With Tara specifically to she went on to start some fund some crypto fund in the UK, Tara something I believe, but if you go to our Twitter page, until last week, she hadn't tweeted in four or five years and then for some reason or another, she decided to come out of Twitter retirement after many years to distance herself from SPF and write a long thread about the fact that she did co found Alameda but has since left and does not support SPF. All right.

So I think what we've established here Yeah, William McCaskill is Sam Beckman, Fried's handler and has been for a long time, the Center for Effective Altruism seems to be the force behind FTX. Right. So when you're looking at what FTX was doing, trying to become the everything app, being one of the top SBF being one of the top donors for the DNC, the Democrats this past cycle, and also the offering of financial services as it relates to crypto

donations for Ukraine. You have the Center for Effective Altruism involved in this apparently, it was setting up the entity that does all of this stuff. So if SPF is a front for these guys, why does the you know the Center for Effective Altruism? Why, you know, why is it trying to curry extensive favor with the DNC? Why is it involved in apparent money laundering and Ukraine? Why is it involved in all of this stuff? And the other angle we haven't talked about yet is a

lot of this pandemic stuff. So I think it's important to point out that the EAA movement, one of their other biggest stars before SPF was Dustin Moskovitz, who is a co founder of Facebook. He's the CO creator of open philanthropy. Open philanthropy was directly incubated by Effective Altruism with involvement I believe from

William McCaskill as well. But it's it was like a co creation of Moskovitz and his philanthropies with this group called GiveWell, who were x hedge fund guys that created that bought into this philosophy quote unquote, and created, you know, an entity some sort of philanthropic quote unquote entity and so that merged with Musk if it's this stuff and creates open philanthropy, but it's very much intimately tied to this EA network we're talking about, and those are the people

that funded event 201 Yeah, the like, you know, Coronavirus simulation before COVID-19 happened. And then you have SBF on his side funding some weird pen pandemic related things, having a weird obsession with pandemics that he describes to McCaskill from the author. I think it's to McCaskill he describes it and then funding the study that poo poos ivermectin and uses a lot of funny statistics and quote unquote, science to do so among other things. Any thoughts there guys?

My only thought is it's very creepy. To be obsessed with pandemics and be obsessed with pandemics and not only that, but yeah, the fact that SBF was the the main funder of a study that poo pooed would have come to me known as very reliable. Early treatments for COVID is a bit perplexing. Okay, yeah. So so just to add a little color on some of the stuff Whitney mentioned, first, yeah, that study with ivermectin that said it doesn't work. It was the Future Fund FTX Future

Fund that that funded that. And, as far as I know, I don't think I think that study has not released a lot of their data, their underlying data. So that's one of the reasons it's considered sketchy. Some other pandemic stuff that I've noticed that I'll mention is, as we discussed earlier, also EA adherent and former Jane Street employee, Gabe Venkman. Fried Sam's brother, is running an organization called guarding against pandemics, which I believe was completely funded by

OSPF. So, you know, again, it's not just him. It's his brother who's like really obsessed with you know, pandemics and pandemic preparedness. This other guy's salami, who was an FTX. Employee pretty high up, I believe in the in the organization. He's wasn't executive. Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's been propped up by a lot of people trying to trying to say that owed the donations, the Democrats don't matter, because look at this guy's salami,

giving to the GOP. But when you look into the details of what salami was funding, he wasn't like giving to Donald Trump or anything he was giving to primaries, GOP primaries, and when you look deeper, the the primary candidates that he was supporting, were the ones that were focused, hyper focused on pandemics. Again, super weird,

what is going on? And when you and when you see some interviews with the salami guy, you don't see he doesn't seem like the kind of guy that's like really worried about like pandemics, you know? So that's, that's

bizarre, as well. And then I just wanted to note that if you think about the COVID response, the philosophical underpinnings to us losing our freedoms, during COVID, it goes, it again ties in perfectly with Effective Altruism, because in Effective Altruism, you always have to make a cold calculated decision on what's best for the most amount of people, right, like, what's the most good, you could do? And freedom or civil liberties plays zero role in that, right? That's not part of

its ethics. So if you think about these, some of the things that were done in particular, the, you know, let's turn unvaccinated people into second second class citizens or they shouldn't be able to do anything, they should get fired, because they won't take an experimental vaccine or injection. That is exactly what an effective altruists would argue, would he they would argue that, that the greatest good is done by vaccinating everybody.

