"FTX bankruptcy caused huge damage, but I'm not a criminal," Trump's close friend Carlson interviewed SBF at a glance

Original text: Tucker Carlson Show "Sam Bankman-Fried on Life in Prison With Diddy, and How Democrats Stole His Money and Betrayed Him",

Compiled by: Odaily Planet Daily jk

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), a former cryptocurrency billionaire and founder of FTX, is now a numbered federal prisoner. He sat in a simple chair in a detention center in Brooklyn and was interviewed remotely by Tucker Carlson. The former Fox News host and political commentator is known for his sharp interview style, and this time, he focused his conversation on a cryptocurrency figure who was once glorious and now in prison.

From the peak of digital finance to the bottom of the real world, the gap between SBF is indispensable. Two years ago, his company FTX was still one of the world's largest crypto trading platforms, and he himself was a guest of honor in Washington's politics, providing huge political donations to politicians. However, now he is in an economic system that has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies - the medium of trading in prison is not Bitcoin, not US dollars, but plastic-clad muffins and bags of cheap instant noodles. He once talked about liquidity mining and high-frequency trading, the reality now is "Is it cost-effective to exchange a few muffins for a banana".

Original text of the interview

Tucker Carlson: So, where are you now?

SBF: Well, I'm in a small room now at the Federal Detention Center (NDC) in Brooklyn.

Tucker Carlson: How long have you been there?

SBF: I've been in prison about... Oh my God, how long has it been now? Almost two years have passed.

Tucker Carlson: So how is the situation here?

SBF: Well, it feels a bit dystopian. Fortunately, there is no physical danger in my place. And, to be honest, many of the staff here actually want to help, and they do their best under the existing conditions. But you know, no one wants to stay in prison. You can imagine that when you lock 40 people in a room, all of them have been charged with crimes and then throw away the keys, and for several years, the most trivial things become the only thing they can care about.

Tucker Carlson: Have you encountered any problems?

SBF: There is no serious problem. I wasn't attacked or anything like that, but I had a lot of logistical difficulties. Frankly, the biggest problem is that it was almost impossible to obtain legal information during my trial. Generally speaking, the process of the trial day is: being woken up at 4 a.m. and then staying in various buses, vans and waiting rooms for five hours until the trial begins in the morning. The trial lasted until 5 pm, followed by another four-hour waiting room and a drive, and finally returned to prison at about 9 pm, and at this time, all the legal hours had already ended. This is the most serious problem.

Tucker Carlson: So, what are you doing all day when you’re not in court?

SBF: This is a good question. There are not many things that can be done in prison. I can read books, and I have started reading novels recently. I will also play chess and do my best to study my legal cases. I still have the opportunity to appeal and I will try my best to promote the relevant work here. But the lack of meaningful things to do in prison is probably one of the most mentally disintegrating parts.

Tucker Carlson: I have to say, we've never talked to you before, but obviously I've been following you from afar. Also, I want to say that I regret all those behind bars, regardless of the charges they were charged, or what they did. I don't think it's a good idea to lock people up, I know it might be necessary, but I still feel sympathy for everyone in prison. You can call me liberal, but to be honest, after two years in jail, you look healthier and less nervous than before.

SBF: You know, I have a lot of time to reflect on how to communicate better. Looking back, I feel that I’m not doing well enough in communication, especially when the crisis just broke out, and in the following month. I made a mistake that I often make, which is to be too obsessed with details and ignore the overall situation.

 SBF video interview site. Source: YouTube

Tucker Carlson: Every time I see you on TV, I feel like you're taking a lot of Adderall (note: a stimulant used to treat ADHD), but you don't look like that right now. Did you really use it at that time?

SBF: No, I don't. But my brain was almost "freezing" at the time because there were so many things that needed to be handled at the same time. In the FTX environment, I usually go to interviews, but while interviewing, I may also have to deal with two urgent issues in the company. So I will be interviewed while staring at Slack and replying to messages. And I also know that after the interview, there was something I hadn't had time to deal with, so part of my attention was actually always preparing for what was going on.

