Compiled by Waiwai Y.

Guest: Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX Founder

Host: Tucker Carlson

Video Source: Tucker Carlson

Original Title: Sam Bankman-Fried on Life in Prison With Diddy, and How Democrats Stole His Money and Betrayed Him

Air Date: March 7, 2025

Key Points Summary

Sam Bankman-Fried is serving 25 years in prison, sharing a housing unit with Diddy. Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is currently serving his 25-year sentence and now shares a housing unit with Diddy. He joins us from prison to share updates about his new life.

Interview Highlights

• I don't consider myself a criminal. I know the Department of Justice might think so, but honestly, I don't care what they think.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Gary Gensler was an absolute nightmare.

• By 2022, my private donations to the Republican party had reached parity with my donations to Democrats. Coincidentally, this information was revealed around the time of FTX's collapse.

• The Department of Justice seemed determined to take action even before I relinquished control of FTX and before the company filed for bankruptcy.

• The key question is whether the government will take necessary measures to address these challenges when truly confronted with them.

• Some systems in our country possess enormous power and can exert pressure and intimidation through covert means, influencing people's decisions.

• They didn't have impressive backgrounds or relevant experience, yet they performed better than almost everyone in the company. This is because they had resilience, intuition, dedication, knew how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to find solutions to problems.

• It can seem somewhat presumptuous when people assume they know how to help others without understanding their actual needs. In fact, many foreign aid programs ultimately waste resources completely because no one truly understands what the people they're trying to help actually need.

• If the industry can continue to focus on technological advancement rather than being overly concerned with market price fluctuations, then within the next 5 to 10 years, we might see a completely new world where anyone can easily own a crypto wallet, and billions of people can transact through it daily. These transactions will be private, secure, fast, low-cost, and can be completed globally without barriers. These were the characteristics initially promised by cryptocurrencies, but unfortunately, the industry's attention has been diverted by many other issues over the years.

What is Prison Life Like?

Tucker: How long have you been there? What's life like there?

SBF: I've been in prison for about two years now, and it's somewhat dystopian, to say the least. Fortunately, the place where I am doesn't pose physical dangers. To be honest, the staff here are trying hard to help us and doing their best with limited resources, but nobody would want to be in a place like this. About 40 people are confined in one room, all charged with various crimes, unable to leave for years. In this environment, even the smallest things become the focus of everyone's attention.

Tucker: Have you encountered any trouble?

SBF: Not violent incidents—I haven't been attacked or anything like that—but I've definitely faced numerous logistical problems. Honestly, the biggest challenge was during the trial period when I had almost no opportunity to handle my legal affairs. On a typical trial day, I'd be woken up at 4 AM, then spend five hours shuttling between various buses, vans, and holding cells. Court proceedings usually lasted until 5 PM, after which I'd spend another four hours in holding cells and vans. By the time I returned to prison around 9 PM, there was basically no time left to deal with any legal work. That was my biggest issue.

Tucker: So, if there's no trial, what do you do with your time?

SBF: That's a good question, because there's really not much to do. I read books, started reading novels again, occasionally play chess, and try to manage my legal affairs like appeals. Beyond that, I attempt to complete whatever work I can do. But perhaps the most unbearable aspect of prison life is the lack of other meaningful ways to pass the time.

Did SBF Take Adderall Before Prison?

Tucker: Regardless of what a person is charged with or has done, I feel sorry for anyone who's incarcerated. I personally don't think locking people up is a good approach.

SBF: I understand what you mean. But perhaps sometimes it's necessary, and I sympathize with everyone in prison. That's my perspective. You could say I'm a liberal. To be honest though, after two years of prison life, I feel like you look healthier than before and less tense.

I've had a lot of time here to reflect, especially on communication issues. Looking back, I don't think I communicated well when the crisis first began. In the month that followed, I fell into an old habit of getting lost in details while losing sight of the bigger picture.

Tucker: Every time I saw you on television, you always seemed very hyper, like you were on Adderall. You don't seem that way now. Were you actually taking that medication?

(TechFlow note: Adderall is a prescription medication primarily used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy, which helps patients focus and improve efficiency)

SBF: I never took it. But I definitely felt like my mind wasn't keeping up because there was simply too much to handle. Typically when working at FTX, I'd often be giving interviews while simultaneously dealing with urgent company matters. Even during interviews, my mind was still processing other issues, and many times I had no preparation and could only respond on the spot.

Tucker: What do you think? Now that you don't have a phone anymore, is that significant for you?