So everybody must do it. And if you don't, you're a bad person and need to be punished. So, you know, it actually does make sense in that in that sense, because if you want to create and mold a society in which a few people determine how you should live, Effective Altruism provides that bedrock philosophy

for that. And so, you know, again, it's this twisted philosophy, it's a philosophy that everyone effectively in power, the oligarchy, the state the intelligence agencies, they all want to push humanity into accepting this sort of

philosophy. So yeah, so a couple things I want to add about the pandemic stuff so you also have more recently revelations that FTX or really, I guess it sandbank, been freed is funding major media outlets like pro publica and also the intercept and his focus in in providing those funds was to have them report more on biosecurity policy, which is a lot Out of this and pandemic preparedness, I believe so we can assume based on how those outlets covered COVID What type of coverage that would be and

what it would not be. Right. And then the other group he funded was the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which most people probably not because they

moderated event 201. But if you're familiar with my work that used to be the center for civilian biodefense studies, and these are the people that wrote Dark Winter before the anthrax attacks, that predicted a lot of the aspects of the aspect of the of the anthrax attacks and so on, for people that are familiar, my work on that you can go read the series about it

on unlimited hangout.com. And, you know, the other guy that's tied up with this movement, so Peter Singer, and William McCaskill are to the names and there's a direct like mentor mentee relationship there. Toby ord is the other guy that runs a founder of this movement, and I'm not sure exactly where he fits into the mechanic with McCaskill and singer, but he, I think Mikey sent this to me, he was talking about how he collaborated with a guy named

Jason Metheny. And so Jason Matheny is in this article that I was saying is talking He's He's described as the CEO of Rand Corporation, which historically has been one of the spookiest military contractors and research organizations of all in the United States. But Jason Metheny also used to work for the Center for Johns Hopkins for health security under the people that wrote the Dark Winter exercise. And he also used to lead AI ARPA, which is the intelligence community's

DARPA equivalent. And he's also on the National Security Commission for artificial intelligence, which is full of spooks and the top people in Silicon Valley that, you know, you know, the big Silicon Valley firms who double is military and government contractors. And that connection I find really telling about, you know, these aren't just philosophers, to say the very least. So there's definitely a very disturbing network here with a particular

agenda. And they have a cover story, which is they're altruistic and they know what's best for everyone better than regular people do, like we've been talking about. And so I think by in looking at FTX, you're starting to see into this network that was behind them, I have a feeling they're not just behind FTX are probably behind

some other stuff. But this particular group that we're starting to see come into focus here, you know, that we've been talking about over the course of the podcast today was really angling for a major role in the technocracy to come, or at least at the powers that be hope will

come. And I think it's really, this group needs a lot more attention than they are getting to say the very least, you know, the fact that you have like musk events and open philanthropy tied up in here, which is one of the biggest donors to like biosecurity stuff in general, aside from maybe the Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation, I mean, they're like, really up there, not quite at that level, but very close to it when it comes to funding this kind of

stuff. You know, there's a lot to be said, and you know, this whole DNC Ukraine stuff before the midterms, and all of that is also just mind boggling. I don't know if you guys want to talk about any of those aspects before we get to wrapping up here. Another very odd timing thing is the going back to SBS mother, Barbara, and she runs a massive pack that donates to Democratic candidates and the timing of FTX launching, and a massive donation she made to the Democratic Party is a bit odd, I

believe FTX was founded. And then a month later, she was able to donate 10s of millions of dollars. Yeah, I would add, just to put some color on what you were saying. Whitney? So Jason Ruthenia, who you mentioned, that was or Toby ords friend at Oxford, or colleague and friend at Oxford. Yeah. pointed, he pointed or in a particular direction, to look

at a project called DCP. To. So yeah, again, it's interesting that all of a sudden, these people like as you mentioned, he's a spooky guy is whispering in the ear of ord at Oxford. You know, to take take a look at this, you know, an order, of course, is one of the one of the considered one of the founding, you know, intellectual leaders of EA. The other thing is just specifically so this is from the Vox article. And just to give

some details. So it says open philanthropy spent over 65 million on on these issues, including seven and eight figure grants to the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and the nuclear threat initiatives bio defense team. I think that you had some thoughts on the new anti AI as well, I think.