Tucker Carlson: So, do you think the digital world is harmful to us? You have been deprived of your mobile phone right, is this a big change?

SBF: Oh, of course, I still prefer an environment with a digital world. Ultimately, I don’t say that from a pleasure perspective, but from a productivity and influence perspective. Without a digital world, it would be extremely difficult to do anything.

Tucker Carlson: Did you make friends there? Did you have any communication with Diddy (Note: Sean "Diddy" Combs, a famous American hip-hop singer, producer and entrepreneur. He was arrested in New York in September 2024 and faced multiple felony counts including extortion and conspiracy and transport of prostitution)? I heard he is now locked up with you.

SBF: Yes, he's here too. I don't know how to describe it...he is quite friendly to me. I did make some friends, but the environment here is very strange. On the one hand, there are a few high-profile cases like me, and on the other hand, there are many so-called former gang members, or people accused of being members of the gang.

Tucker Carlson: Of course, it's just "allegedly". So, what does Diddy look like in it?

SBF: You know, I only saw him, that is Diddy in reality. He is very kind to people in our district, and he is the same with me. Of course, this is a place where no one wants to stay. Obviously he doesn't want it, and I don't want it either. As he said, this is a place where people can get mentally broken for anyone. And what we see is only the people around us who are in prison, not the outside world.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I can imagine. Moreover, you two should be one of the most famous prisoners in the world and are in the same district. What do other people, such as those gun robbers, think of you?

SBF: Well, that's a very interesting question. Of course, some of them may feel like this is an opportunity to reach people they wouldn't have known. This surprised me a little, but from their perspective, it is understandable. It's just…this is not the way I look at prison at all.

Tucker Carlson: Sorry, I can't help laughing. So that's not your idea?

SBF: No. But sometimes, laughing is the only thing you can do, and there is no better choice. I also found something very interesting - they played very well. This is something I learned here. Many people who have committed gun robbery, and some even do not speak English, may not even graduate from junior high school, but their chess skills are surprisingly good. Of course, I'm not saying they are international masters, but I lose to them often, which really didn't expect me.

Tucker Carlson: This is so interesting. Has this changed your opinion?

SBF: Well, I would say, it's just part of a bigger perception. This is probably one of the most profound things I have learned in my life, but I still haven't fully understood it yet. Obviously, what we call "intellectual" or "IQ" is indeed very important, and hard work is also very important. These are factors that cannot be ignored.

But there are some things that we don’t have the right words to describe, and I have not found a suitable way of expression so far. These factors can make a person extremely excellent, successful, and efficient, even exceed the expectations of them. Of course, not everyone has these qualities, and everyone's situation is also different. But at FTX, we have encountered this situation many times. We may see on our resume that a person has no highlights, neither relevant experience nor any background that is particularly worthy of recommendation. But in actual work, their performance far exceeds that of most people in the company, just because they have perseverance, intuition, devotion, know how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to find solutions to problems.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, I've seen a lot of really stupid people getting rich in the financial world. They obviously have some kind of "talent" that I can't see, but in my opinion, they look like...

SBF: Huh? I'm curious about what type of people you are talking about? I have worked on Wall Street in the past, and there are indeed all kinds of people there.

Tucker Carlson: Well, from a larger perspective, we don't go into all the details of your case, but your company seems to have made a decision to build a political alliance through political donations. I'm not specifically targeting you, because it's not that you do it alone, but in fact many businessmen will do it.

But you donate so much to the Democrats that I thought they would save you in the end. After all, Democrats usually protect their allies from going to prison. Tony Podesta has never been to jail, so why did you go in?