SBF:

I still prefer life with digital tools. At the end of the day, these things weren't for entertainment for me, but for efficiency and allowing me to have an impact on the world. From this perspective, without digital tools, doing anything becomes extremely difficult.

SBF's Encounter with Diddy in Prison

Tucker: Have you made friends in prison? Are you still in the same unit as Diddy?

SBF: He is indeed there. I don't know how to describe it, but he's very friendly to people. I've made some friends too. The environment here is unique, with both high-profile case subjects and many former gang members or accused suspects.

Tucker: What kind of person is Diddy?

SBF: Honestly, I've only seen what he's like in prison. He's friendly to everyone in our unit and has been nice to me as well. However, nobody wants to be in this kind of environment. He clearly doesn't want to be here either. I remember him mentioning that this kind of life is like a spiritual oppression for everyone. All we see every day are the people around us, not the outside world.

Tucker: You and Diddy are probably the two most famous people here, living in the same unit. How do others, like those armed robbers, view you?

SBF: That's an interesting question. Indeed, some people might think, wow, it's a rare opportunity to get to know people like us. I was somewhat surprised by this, but I can understand their thinking.

I've found they're especially good at chess. This is an interesting thing I've learned here. Those former armed robbers who may not have even finished middle school, or might not even speak English—quite a few of them are remarkably good at chess. I'm not saying they're chess grandmasters, but every time I play against them, I'm surprised by how challenging it is.

SBF's Change in Mindset Since Imprisonment

Tucker: How are things now? Have these experiences changed your perspective?

SBF: I feel this is part of a larger life experience. This might be one of the most profound lessons I've learned but still don't fully understand. Obviously intelligence and hard work are important, but there are certain qualities that we don't seem to have appropriate words to describe. I haven't found that word yet, but these qualities enable a person to perform extremely well, succeed, be efficient, and even exceed others' expectations of them. Of course, everyone's situation is different. However, in the financial world, I've seen many people who didn't have impressive backgrounds or relevant experience, yet they performed better than almost everyone in the company. This is because they had resilience, intuition, dedication, knew how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to find solutions to problems. I used to work on Wall Street, and it was truly filled with hidden talents, with all types of people.

Despite Enormous Donations, Democrats Refused to Save SBF

Tucker：

Looking at the big picture, although I don't want to delve too much into the details of your case, your company seems to have built a network of political connections through political donations. This practice is common, and you're not the only businessman doing this. However, you donated so much money to the Democratic Party, I would have thought they would help you in a crucial moment. The Democratic Party typically protects their own from imprisonment, so why did this happen to you?

SBF: That's an excellent question, but I can only speculate because I don't know their true thoughts. However, one thing might be relevant: Even in 2020, my position was still center-left, and I donated to Biden's campaign team. I was hopeful that he could become a relatively moderate center-left president. But in the following years, I frequently traveled to Washington D.C., meeting people and attending meetings, which left me very disappointed. By 2022, my private donations to the Republican party had reached parity with my donations to Democrats. And coincidentally, this information was revealed around the time of FTX's collapse.

Tucker: What disappointed you? I know you spent a long time in Washington, met with almost everyone, and there are many circulating photos of you together. What exactly shocked you?

SBF: Some things were worse than I had originally worried about. Cryptocurrency regulation is a typical example. I never expected the Democratic Party to promote good financial regulation, but I didn't anticipate they would perform so poorly. Of course, there are good and bad people in every party, as well as some thoughtful individuals. But the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Gary Gensler was an absolute nightmare. What I observed was that when a company provided certain services in the United States, Gensler would sue them for being "unregistered." Gensler would say he welcomed registration, but in reality, there was no clear registration process. Almost all cryptocurrency projects encountered this problem, and none could successfully register. This is what I found very disturbing.

Tucker: Could you explain more clearly? To an outsider like me, Gary Gensler is clearly corrupt, that's beyond question. But what's his motivation? What does he actually want?

SBF: That's a good question. I can't guess his inner thoughts, but I have some speculations. He seems to really enjoy positions of power. Power is something many people pursue, and he's no exception. This might be more about expanding his sphere of influence—he wants his institution to have more power, even if he doesn't intend to use this power to promote industry development, but rather to hinder industry progress. What I don't understand is why he demands everyone register while not providing clear registration guidelines. Even he himself doesn't know how to handle these registered companies.

Tucker: That sounds very consistent with Washington's style. I've seen similar situations before.

SBF：

This isn't a moral issue. He's not someone with strong communist beliefs.