Yeah, they were co founded by Ted Turner and Sam Nunn, who Sam known as sort of one of the architects a lot of this biosecurity legislation and he was the EU played the president and the Dark Winter anthrax simulation, and has a lot of ties to you know, the particular network that seems to have been behind the 2001 anthrax attacks among other things, and People like Margaret Hamburg, for example, who pot who was a dark winter too and pops up and she was I think Obama's FDA

commissioner. She was on this panel in 2019, with Fauci where they talk about getting rid of regulations to ram through mRNA vaccines and stuff. She was a big name at NTI for a while as well, I think up until she became FDA commissioner, she

might still be there. But they're a big player in in biosecurity land to say, to say the very least I mean, these are very, like intelligence connected organizations, sort of where intelligence bleeds into the big pharma healthcare stuff, because I mean, if you look at Big Pharma, right, there's longstanding connections to

intelligence in the military. I mean, keep in mind, right, like a great example is Donald Rumsfeld, who went between stents at Secretary of Defense being a top executive at a JD sirloin CO which produces aspartame, but I think was ostensibly a pharmaceutical company. And then also at Gilead, which is the producer of

remdesivir. And some of these in Tamiflu and some of these other, you know, antivirals that have been played to, you know, made a lot of money off of a lot of these biosecurity scares of the past, including bird flu, and, you know, more recently, the COVID-19 stuff. So, you know, these are these are not small time players, they're promoting to and if you're, you know, donating to these organizations, because you think they can do

the most good. I mean, if you're looking at your track record, what they do is they advance the biosecurity state and technocracy and they take away our rights and our civil liberties, or at least create policy for that to be done. And, you know, as we've talked about their particular philosophy, you know, when you follow it to the same conclusion, these particular effective altruists, were talking about today, follow it, you end up in that same same endpoint. Right. So I may have

misspoke. And then when when I said FTX funded the Johns Hopkins centers for health security, it may have been open philanthropy that did that I'll have to go double check if FTX actually did that. So my mistake there for not being 100% on that. But there definitely this particular network Effective Altruism is funding. A lot of very interesting things that seem to overlap really converge around the idea of, you know, scientific dictatorship. At the end of the day. Absolutely.

Yeah. All right. So we're coming up to, you know, close to two ish hours or so. So it's probably a good time to, unless there's any other aspect of the case you guys don't have the NC we didn't talk about Ukraine, or some of the allegations there about money being funneled back to the DNC and all that, that have sort of emerged recently.

But we can talk about some of our, you know, conclusions areas for further research, you know, because I'm a lot of people that listen to this podcast and other podcasts, I presume, as well, that are cover similar themes are eager to look into some of this stuff. Because I think even Elon Musk had to say that a lot of the big stories coming or big revelations about FTX had been you know, made by quote unquote, regular people, non journalists

on social media and such. So maybe we can go over some of those things. Twitter sleuth, really, really pushing, pushing things forward here. I do think we should mention there is another smoking gun. That really highlights some potential FTX government corruption. All right, yeah. Which is the fact that one of their subsidiaries was able to buy a CFTC regulated clearing

house. So there's options trading company called ledger X that FTX us via one of their subsidiaries fleet was called Wilshire realms was able to last

realm shires Yes. West whelm shires was able to purchase ledger X. And again, to me that this is a smoking gun because if you understand the nature of like how hard it is to actually get the license to become a clearing house in the first place, it's a bit odd that FTX was able to purchase this clearing house because you think the CFTC was doing proper due diligence, they would be asking for bank statements and very fundamental financial statements that would be necessary to get

the the okay to purchase and, and operate this regulated clearing house. And as we know, FTX didn't even have a bank account, when they when they wound up purchasing this clearing house to me that signals that there's some potential government involvement in terms of them allowing this massive fraud to continue and to grow to as large as it did. Yeah, we'll see if that comes up and Maxine Waters investigation into FTX What do you think? I'm not holding my breath. Yeah, no. I mean, it's it's

mental at this point. It sort of reminds me of like when they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of the 911 Commission, like you pick a person with a huge, like obvious conflict of interest and investigating stuff to like lead the investigation. And these types of things that seems to be like exactly what happens. So, you know, they have the person who's blowing SPF kisses and cuddling up with him for photo ops and got like, hundreds of 1000s of dollars

directly from him. I mean, she's gonna investigate him now. Right? Yeah. For me, when he I'll just sort of conclude with with my final thoughts here. You know, first, I just wanted to thank you for putting this together. I've been in podcast retirement for over a year and actually had no intention of doing another one because sort of checked out on that stuff for now. But this I felt like was so important.