SBF: Oh, that's a good question. Obviously, I can only guess the answer, I can't determine what they think. But there is one fact that may be worthy of attention—even in 2020, my political stance was just center-left, when I donated money to Biden’s campaign. I had expectations for him at the time and thought he would become a stable centre-left president.

In the following years, I often went to Washington, stayed in DC for a lot of time, and ran back and forth dozens of times. But honestly, I was shocked by what I saw and I didn’t like the direction of government policies. By mid-2022, I began to donate to the Republican Party privately, which was basically the same as the amount of donations from the Democratic Party. And not long before FTX collapsed, this fact began to be known to the outside world. So... maybe this has something to do with what happened later.

Tucker Carlson: Why are you shocked? I know you've been in Washington for a long time and even have your photos with almost all the important people. What shocked you?

SBF: Some things are just the situation I was worried about getting even more extreme. Cryptocurrency regulation is a good example. Honestly, I never expected the Democrats to do a good job in financial regulation, but there are good people and bad people in both parties, and there are a lot of well-thought-out policy makers. However, the SEC under Gary Gensler was a nightmare.

For example, a company launches a business in the United States and Gensler sues them on the grounds that they are not registered. The company then goes to the SEC and says, "We are willing to register, please tell us how to register?" The SEC's response is usually: "Uh... there is no category that suits you to register." They ask companies to obtain certain licenses, but they themselves don't know how to provide them.

The result is that the entire crypto industry is hitting a wall on this issue. The SEC basically failed to successfully get any company to register, but instead put the entire industry in a deadlock. This is one of the most disturbing things I have seen in Washington.

Tucker Carlson: Can you explain it in detail? Anyone like me who doesn’t know much about financial regulation can see that Gary Gensler is obviously corrupt, and there is no doubt that this is. But his motivation is not clear. What exactly does he want? What is his goal?

SBF: This is a good question. Of course, I can't know what he really thinks, but I can share some of my observations and impressions.

First of all, he likes to stand at the center of power very much, which many people like, and he is no exception. Part of this is a power struggle - he wants the SEC to have more regulatory authority, even if he doesn't really want to use this power to promote the industry, but just to hinder the entire industry.

Why did he ask all businesses to register with the SEC? Because if the business does not register with him, his power will be weakened, even if he does not know how to deal with these registration applications.

In addition, there are many rumors about his political ambitions. He seems to think that if he can make frequent appearances in media such as CNBC, create enough influence and increase his visibility, he may have the opportunity to become a candidate for the Treasury Secretary or other higher positions in the future. And, in the field of financial regulation in the Democratic government, he has indeed become one of the few most well-known faces, which may be a success for his political career.

Tucker Carlson: Interesting, it sounds very much in Washington's style of doing things. I've seen this before, right?

SBF: Yes, it's not from a moral standpoint. It's not like that, right?

Tucker Carlson: Yes, I get it. He also has no firm belief, mainly for "self-improvement". So, when things start to go downhill, you get charged, or realize you might be criminally charged - considering that you donate so much money to the Democrats, this is actually quite common in the business world, and donors usually call politicians they support and say, "Hey, I'm in trouble, can you help me?" So, have you called Chuck Schumer or other politicians you've supported, ask them to help, and let the Biden administration's Justice Department help you?

SBF: I don't, there are multiple reasons here. First of all, I don't want to make any inappropriate moves. Secondly, when things happen, many people quickly take their positions and distance themselves from the fastest speed. In fact, by that time, my relationship with the Republican Party in Washington may be better than that with the Democratic Party, although this is not obvious to the outside world.

In addition, there is a longer story here, involving a law firm that plays an unusual role in this case. (Note: If you want to know SBF's opinion on the law firm, you can move on to SBF's first interview in prison: "Behind the 25-year prison sentence: SBF's personal statement on the political and judicial struggle behind bankruptcy") But more importantly, before I gave up control of FTX and the company filed for bankruptcy, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) had already made a decision.

