Exclusive Interview with SBF: Does Not Consider Himself a Criminal, Feels Extremely Pained by Everything That Happened

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

Source: tuckercarlson official website

Compilation: Odaily Planet Daily jk

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), once a cryptocurrency billionaire and founder of FTX, is now a federal prisoner with a numbered identity. In a detention center located in Brooklyn, he sits on a simple chair, participating in a remote interview with Tucker Carlson. The former Fox News host and political commentator is known for his sharp interviewing style, and this time, he focuses the conversation on a once-prominent figure in the cryptocurrency world who is now behind bars.

The fall from the peak of digital finance to the depths of the real world is significant for SBF. Two years ago, his company FTX was still one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, and he was a guest of honor in Washington, providing substantial political donations to politicians. However, today he finds himself in an economic system entirely unrelated to cryptocurrency—where the currency of trade in prison is not Bitcoin or dollars, but sealed muffins and cheap instant noodles. Once discussing liquidity mining and high-frequency trading, his current reality revolves around the question of "is it worth trading a few muffins for a banana?"

Interview Transcript

Tucker Carlson: So, where are you now?

SBF: Well, I’m currently at the federal detention center (NDC) in Brooklyn, in a small room.

Tucker Carlson: How long have you been there?

SBF: I’ve been in prison for about… gosh, how long has it been? Almost two years.

Tucker Carlson: What’s it like there?

SBF: Well, it feels a bit dystopian. Fortunately, there’s no physical danger where I am. And to be honest, many of the staff here actually want to help; they do their best under the existing conditions. But you know, no one wants to be in prison. You can imagine, when you lock 40 people in a room, all of whom have at least been accused of crimes, and throw away the key, the most trivial things become the only things they can care about.

Tucker Carlson: Have you encountered any problems?

SBF: Not any serious issues. I haven’t been attacked or anything like that, but I’ve faced a lot of logistical difficulties. Frankly, the biggest problem is that during my trial, it was almost impossible to obtain legal materials. Generally, the process on trial days is: wake up at 4 AM, then spend five hours in various buses, vans, and holding rooms until the morning session starts. The trial lasts until 5 PM, followed by another four hours of holding rooms and travel, and I usually get back to prison around 9 PM, at which point all legal work hours are long over. That’s the most serious issue.

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

SBF: That’s a good question. There’s not much to do in prison. I read books; I’ve recently started reading novels again. I also play chess and do my best to study my legal case. I have the opportunity to appeal and am trying to push that work forward here. But the lack of meaningful things to do in prison is probably one of the most mentally exhausting parts.

Tucker Carlson: I have to say, we’ve never spoken before, but I’ve obviously been following you from afar. Also, I want to say that I feel sympathy for everyone who is incarcerated, regardless of the charges against them or what they’ve done. I don’t think locking people up is a good idea; I know it may be necessary, but I still feel compassion for everyone in prison. You can call me a liberal, but to be honest, after being in prison for two years, you seem healthier and less stressed than before.

SBF: You know, I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on how to communicate better. Looking back, I feel I didn’t communicate well enough, especially when the crisis first broke and in the following month. I made a mistake I often make, which is getting too caught up in the details and losing sight of the big picture.

SBF video interview scene. Source: YouTube

Tucker Carlson: Every time I saw you on TV, I felt like you were on a lot of Adderall (Note: a stimulant used to treat ADHD), but you don’t look like that now. Were you really using it?

SBF: No, I wasn’t. But my brain was almost "frozen" because there was so much to handle at once. In the environment at FTX, I would usually go for interviews, but while being interviewed, I might also be dealing with two urgent issues in the company. So I would be doing an interview while keeping an eye on Slack, responding to messages. And I knew that right after the interview, there would be something I hadn’t prepared for to deal with, so part of my attention was always preparing for what was next.

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

SBF: Oh, absolutely, I still prefer an environment with a digital world. Ultimately, I’m saying this not from a hedonistic perspective, but from a productivity and influence standpoint. Without a digital world, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to accomplish anything.

Tucker Carlson: Have you made friends there? Have you interacted with Diddy (Note: referring to Sean "Diddy" Combs, a famous American rapper, producer, and entrepreneur. He was arrested in New York in September 2024, facing multiple felonies including conspiracy to extort and transporting prostitution.)? I heard he’s locked up with you now.

SBF: Yes, he’s here too. I’m not quite sure how to describe it… he’s been quite friendly to me. I have made some friends, but the environment here is strange. On one hand, there are a few high-profile cases like mine, and on the other hand, there are many so-called former gang members, or people accused of having been gang members.