Tucker：

When things started deteriorating, you were charged with crimes, or potentially facing charges. Logically, someone who donated so much money to the Democratic Party would typically call their support recipients for help, saying something like: "Hey, I'm in trouble, can you help me?" Did you call Schumer or any others you supported, asking for their help, such as requesting Biden's Department of Justice to give you some leniency?

SBF：

I didn't, for several reasons. First, I didn't want to do anything inappropriate. Second, many people quickly made their positions clear and distanced themselves from me. By that time, my relationships with Republicans in Washington may have been better than with Democrats, although this wasn't public knowledge, but it probably wasn't difficult to detect from the outside.

Finally, there's a complicated story here involving a law firm that played a special role in the case. But in reality, the Department of Justice seemed determined to take action even before I relinquished control of FTX and before the company filed for bankruptcy.

The Future of Cryptocurrencies Under Donald Trump

Tucker: What's your view on the future of cryptocurrencies? How do you see their pace of development? Are they moving in the ideal direction now?

SBF: I hope so. Looking at the Trump administration's initial statements, there are many positive elements and policy directions that differ significantly from the Biden administration. Of course, the key lies in the subsequent actions, and we're currently at this critical stage, waiting to see what will happen. Not surprisingly, a change in administration does help shift the landscape, but financial regulatory agencies are large bureaucracies within the federal government that typically respond slowly. Over the past decade, these agencies have primarily played the role of "obstructers" in the cryptocurrency space. The U.S. cryptocurrency market only accounts for 5% globally, despite the U.S. representing 30% of global financial markets. This mismatch is entirely due to regulatory issues. The U.S. regulatory environment is very unique globally. Therefore, I believe the key question is whether the government will take necessary measures to address these obstacles when truly confronted with them.

Tucker: I remember when cryptocurrencies first entered public awareness, they were promoted as a currency that could restore individual commercial freedom. They promised to allow people to buy and sell freely without government intervention while protecting privacy. But clearly, this vision hasn't materialized and doesn't seem likely to. I hardly hear anyone mention privacy issues anymore, cryptocurrencies seem to have become another asset speculation tool. So, what's the current state of privacy issues?

SBF: Actually, cryptocurrencies aren't just investment tools; they have many practical applications at the technical level, such as cross-border remittances and payments. However, the promotion and application of these technologies typically require more time. In contrast, investment bubbles fluctuate much more frequently, occurring almost daily or monthly.

Currently, cryptocurrencies haven't developed to the point where they can become everyday tools for a quarter of the global population. Though the goal hasn't been achieved yet, we're not far from it. If the industry can continue to focus on technological advancement rather than being overly concerned with market price fluctuations, then within the next 5 to 10 years, we might see a completely new world where anyone can easily own a crypto wallet, and billions of people can transact through it daily. These transactions will be private, secure, fast, low-cost, and can be completed globally without barriers. These were the characteristics initially promised by cryptocurrencies, but unfortunately, the industry's attention has been diverted by many other issues over the years.

Tucker: Do you think governments will allow this to happen? If they truly allowed the global population to conduct financial transactions without government control, wouldn't that shake the foundations of government?

SBF: Regarding the level of government regulation over financial transactions, attitudes vary greatly between different countries. Taking Bitcoin as an example, although wallets are anonymous, every transaction is recorded on a public ledger that anyone can query. Therefore, even if governments don't directly control these transactions, they can still obtain a certain degree of information through the public ledger.

However, not all governments view this transparency the same way. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. government has had a very clear position on controlling financial transactions. Other countries like France have adopted similar attitudes, especially concerning international monetary transactions. In contrast, some more authoritarian countries might adopt completely different strategies. But in reality, half of the countries globally haven't attempted to intervene so deeply in everyday financial transactions like the United States has.

Does SBF Have Any Money Left?

Tucker: After all this, do you still have any money?

SBF: Basically none. My previous company is still in bankruptcy proceedings. I'm not certain about the specific situation. Without other interventions, the company currently has liabilities of about $15 billion, while assets are around $93 billion.

So theoretically speaking, the answer should be yes. That is, theoretically there are enough assets to pay off all debts, even pay considerable interest, and leave investors with billions of dollars in surplus. But in reality, things haven't developed according to plan. The company's assets rapidly disappeared during bankruptcy proceedings, and those who took over the company transferred billions of dollars in assets out. This is a huge disaster, and failing to prevent this from happening is the biggest regret of my life.

Tucker: Before being charged, you were one of the most well-known people in the industry. Do you think you're the biggest criminal in the crypto industry?

SBF: I don't consider myself a criminal. I know the Department of Justice might think so, but honestly, I don't care what they think.