Tucker Carlson: So you didn't seek any help at all, or tried to use your connections? interesting. So, how do you view the future of cryptocurrencies? Your relationship in this regard should be very complicated. After all, you run a cryptocurrency company, and your current jail is also related to cryptocurrency. But you have a deep understanding of this industry. How do you think the crypto industry is developing at a speed? Is the direction positive? I know this question is a bit strange, but I can't help but want to ask.

SBF: My answer is, hopefully. You can look at the Trump administration’s attitude towards the crypto industry in its early years. Some of their positions are very favorable and are completely different from the approach taken by the Biden administration and the SEC led by Gary Gensler. Of course, the ultimate key lies in implementation, and now we are at this stage - how future policy implementation will develop.

As expected, the change of leadership has a great impact on the industry, but financial regulators are still huge federal bureaucracies that will not change overnight. For the past decade, U.S. financial regulators have been hindering the development of the crypto industry. The United States accounts for about 30% of the global financial system, but it accounts for only 5% of the global crypto market, which is entirely due to regulatory issues.

The regulatory environment in the United States is too unique and it is extremely difficult to cooperate. So, the core question now is: When a decision is really faced, will the government take the necessary actions and find the right way to implement it?

Tucker Carlson: I remember when the concept of cryptocurrency first appeared in mass media, its core idea was that it would be a currency that would allow individuals to regain control of their own business freedom.

I can buy and sell freely without government control, and also protect my privacy. This was originally a cryptocurrency commitment, but it obviously never became a reality and it seems to never happen. Now I can't hear anyone talking about this topic anymore. Cryptocurrency now looks like another asset scam. So, what exactly happened to privacy protection?

SBF: Oh, that's a good question. In fact, this issue also involves another level related to encryption technology. For example, payment and remittance are not just investment tools, but areas where we thought cryptocurrencies could truly bring value to the world.

But the problem is that the implementation and popularization of such technologies are much longer than the investment market cycle. In today's social media environment, we see that the market bubble is almost expanding and rupturing in days or months, while real technological development is promoted in ten years.

At present, cryptocurrencies have not yet developed to the point where they can become a daily tool for a quarter of the world's population, and the technology has not yet been fully mature, but it is not far away. If – this is a prerequisite – the entire industry can continue to improve rather than be distracted by market price fluctuations, then in the next 5 to 10 years we may see a world like this:

——Anyone can have a crypto wallet;

——Billions of people around the world can trade it every day;

——The transaction is privacy and security;

——Fast transaction speed, low cost, and free circulation across countries.

All of this is the vision that cryptocurrency initially promised, but is now interfered by hype and speculation, causing people to deviate from that direction.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think governments around the world will allow this to happen? If the global population is really allowed to conduct financial transactions freely without government control, wouldn’t the government collapse instantly?

SBF: This is a very interesting question. In fact, government supervision and control have varying degrees and cannot be generalized.

Look at Bitcoin, its wallet is anonymous, but every transaction is recorded on a public ledger. Therefore, although the government cannot directly control transactions, it can still obtain transaction information to some extent.

Of course, not all governments have the same position. Over the past 30 years, the US government's control over the financial system has not been limited to the United States itself, but has expanded to the global monetary system. At the same time, we can see another completely different approach - in some dictatorial countries, government control over financial transactions is more stringent than in the United States, but the economies of these countries are often closed and have limited influence.

In fact, about half of the world's countries do not try to interfere in daily financial transactions like the United States. The United States' intervention in this regard is unique.

Tucker Carlson: So, after all this, do you still have money?

SBF: Basically, nothing. The company I once owned no longer belongs to me. I'm not sure what's going on, it's in bankruptcy proceedings. If nothing happened, the company should have about $15 billion in debt now, but the assets are about $93 billion.

So, theoretically, the answer should be yes - at that time or now, the company could have repaid everyone's funds, with capital and interest, and investors would have tens of billions of dollars left. But that's not the case.