Tucker Carlson: Of course, it’s just "allegedly." So, what’s Diddy like in there?

SBF: You know, I’ve only seen one side of him, the real Diddy. He’s friendly to people in our unit, and to me as well. Of course, this is a place no one wants to be, and it’s clear he doesn’t want to be here, and neither do I. As he said, it’s a mentally exhausting place for anyone. And what we see are just the people around us in prison, not the outside world.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I can imagine. And, you two must be among the most famous prisoners in the world, and you’re in the same unit. How do others, like those armed robbers, view you?

SBF: Well, that’s an interesting question. Of course, some of them might see it as an opportunity to connect with people they would never have met otherwise. That surprised me a bit, but from their perspective, it’s understandable. It’s just… that’s not how I view prison at all.

Tucker Carlson: Sorry, I can’t help but laugh. So that’s not your perspective?

SBF: No. But sometimes, laughing is the only thing you can do when there are no better options. I’ve also discovered something interesting—they’re really good at chess. That’s something I’ve learned here. Many people who have committed armed robbery, and some who don’t even speak English, may not have graduated from middle school, but their chess skills are surprisingly good. Of course, I’m not saying they’re grandmasters, but I often lose to them, which really caught me off guard.

Tucker Carlson: That’s fascinating. Has this changed your perspective at all?

SBF: Well, I’d say it’s just part of a larger realization. This might be one of the deepest things I’ve learned in my life, but I still don’t fully understand it. Clearly, what we call "intelligence" or "IQ" is indeed important, and hard work is also key; these are undeniable factors.

But there are also things we don’t have the right vocabulary to describe, and I still haven’t found a suitable way to express them. These factors can make a person extremely excellent, successful, and efficient, even exceeding external expectations of them. Of course, not everyone possesses these traits, and everyone’s circumstances are different. But at FTX, we encountered this situation multiple times. We might see someone on a resume with no highlights, no relevant experience, and no particularly recommendable background. But in actual work, their performance far exceeded most people in the company, simply because they had perseverance, intuition, were engaged, knew how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to find solutions to problems.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, I’ve seen many very foolish people in finance become wealthy. They clearly have some kind of "gift" that I can’t see, but to me, they seem like…

SBF: Hmm? I’m curious what type of person you’re talking about? I used to work on Wall Street, and there really are all kinds of people.

Tucker Carlson: So, from a broader perspective, we won’t delve into all the details of your case, but it seems your company made a decision to build political alliances through political donations. I’m not targeting you specifically, as this is not something you did alone; in fact, many businessmen do this.

But you donated so much to the Democrats, I thought they would ultimately save you. After all, the Democrats usually protect their allies from going to prison. Tony Podesta never went to jail, so why did you?

SBF: Oh, that’s a good question. Obviously, I can only guess the answer; I can’t be sure of their thoughts. But there’s one fact that might be worth noting—even in 2020, my political stance was only center-left. I donated to Biden’s campaign team back then. I had hopes for him, thinking he would be a stable center-left president.

In the following years, I frequently went to Washington, spending a lot of time in DC, running back and forth dozens of times. But to be honest, I was shocked by what I saw; I didn’t like the direction of government policy. By mid-2022, I started privately donating to the Republicans, matching my donations to the Democrats. And just before the collapse of FTX, this fact began to be known to the outside world. So… maybe this has something to do with what happened later.

Tucker Carlson: Why were you shocked? I know you spent a long time in Washington, and there are even photos of you with almost every important figure. What exactly shocked you?

SBF: Some things just became more extreme than I originally feared. Cryptocurrency regulation is a good example. Honestly, I never expected the Democrats to do well in financial regulation, but there are good and bad people in both parties, and many thoughtful policymakers. However, the SEC under Gary Gensler has been a nightmare.

For example, if a company launches a business in the US, Gensler will sue them for not registering. Then the company goes to the SEC and says, "We’re happy to register; please tell us how to register?" The SEC’s response is usually, "Uh… there’s no category for you to register under." They require companies to obtain certain licenses, but they don’t even know how to provide those licenses.

As a result, the entire cryptocurrency industry has hit a wall on this issue. The SEC has basically failed to get any company to register smoothly, instead trapping the entire industry in a deadlock. This is one of the most disturbing things I saw in Washington.