And so under covered in the in the angles that I felt like needed to be explored that I, I was happy to come on, and certainly based on how this conversation, thank you, thank you, on how this conversation has gone, I feel like it's, it's achieved, at least certainly the objective that I wanted, which is, you know, to, to say that this whole thing stinks. Without a doubt, I mean, stinks from the top to the

bottom. But I think it stinks so much in so many different tentacle directions, that I wanted to focus on what I want, you know, what I feel like is the most important direction to focus on which again, goes back to you know, Effective Altruism, William McCaskill, what is going on there? What is what is that, really? And how does it play a role in the future, because this is not, you know, that network

is not going to go away. They are fabulously wealthy, clearly super connected, and have a dangerous anti freedom philosophy that will, if it if it continues to gain traction, amongst the movers and shakers of the world, is an absolute intellectual foundation for social credit score, technocracy, as you mentioned. And that is, you know, if anything, other than being a parent and husband is my number one focus in life to not have myself or my front, you know, my children and descendants live

under such a system. So, to me, I'm left with, you know, more questions than answers still, at this point. However, I feel like the questions that I'm asking, and the directions that I encourage others to investigate are the right or the proper ones to do and so I hope that I know you have an audience of people who are super, you know, motivated to to figure out the workings of the world around us and have an actually have a free

future for humanity. So I hope that we've we've put enough nuggets out there for others to carry the torch for forward from here on out, and just thanks again for having me be a part of this. Yeah, absolutely. Um, so I guess in terms of conclusions, then I think we can what we've kind of agreed on so far. Looks like FTX was blown up early, but it's

still not quite clear. For what purpose it was blown up early, or what we sort of got a an inkling of what you know, FTX is original purpose seems to have been before it was blown up early. So I guess, a big question, you know, I have at the end of this was, you know, how are the groups that were behind FTX as an SPS meteoric rise, how have they been

affected by this collapse? And it seems like a like, you know, we've been talking about sort of a weak or weak point in the aftermath of this collapse is the sort of exposure of a quote unquote, philosophical movement, that doesn't make a lot of sense and as a front for something else. So I definitely agree with you, Mike, that this effective altruist movement, Willie McCaskill, and, you know, their associates, and associated funds because these guys do move a lot

of money. And they have a lot of different organizations around and they'll probably start scrubbing it sooner than later. I mean, if flex Friedman was willing to like, take all of his interviews of William McCaskill down, and then block Marty bent

for pointing it out. I mean, you know, I don't, there's something they're not, they don't want people to look at, and that probably means that's the place to look at and you have, you know, these tendrils coming out of that movement that involve major aspects of COVID stuff.

Oh, and one thing I didn't mention that I think is important to Jane Street with all this overlap there, you know, with this EA movement and whatnot, they somehow, according to the Financial Times, is one of the few firms that knew how to trade 2020 before COVID was known to most people and you know, the debacle of COVID and, and all the quarantines and all of that they knew how to trade it in advance, and they made like 1,000% increase, I had a like 1,000% increase in profits

between 2020 and 2019. Because of that, So that's sort of suggestive of the way it's written by the Financial Times as for knowledge, and so you have the same movement sort of involved in vingt. Event 201, it definitely raises some eyebrows, including mine, to say the very least. So I think there is definitely a deeper story here. And I think, you know, I think most people get that. But the question is, what should we focus in on to try and unravel the rest of that deeper story?

And I think we've sort of gotten to big chunks of that, at least today. So awesome. I think there's a potential that SBF has given given us a gift because it seems that there's a potential that he was certainly the frontman, but he was a frontman that went a bit rogue and got caught up in the competitive nature of the cryptocurrency space and really allowed this this fraud to be unraveled sooner than the backers would have liked.