Instead, everything was involved in bankruptcy proceedings, and assets were quickly consumed, and the people who were taken over the company sold their assets on a large scale, selling tens of billions of dollars in assets. It was a complete disaster, and the most regrettable thing in my life was that it did not stop it from happening.

Tucker Carlson: Before FTX went bankrupt, you knew all the big guys in the crypto industry, and you were one of the most well-known people in the industry. Now please answer as honestly as possible, do you think you are the biggest criminal in the crypto industry?

SBF: I don't consider myself a criminal, so the answer is absolutely no. Of course, I know the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) may think so, but I don't care what they think.

Tucker Carlson: You are in prison now, at least that's how the Justice Department determines it. But I'm curious, although I've criticized your company and other similar companies in the past, I don't want to delve into the details of your case here because it's so complicated. I just want to ask, do you think there are a lot of improper behaviors in the crypto industry as a whole? Please answer honestly.

SBF: Ten years ago, the answer to this question was obviously yes, or at least that's the case relative to the size of the industry. Look at the situation between 2014 and 2017. At that time, the scale of the entire industry was much smaller than it is now, and a considerable number of the transactions I saw at that time... How can I say it? Different people have different opinions. Take Silk Road (Silk Road, Dark Web Black Market) as an example, when buying drugs online with cryptocurrencies was a fairly common use.

Of course, there will be criminals in any industry, but over time, the proportion of such transactions in the entire industry has dropped significantly. This is partly due to the rapid development of other areas of the crypto industry, partly because of the increasing government's regulatory efforts in anti-money laundering. So, there are still some illegal transactions, but they are far less common than they used to be.

Tucker Carlson: You once received widespread attention for a worldview or idea, and some even called it a belief, the so-called "Effective Altruism." Its core idea is that you earn wealth to help as many people as possible.

However, many people point out the irony that your company went bankrupt, causing one million people to lose their money. Your goal is to “seek the greatest welfare for the most people”, but it ends up hurting a large number of individuals. Have you been shaken by the core concept of "effective altruism"?

SBF: This incident didn't make me rethink this idea. Obviously, I was extremely distressed by what happened, and it was not the result I wanted, nor was it anyone hoped for. If we look at it from another perspective, if everyone can get their money back in the end, the result may be different. But the reality is that this process is extremely painful, and they can only pay in US dollars, not in the form of original assets.

More importantly, all the kindness I originally wanted to bring to the world was basically gone at the moment when the company went bankrupt.

Tucker Carlson: I want to say that most people actually have a hard time understanding the idea that helping a stranger is more valuable or noble than helping those around you. In other words, for most people, helping their wife, girlfriend, mother, daughter, brother, colleague or friend is far more important and meaningful than helping a village in a country you have never been to. This is people’s intuition, but you’re obviously different, right?

SBF: I do disagree with this point of view, but there is an important premise here.

A common mistake is that people often think they know what strangers need, but they don’t actually understand. I have made this mistake sometimes. Many international aid projects ended up failing because the aiders simply don’t understand the real needs of the locals. This practice sometimes seems condescending and even self-righteous.

For example, many aid agencies may donate a bunch of water pumps to an African village rich in water but lacking in food, and the locals simply don’t need it. Then you will see a group of "elites" from Harvard holding these uninvited water pumps and trying to distribute them to the villagers... This is completely different.

Moreover, similar examples abound. Obviously, when you are helping people you are familiar with, you really can know more clearly what they need and how to really help them. This is beyond doubt.

But even if I think that everyone's life is equally important, no matter where they are, it doesn't mean that I can know exactly how to help strangers far away like I know the people around me.

Tucker Carlson: I understand, but you sound like you are refuting your own position. Are you unintentionally questioning "effective altruism"?

I think the problem with "effective altruism" is that it is too easy. For example, eradicating polio (polio) is an easy thing to do, but it is extremely difficult to make the same woman happy for 30 years. So, should we do something more difficult but more important?