Tucker Carlson: Can you explain that in more detail? For someone like me, who doesn’t know much about financial regulation, it’s clear that Gary Gensler is obviously corrupt, that’s beyond doubt. But his motives are less clear. What does he want? What are his goals?

SBF: That’s a good question. Of course, I can’t know his true thoughts, but I can share some of my observations and impressions.

First, he really enjoys standing at the center of power; many people like that, and he’s 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 that power to promote the industry, but just to hinder the entire industry.

Why does he require all companies to register with the SEC? Because if companies don’t register with him, his power diminishes, even if he doesn’t know how to handle those registration applications.

Additionally, there are many rumors about his political ambitions. He seems to think that if he can frequently appear in media like CNBC, create enough influence, and raise his profile, he might have a chance to become a candidate for Secretary of the Treasury or other higher positions in the future. Moreover, in the financial regulatory field of the Democratic government, he has indeed become one of the few most well-known faces, which could be a success for his political career.

Tucker Carlson: Interesting, sounds very much in line with the way things work in Washington. I’ve seen this kind of situation before, right?

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

Tucker Carlson: Right, I get it. He doesn’t have any firm beliefs, it’s mainly about "self-promotion." So, when things started to go downhill, and you were charged, or realized you might face criminal charges—considering you donated so much to the Democrats, this situation is actually quite common in the business world. Donors usually call the politicians they’ve supported and say, "Hey, I’m in trouble; can you help me?" So, did you call Chuck Schumer or any other politicians you supported to ask for help, to get the Biden administration’s Justice Department to help you out?

SBF: I didn’t, for multiple reasons. First, I didn’t want to make any inappropriate moves. Second, when things happened, many people quickly made their positions clear and distanced themselves as fast as possible. In fact, by that time, my relationships in Washington and with the Republicans might have been better than with the Democrats, although that wasn’t obvious to the outside world.

Moreover, there’s a longer story here, involving a law firm that played an extremely unusual role in this case. (Note: If you want to know SBF's views on that law firm, you can refer to SBF's first interview in prison: "Behind 25 Years of Imprisonment: SBF's Account of the Political and Judicial Struggles Behind Bankruptcy.") But more importantly, by the time I relinquished control of FTX and the company filed for bankruptcy, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) had already made its decision.

Tucker Carlson: So you didn’t seek any help or try to leverage your connections at all? Interesting. So, what do you think about the future of cryptocurrency? Your feelings about this must be complex, after all, you ran a cryptocurrency company, and now you’re in prison related to cryptocurrency. But you have a deep understanding of this industry; how do you feel about the pace of development in the cryptocurrency industry? Is the direction positive? I know this question is a bit strange, but I can’t help but ask.

SBF: My answer is, hopefully (Hopefully). You can look at the Trump administration’s attitude toward the cryptocurrency industry in its early days; some of their positions were very favorable and completely different from the approach taken by the Biden administration and the SEC led by Gary Gensler. Of course, the ultimate key lies in execution, and we are currently at that stage—how future policy execution will develop.

As expected, the change of administration has a significant impact on the industry, but financial regulatory agencies are still massive federal bureaucracies that won’t change overnight. Over the past decade, US financial regulatory agencies have been hindering the development of the cryptocurrency industry. The US accounts for about 30% of the global financial system, but only 5% of the global cryptocurrency market, which is entirely due to regulatory issues.

The regulatory environment in the US is uniquely challenging and difficult to collaborate with. So, the core question now is: when faced with real choices, will the government take the necessary actions and find the right way to execute them?

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

I could buy and sell freely without government control while also protecting my privacy. This was supposed to be the promise of cryptocurrency, but clearly, that has never materialized, and it seems it never will. Now I hardly hear anyone talking about this topic anymore. Cryptocurrency now looks like another asset scam. So, what happened to privacy protection?

SBF: Oh, that’s a great question. In fact, this question also involves another aspect related to cryptocurrency technology. For example, payments and remittances are not just investment tools; these are the areas where we believed cryptocurrency could truly bring value to the world.

But the problem is that the implementation and popularization of such technologies take much longer than the cycles of the investment market. In today’s social media environment, we see market bubbles inflating and bursting almost on a daily or monthly basis, while real technological development progresses over decades.

Currently, cryptocurrency has not developed to the point where it can become a daily tool for a quarter of the global population; the technology is not fully mature yet, but it’s not far off. If—this is a premise—the entire industry can continue to progress and not be distracted by market price fluctuations, then in the next 5 to 10 years, we might see a world where:

------ anyone can have a cryptocurrency wallet;

------ billions of people around the world can use it for transactions every day;

------ transactions are private and secure;

------ transactions are fast, low-cost, and can circulate freely across countries.