Tucker: You're currently in prison, which clearly indicates that's what they think. But what I want to ask is, do you think there are a lot of shady activities in the crypto industry?

SBF: Indeed there are. Ten years ago, this phenomenon was especially evident, or at least relative to the industry's size at that time. Looking back at the period from 2014 to 2017, the crypto industry was far smaller than it is today. I've seen many transactions, and a considerable portion of them were used for, well, in different words, "gray areas." For example, "Silk Road" was a typical case. Ten years ago, using cryptocurrencies to buy drugs online was a common use.

Of course, criminals exist in any industry. But over time, the proportion of such behavior in the crypto industry has significantly decreased. On one hand, this is because other legitimate uses in the crypto space have gradually increased, and on the other hand, governments have strengthened anti-money laundering (AML) regulations. So although some shady activities still exist now, they are not as prevalent as they were in the early days.

Tucker Questions SBF About "Effective Altruism"

Tucker：

Tucker: You were once considered a representative figure of the concept of "effective altruism." This worldview or ideology, even perhaps a belief system, has at its core the pursuit of maximum benefit for the greatest number of people. You supposedly made money with the purpose of helping as many people as possible. However, some have pointed out that with the collapse of your company, approximately 1 million people lost their funds. This seems somewhat ironic, given that the philosophy you've always advocated is about bringing good to the maximum number of people. I'm curious. Has all this made you reconsider the concept of effective altruism?

SBF: I haven't reconsidered these principles. Obviously, I feel terrible about what happened, which is completely not the outcome I had hoped for. I know that if things had gone well, the results could have been dramatically different. People could have gotten their money back, but the waiting process was too painful for them, and ultimately they only received dollars, not other actual value. Additionally, all the good I had hoped the company would do for the world has been largely undermined, even completely destroyed, because of the company's collapse.

Tucker: I think most people find it difficult to understand how helping people you've never seen could be more valuable or morally significant than helping those close to you. In other words, helping your loved ones or friends might seem more meaningful than helping a stranger you've never met. I think most people intuitively think this way, but you seem to disagree.

SBF: I do disagree, but with the caveat of avoiding a common mistake. Often, people assume they know how to help others without understanding their actual needs, which can sometimes seem somewhat presumptuous. In fact, many foreign aid projects completely waste resources because no one truly understands what the people they're trying to help actually need. For example, some teams might bring a bunch of water pumps to a place with abundant water but lacking food, which is clearly meaningless assistance.

There are countless examples like this. When you help people you know well, you better understand their needs, which is indeed an advantage. Even though I believe every person's life is equally important, this doesn't mean my effectiveness in helping a stranger would be the same as helping someone familiar.

Tucker: But I feel your answer is actually refuting the point of effective altruism. I mean, the logic of effective altruism seems too simplistic. For instance, curing polio might be relatively simple, but keeping a person happy for 30 years is extremely difficult. So perhaps those more complex, more difficult things are actually more worthwhile to pursue.

SBF: I understand your point, but I want to use malaria as an example. In the United States, almost no one dies from malaria anymore, but globally, about 1 million people still die from it annually. This is a disease that shouldn't be taking lives anymore. We know how to solve this problem theoretically, so we should act without hesitation. Although addressing malaria might seem simple in some ways, that shouldn't be a reason for us to ignore it.

Many interventions in the poorest regions don't actually cost much. If we can allocate resources efficiently, these efforts won't significantly impact our domestic aid budget. But the key is efficiency. If we waste resources on places that don't need help, like providing useless water pumps to villages lacking food, we can't really save any lives.

Tucker: What you're saying makes sense, and it's obviously true. In many places, life expectancy has actually declined despite 60 years of aid to Africa. But from a moral standpoint, when your loved ones are facing depression or other issues, how can you justify prioritizing malaria patients? Shouldn't you help those close to you first?

SBF: I would certainly do so if I could. But ultimately, everyone has their own responsibilities. If I know my loved ones well and know how to help them, then I certainly have a responsibility to address their problems. But if I've tried my best and am powerless to help, while simultaneously being able to save more lives through other means, I don't think this diminishes the good I can do internationally.

Tucker: Last question, can you think of a recent international aid project that was unquestionably successful?

SBF: There are certainly some, though I won't name them specifically. It's worth noting that these aren't government-led projects, but rather privately funded ones. Malaria is a good example. Through efforts primarily driven by private donations, malaria cases have significantly decreased in many regions globally, especially in Africa and India, saving hundreds of thousands of lives annually. On average, the cost of saving one life is about a few thousand dollars, which is a very successful case on a relative scale.