SBF: My view is, taking malaria as an example, this disease has almost disappeared in the United States, and basically no one has died from malaria. But globally, nearly 1 million people still die from malaria every year, which is really heartbreaking.

This is a disease that no one should have died from, because we have mastered the way to eradicate it. In this case, we should do our best to eliminate it.

But just because these problems are somewhat more "easy" to solve, it doesn't mean we shouldn't help these people. Look at the poorest areas in the world, there are not many resources required to solve these problems. As long as they are implemented efficiently, these reliefs will not cause a huge burden on our own society.

Of course, the efficiency of execution is key. If we just keep sending useless pumps to villages that lack food, then no matter how much resources we invest, we can’t really help anyone.

Tucker Carlson: That's obvious, and the past 60 years of African aid have proven it - despite the increasing aid, life expectancy in parts of Africa is declining.

But from a moral point of view, I have a question: How can you worry about malaria when your loved ones are deeply involved in drug addiction, such as your cousin is relying on Xanax (alprazolam, an anti-anxiety drug)? Should you solve the problem at home first?

SBF: If I could do it, of course I would do it.

But at the end of the day, each of us has different responsibilities. If I know my cousin well and know how to help him quit the medication, then of course, it is my responsibility to help him.

But if I have tried my best and still can’t find a solution to really help him, and at the same time, I can find a way to save lives in other countries, or others can do this, then I don’t think it will weaken the kindness they have done globally.

In other words, a person’s failure to solve the problems around him does not mean that he should not help a wider population.

Tucker Carlson: Right? So keep doing it. I don't think this view is crazy. The last question on this topic: Can you think of any recent international aid program that is an unquestionable success story?

SBF: It's true, but I want to make it clear that it is not a government project, but a private project.

In fact, malaria prevention and control is a good example. Globally, the incidence of malaria has declined significantly, thanks to the efforts of private donors. They provided a large amount of resources to sub-Saharan Africa and India, and today they could save hundreds of thousands of lives every year, at a cost of about a few thousand dollars per life, which is indeed a huge success in terms of relative effectiveness.

Of course, it’s not a trillion-dollar program, but just a few billion-dollar investment, but through careful planning and efficient execution, philanthropists have made the funding really work.

On the other hand, you can look at many government-led aid programs that tend to be ineffective and even fail completely. If you want a successful government aid case, then...well, maybe the Marshall Plan is a successful example. This requires going back to history, but the reconstruction of Germany after World War II was indeed a huge success in many ways.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, but we may have destroyed these achievements by blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline (laughs). But your point of view makes sense. So, how old are you now?

SBF: You know, this question made me stunned for a moment, and it took me a few seconds to remember the answer.

When you're in prison, the concept of time has completely changed. Every day is like yesterday’s copy-paste, and all the days are blurred together and become an indescribable perception.

The answer is...uh, actually my birthday is tomorrow. (March 6) So, as of today, I am 32 years old, but tomorrow I will be 33.

Tucker Carlson: How do you plan to celebrate your birthday?

SBF: I won't celebrate. When I was outside, I didn’t care much about my birthday, and celebrating myself in prison for another year, there was nothing to be excited about for me.

Tucker Carlson: So you won't tell Diddy that tomorrow is your birthday? I don't believe it.

SBF: Maybe someone will tell him, but I won’t take the initiative.

Tucker Carlson: OK, so you're 33 tomorrow. If you did not receive a pardon, according to the current verdict, how old would you be when you were released from prison?

SBF: This calculation is quite complicated, and I don't know all the details, such as whether the First Step Act will affect the sentence. If I simply add my sentence, the answer is - I will be released from prison in my fifties.

Tucker Carlson: Can you accept this result?

SBF: Oh, sorry, I just calculated it wrong. If you simply add the sentence, you should be close to 60 years old. If all possible sentence relief is included, you may be able to be released in your 50s. But the most basic calculation is that I was convicted at the age of 32 and sentenced to 25 years, so I was theoretically 57 when I was released from prison.