All of this is the original vision promised by cryptocurrency, but today it has been disrupted by hype and speculation, leading people away from that direction.

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

SBF: That’s a very interesting question. In fact, government regulation and control vary in degrees and cannot be generalized.

Look at Bitcoin; its wallets are anonymous, but every transaction is recorded on a public ledger. Therefore, while governments cannot directly control transactions, they can still obtain transaction information to some extent.

Of course, not all governments have the same stance. Over the past 30 years, the US government’s control over the financial system has not only been limited to the US itself but has extended to the global monetary system. At the same time, we can also see a completely different approach—in some authoritarian countries, government control over financial transactions is even stricter than in the US, but the economies of those countries are often closed and have limited influence.

In fact, about half of the countries in the world do not attempt to intervene deeply in daily financial transactions like the US does. The US’s intervention in this regard is unique.

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

SBF: Basically, no. The company I once owned is no longer mine. I’m not sure about the current situation; it’s in bankruptcy proceedings. If nothing had happened, the company should have about $15 billion in liabilities, but assets of about $93 billion.

So, theoretically, the answer should be yes—at that time or now, the company could have repaid everyone’s funds, principal and interest, and investors would still have hundreds of millions left. But that’s not the case.

Instead, everything has been caught up in bankruptcy proceedings, assets have been rapidly consumed, and those who took over the company have sold off assets worth hundreds of billions. It’s a complete disaster, and the most regrettable thing in my life is that I didn’t stop this from happening.

Tucker Carlson: Before the collapse of FTX, you knew all the big players in the cryptocurrency industry; you were one of the most well-known figures in the industry. Now please answer as honestly as you can: do you think you are the biggest criminal in the cryptocurrency industry?

SBF: I don’t think I’m a criminal, so the answer is definitely no. Of course, I know the US Department of Justice (DOJ) might think so, but I don’t care about their opinion.

Tucker Carlson: You’re in prison now; at least that’s how the DOJ sees it. But I’m curious, although I’ve criticized your company and other similar businesses in the past, I don’t want to delve into the details of your case here because it’s just too complicated. I just want to ask, do you think there are many improper behaviors in the cryptocurrency industry overall? Please answer honestly.

SBF: Ten years ago, the answer to that question was clearly yes, or at least relative to the scale of the industry. Look at the situation between 2014 and 2017; the entire industry was much smaller than it is now, and a significant portion of the transactions I saw back then… how should I put it? Different people have different opinions. For example, using cryptocurrency to buy drugs online was a fairly common use case on Silk Road.

Of course, every industry has criminals, but over time, the proportion of such transactions in the entire industry has significantly decreased. This is partly due to the rapid development of other areas in the cryptocurrency industry and partly because governments have strengthened their regulatory efforts against money laundering. So, while some illegal transactions still exist, they are far less prevalent than in the past.

Tucker Carlson: You were once widely recognized for a worldview or philosophy, even referred to as a kind of faith, known as "Effective Altruism." Its core idea is that you earn wealth to help as many people as possible.

However, many people have pointed out an ironic fact—your company’s bankruptcy has led to a million people losing their money. Your goal was to "promote the greatest good for the greatest number," but the result harmed a large number of individuals. Has this caused you to waver in your core belief of "Effective Altruism"?

SBF: This hasn’t made me rethink that philosophy. Clearly, I feel extremely pained by everything that has happened; this is not the outcome I wanted, nor is it what anyone hoped for. If we look at it from another angle, if everyone could eventually get their money back, the outcome might be different. But the reality is that this process is extremely torturous, and they can only be compensated in dollars, not in the original asset form.

More importantly, all the goodwill I originally hoped to bring to the world essentially vanished at the moment the company collapsed.

Tucker Carlson: I want to say that most people actually find it hard to understand this kind of philosophy: 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 they’ve never been to. This is people’s intuition, but your view is clearly different, right?

SBF: I do disagree with that view, but there’s an important premise.

A common mistake is that people often think they know what strangers need, but in fact, they don’t understand. I sometimes make that mistake myself. Many international aid projects ultimately fail because the aid providers don’t truly understand the real needs of the local people. This approach can sometimes come off as condescending or even self-righteous.

For example, many aid organizations might donate a bunch of water pumps to an African village rich in water but lacking food, only to find that the locals don’t need them at all. Then you see a group of "elites" from Harvard trying to distribute these unwanted water pumps to the villagers… it’s completely counterproductive.