We're not talking about trillions of dollars, but rather billions that have been efficiently allocated through careful planning. Of course, if you look at some government-led projects, you might find their effects are minimal. If you want to learn about successful government cases, the Marshall Plan, for example, achieved tremendous success in rebuilding Germany after World War II.

Will SBF Actually Be Released From Prison?

Tucker: If you don't get pardoned, assuming everything remains unchanged, how old will you be when you get out of prison?

SBF: It's a complicated calculation. I don't fully understand all the details because it involves the First Step Act. If you simply add my imprisonment time to my age, then the answer is I would get out when I'm in my forties.

Tucker: Can you handle that kind of life?

SBF: Sorry, I misspoke earlier. If you consider my imprisonment time and age, I might be in my fifties when I get out. With all possible sentence reductions, it might be in my forties. But I was 32 when convicted and received a 25-year sentence, so that's 57.

Tucker: So, considering you've already served two years, do you think you can hold up?

SBF: Honestly, I'm not sure. The hardest part is that there's nothing meaningful to do here. According to some studies (though I'm not certain of their accuracy), the suicide rate in prison is supposedly three times that of normal society. So, imagine my 25-year sentence multiplied by three, plus I was 32 when convicted—this calculation is truly depressing.

Tucker: It's really strange going from the world of digital currency to a world completely without money. What do people use as a medium of exchange in prison?

SBF: In prison, people use small items they can find as exchange mediums, like plastic-wrapped muffins. These muffins might have been sitting at room temperature for a week, typically the kind you'd see at a gas station counter. Besides that, there's instant noodles or canned fish preserved in oil, which looks disgusting but serves a purpose here.

Tucker: So you've gone from the world of cryptocurrency to the muffin economy. How do you view these two? After all, transferring muffins internationally would obviously be much more difficult.

SBF: That's right, I think muffins as currency obviously wouldn't become a global strategic reserve. Their value is completely based on demand, with no other added value. Although muffins aren't highly fungible, they're close enough. Two muffins are roughly similar, so they can be exchanged. But this currency system can only support small transactions, like those under five dollars. If you want to complete a $200 transaction with muffins, that would be very difficult to achieve.

In prison, the scale of all transactions is very small. You might even see people fighting over a banana, but it's not really because they particularly like bananas, but because they have no other way to vent their emotions.

Why Did SBF's Friends, Family, and Colleagues Abandon Him?

Tucker: Since you've been in prison, you're facing up to 23 years in sentence. I'm curious if any of the people you once helped, especially those in Washington, have called you to express concern or wish you good luck?

SBF: In the initial phase after the company's collapse, I did receive greetings from quite a few people, including some friends from Washington. But about six months later, these contacts gradually disappeared. By the trial stage, almost no one was actively contacting me anymore. The whole situation became highly politicized, the risk was too high, and no one was willing to risk maintaining contact with me.

Tucker: Really, no one has contacted you? I noticed your ex-girlfriend testified against you in court. Are there any friends who still remain loyal to you?

SBF: Yes, but very few. This surprised me. But thinking carefully, it's understandable. Anyone close to me would face enormous pressure, forcing them to make choices, one of which might result in decades in prison for themselves as well. For example, Ryan Salem's experience is a particularly tragic case. He was accused of completely false charges.

He initially refused to plead guilty, but prosecutors threatened his wife, even saying they would send her to prison too if he didn't plead guilty. Eventually, to protect his wife, he had no choice but to plead guilty. This kind of behavior should never be legally permitted.

This behavior completely deviates from the principles of justice, making it impossible to trust. He's a good person who did nothing wrong.

Tucker: Have you realized that the outside world is changing very quickly? By the time you get out, you might find yourself in a completely different world.

SBF: Yes, I do have that feeling. The world continues to develop, while I'm stuck in place, unable to keep up with its pace.

Tucker: Is having children part of your "effective altruism" philosophy?

SBF: No. People in the community have different views on this question. In the past five years, I've felt like I had 300 children because my employees made me feel a great responsibility on my shoulders. I hardly had time to focus on my personal life.

Tucker: Have any of those employees come to visit you?

SBF: No, almost no one has come, just one or two people.

Tucker: Perhaps you should consider having your own children. Because when you're in trouble, they'll always stay by your side.

SBF: This situation has indeed made me think a lot about trust and dependency. Some systems in our country have enormous power, and they can exert pressure and intimidation in subtle ways, influencing people's decisions.