Tucker Carlson: You have served two years in prison now, and there are 23 years left. Do you think you can hold on?

SBF: This question is difficult to answer, and I'm not sure. The hardest part is that there is nothing really meaningful to do here.

You can look at those studies - of course, I'm not sure about their accuracy, but the mortality rate in prison is said to be about three times that of the average person. So, if calculated based on a triple-time rate, I was jailed at the age of 32 and sentenced to 25 years... Maybe you can come up with an answer. Maybe.

Tucker Carlson: So, I mean, it makes me feel a little weird…you probably fall from one world to another completely different world more thoroughly than anyone I’ve ever interviewed.

You were originally in the world of digital currency, but now you are in a world without money at all. So, what is the medium of transaction in prison?

SBF: Well, it's what people can exchange on their hands. For example, muffins are a common "currency". Imagine the plastic-packed muffin, like the one placed next to the gas station cashier, a whole box of individually packaged plastic bags, which might have been kept at room temperature for a week.

In addition, a pack of instant noodles, or a canned can of oil-filled fish that looks very disgusting (canned cans of aluminum foil at room temperature), can be traded.

Tucker Carlson: So, you've gone from the world of cryptocurrency to the world of muffin economy?

SBF: Yes, that's right.

Tucker Carlson: Then how do you compare the two? Of course, it is obviously not easy to transfer internationally, right?

SBF: Well… As a currency, I don’t think muffins will soon become a global strategic reserve asset. They are merely a demand-based transaction medium and have no other purpose.

However, muffins do have a certain degree of "substitutability". Although they are not perfect homogeneous goods, the two muffins are roughly different, so they can be replaced with each other. As long as the transaction amount does not exceed $5, this system can barely operate.

But if you want to complete a $200 deal with a muffin, it's totally unrealistic. Imagine how many muffins you have to use to complete this deal? It simply doesn't work physically.

Tucker Carlson: That's too much trouble, right?

SBF: Yes, it's extremely inconvenient. And, you will soon realize in prison that the scale of everything has been greatly reduced.

For example, you'll see two people fighting for a banana. It's not because they really care so much about this banana, but because - other than that, they have nothing to care about anymore.

Tucker Carlson: Sounds desperate. By the way, do you eat those muffins or just treat them as currency?

SBF: No, I won't eat it. I just store them for transactions. But I mainly eat rice, beans and instant noodles.

Tucker Carlson: Well, it seems that it's a little good for your health (laughs). Then do you have a tattoo?

SBF: No, I don't. I know some people who have tattoos in prison, but I don't have them myself.

Tucker Carlson: Have you ever thought about having a tattoo?

SBF: Well, you know, I did think about tattooing before. But when I talked to my inmates about their "disinfection procedures"—or that there was no disinfection at all, my thoughts were completely abolished.

Now, I have no interest at all.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, it's not worth taking the risk of hepatitis C after all.

SBF: Not worth it at all. I heard that they would "consider" disinfect the needle once after using four or five people.

Tucker Carlson: Oh...well, then you definitely won't go tattooing anymore.

Well, since you were in jail, you would have to serve another 23 years in prison. I've been thinking - you've helped a lot of people, and even though you've been sentenced to hurt people, you've also donated millions of dollars to many people in Washington.

Have those who have been helped by you ever called you and said, "Good luck and hope you're fine", or at least advised you not to join the gang? Has anyone contacted you?

SBF: I did get a lot of friendly news in the early stages of the FTX crash, including some people in Washington. However, six months later, the news was completely cut off.

When the trial began and when I was officially in prison, no one contacted me anymore. Political factors make everything too sensitive and no one is willing to take risks. All people's interests are driven to stay away from me.

In fact, I have heard some people who have privately reposted some "friendly remarks" about me, but no one wants to contact me directly.