Because it's become very apparent that much of the or many people on the FTX team were were on stimulants, and they were enacting the clearest minds and the extent of the fraud at FTX. Literally something we didn't touch on, they were literally taking user deposits and gambling with them. And if they were able to simply not do that, to take their user deposits and burn them with bad trades, there's a likelihood that FTX and Alameda would have been able to survive much

longer. So we might be able to give a hat tip to SPF for forgetting for going crazy on stimulants and becoming becoming a big risk taker eventually led to his quick downfall and potentially the downfall or highlighting that there. There's something going on with this Effective Altruism movement. Now the attention is there. So we'll give a hat tip to SPF for that.

So last question then about SSB F then before we wrap up, you know you have a lot of these people that are backed by the establishment involved in financial crime we started I started talking about a couple of the parallels with Epstein Epstein is obviously different case. But you also have like Elizabeth Holmes, right Serrano's terrenos Harvey say it and it's basically you know, they have she has like Kissinger on the board and all these like deep state quote unquote guys on

the board. And then was recently you know, sentenced to like 11 years for fraud and stuff. And there's been no efforts to arrest SPF or anyone else tied up with FTX. do you what do you guys see happening there? Or do you think he could potentially even be Epstein? I think it's it's extremely odd that he has not been apprehended

yet. So that to me signals that he's being protected to some degree and whether or not he continues to be protected because of all the information he has access to and all the dead bodies that that he knows are associated with his company and the movement behind it. I wouldn't be wouldn't be surprised if something happens. But it is really telling that he has not been arrested yet. Like you mentioned earlier, Whitney Bernie Madoff was arrested

immediately. It seems that SPF is being allowed to just putz around the Bahamas without really worrying about being apprehended? Yeah, well, you know, Jeffrey Epstein in the late 80s executed what was then I think, the biggest Ponzi scheme in US history at towers financial with Steve Hoffenberg. And his name was dropped from the case. And then he goes and starts fundraising for the Clintons,

right? So I mean, there's people that get away with this massive fraud, and then they use them again for something else if they're good enough. The question is, is SBF actually talented at financial Googly guck. And crime? Like Epstein was I'm not so I don't know if

that's so true. He seemed he and Carolyn Ellison and some of these other people just seem like they were, you know, standards, you know, what, we it might be a gift to us that he hasn't been arrested, or none of them have sort of like what Marty alluded to earlier, which I completely agree with, in the sense that every day that they aren't arrested, you just have more people that are, let's say, less conspiratorial minded, or, you know, more more willing to accept the mainstream narrative

of stuff, you know, it'll it'll start tickling their minds even to like what we what is going on here. You know, there's definitely something else here. So, I mean, everything starts with someone saying to themselves, wait a minute, this doesn't add up. There's more stuff here. Let me let me explore that. That's how it happened for me. You know, I was actually in Arizona with my family on vacation, when this whole thing went down. I was trying to, you know, ignore news

as much as possible. And then just, I couldn't ignore it anymore. You know, I just like it was so crazy. It was as I you know, I messaged you, Whitney, I said, this is the, you know, this is like the craziest rabbit hole I've seen since Epstein, you know, reminded me of that, and I couldn't look away. So you know, hopefully, the fact that they haven't been arrested is is a great signal to people that Wait a minute, I probably shouldn't look away.

Yeah, great point. Well, hopefully people won't look away and more will come out of it. I don't think it'll come from the mainstream media. I think it'll come from independent media and you know, Twitter slews and people, you know, with an interest in getting to the bottom of this that aren't tied to the establishment and want to know, you know, why does this fraud get to keep happening to people over and over again, and nothing's done about it. At least when they're, you know,

have powerful friends. And but I think, you know, like we've talked about today, the story is a lot deeper and potentially has ramifications are some of the biggest, you know, events over the past couple years. You know, there's a big Ukrainian goal. There's a big, you know, pandemic COVID-19 side to this as well. And then, you know, campaign funny money. Yeah, it's definitely not going to go away.

And hopefully, you know, more revelations will come out about some of this some of this network because you know, it's going to be bigger, as we've already talked about, it is bigger than just FTX and OSPF. So with that being said, thanks to everyone for listening, special. Thanks, of course, to Mike and Marty, for joining me

today. If you enjoyed this podcast, I would please encourage you to share this around for other people that might also be interested in the story and can help us perhaps collectively help us get closer to the core of what's really going on here. And also, a huge thank you as always, to the supporters of unlimited hangout in this podcast, it would not be possible without you. And yeah, that's it for today. Catch you all next time.