Tucker Carlson: No one really contacted you? I noticed that your ex-girlfriend (referring to Caroline Ellison) testified in court against you. So, do you have any friends who are willing to stand on your side, stay loyal and support you?

SBF: Well… there are, but very few.

To be honest, this surprised me, but looking back, it is understandable. All those who once approached me ended up facing extreme pressure – they had only two options, one of which meant decades of jail.

I think the encounter with Ryan Salame (former FTX executive) is the most sad and the most disgusting example of government behavior. They made a series of totally unfounded charges against him just to force him to surrender.

SBF: Ryan Salame initially refused to plead guilty, saying, “See you in court.”

Then, the prosecutor changed his threatening method and said to him: "What about your pregnant wife? What if we put her in jail?"

So he was forced to plead guilty because he did not want his wife to go to jail.

No normal legal system should allow prosecutors to use this method to force the defendant to plead guilty. But they did it.

Moreover, he has not even been charged with most of the crimes faced by other pleaders. But because he refused to lie and was unwilling to cater to the testimony the government wanted him to give in court, he was eventually sentenced to four times the sentence - seven and a half years - than the other three combined.

The signal released by this case is clear. Are they doing this because he is a Republican or because he refuses to cooperate with the government's narrative in court?

Apart from these two points, I can't think of any other reason that explains why they sentenced him to seven and a half years in prison.

Tucker Carlson: That's so disgusting. I've interviewed him at home and I know they even sued his wife. This is simply totally immoral.

SBF: Completely correct. They even turned against their previous promises and sued her suddenly.

This completely shatters any fantasy about the government acting “good intention”.

Ryan is a good guy and he shouldn't have been treated like this at all.

Tucker Carlson: Did you realize that - I don't know how much news you can access, or how much connection you have with the outside world, it shouldn't sound much - but the outside world is changing at an amazing rate?

By the time you are out of jail, for example, artificial intelligence (AI) may have evolved to AGI (General Artificial Intelligence), or even...

SBF: It may have entered the "singularity".

Tucker Carlson: Yes, it will happen soon. When you are released from prison, the world may be completely different from the one you left.

SBF: Yes, I feel this very strongly.

Being locked up here is like the world keeps moving forward without you, you can only watch it go away.

Tucker Carlson: So, is having a baby part of your “Effective Altruism” philosophy?

SBF: No. Different people in this community have different opinions on this issue.

But at the end of the day, I have felt like I have 300 kids every day for the past five years. My staff…of course, I can’t treat them like a real father, but I feel I have a responsibility for them.

Now, all their efforts are burned, which makes me feel very painful.

While running FTX, I had little time to think about my private life.

Not to mention, I am in prison now, so it is even more impossible for me to consider the issue of children.

Tucker Carlson: Has anyone seen you among those 300 employees?

SBF: No. I think the answer is no. Yes, none of them.

Tucker Carlson: Maybe you should seriously consider having a few real children, don’t you think? Because when things get worse, real family will always be with you.

SBF: It really made me think about what the real connection between people means.

Also, our social system sometimes holds huge power, and even makes people feel great deterrent without being explicitly stated.

But beyond that, I am also thinking about how important it is to have someone you really can rely on.

Tucker Carlson: In the end, the relationship between people is the most important thing. Sam Bankman-Fried, I appreciate you're willing to take this interview, which is probably the only time you won't be besieged your business issues, after all, others have done it.

But I'm very happy to talk to you and hope you say hello to Diddy for us.

SBF: I will, absolutely.

Tucker Carlson: I still can't believe you were actually locked up with Diddy...

SBF: Yeah, if someone told me three years ago: "You'll be hanging with Diddy every day in the future."

I'll probably think, oh? Interestingly, is he going to enter the cryptocurrency industry?

Tucker Carlson: Life is really bizarre. Good luck.

SBF: Thank you, thank you, thank you.