And similar examples abound. Clearly, when you’re helping someone you’re familiar with, you can indeed know better what they need and how to truly help them. That’s beyond doubt.

But even if I believe that every life is equally important, regardless of where they are, that doesn’t mean I can accurately know how to help distant strangers like I do with those close to me.

Tucker Carlson: I understand, but what you’re saying sounds like you’re undermining your own position. Are you inadvertently questioning "Effective Altruism"?

I think the problem with "Effective Altruism" is that it’s too easy. For example, eradicating polio is an easy thing to do, but making the same woman happy for 30 years is extremely difficult. So, should we do the harder but more important things instead?

SBF: My view is that, taking malaria as an example, this disease has almost disappeared in the US, and hardly anyone dies from malaria anymore. But globally, nearly a million people still die from malaria each year, which is truly heartbreaking.

This is a disease that should not be killing anyone anymore because we have the means to eradicate it. Therefore, we should do everything we can to eliminate it.

But just because these problems are somewhat "easier" to solve doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help these people. Look at the world’s poorest regions; the resources needed to solve these problems aren’t that much, and if executed efficiently, this aid wouldn’t impose a huge burden on our own society.

Of course, the efficiency of execution is key. If we just keep sending useless water pumps to food-scarce villages, then no matter how many resources we invest, we won’t truly help anyone.

Tucker Carlson: What you’re saying is obvious; the past 60 years of aid to Africa has proven this—despite increasing aid, life expectancy in some parts of Africa has been declining.

But from a moral perspective, I have a question: when your loved ones are deep in drug addiction, like your cousin relying on Xanax (a type of anti-anxiety medication), how can you worry about malaria? Shouldn’t you first address the issues at home?

SBF: If I could, I would certainly do that.

But ultimately, each of us has different responsibilities. If I know my cousin well and know how to help him quit drugs, then of course, I have a responsibility to help him.

However, if I’ve tried my best but still can’t find a solution to truly help him, and at the same time, I can find ways to save lives in other countries, or others can do that, then I believe that doesn’t diminish their good deeds on a global scale.

In other words, just because someone hasn’t solved the problems around them doesn’t mean they shouldn’t help a broader group of people.

Tucker Carlson: Right? So keep going. I don’t think this perspective is crazy. One last question on this topic: can you think of any recent international aid projects that are undoubtedly successful cases?

SBF: There are some, but I want to clarify that they are not government projects but privately initiated projects.

In fact, malaria prevention is a great example. Globally, the incidence of malaria has significantly decreased, mainly due to the efforts of private donors. They have provided substantial resources to sub-Saharan Africa and India, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives each year at a cost of a few thousand dollars per life, which, in relative terms, is indeed a huge success.

Of course, this isn’t a multi-trillion-dollar plan; it’s just a few billion dollars of investment, but through careful planning and efficient execution, philanthropists have made the funds truly effective.

On the other hand, you can look at many government-led aid projects, which often yield no results and some even fail completely. If you want a successful government aid case, well… maybe the Marshall Plan is a successful example. That dates back in history, but the reconstruction of Germany after World War II was indeed a huge success from multiple perspectives.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, but blowing up the "Nord Stream" pipeline may have destroyed those achievements (laughs). But your point is valid. So, how old are you now?

SBF: You know, that question caught me off guard; I needed a few seconds to remember the answer.

When you’re in prison, the concept of time completely changes. Every day feels like a copy-paste of yesterday, all the days blur together into a perception that’s hard to describe.

The answer is… uh, actually, my birthday is tomorrow. (March 6) So, as of today, I’m 32, but tomorrow I’ll be 33.

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

SBF: I won’t celebrate. When I was outside, I didn’t really care about birthdays, and celebrating another year in prison doesn’t excite me at all.

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

SBF: Maybe someone else will tell him, but I won’t bring it up myself.

Tucker Carlson: Well, so you’ll be 33 tomorrow. If you don’t get a pardon, how old will you be when you get out according to the current sentence?

SBF: That calculation is a bit complex; I’m not entirely clear on all the details, like whether the First Step Act will affect the sentence. If we just simply add my sentence, then the answer is—I’ll probably be in my fifties when I get out.

Tucker Carlson: Can you accept that outcome?

SBF: Oh, sorry, I miscalculated earlier. If we simply add the sentence, it should be close to 60. If we consider all possible sentence reductions, maybe I could get out in my fifties. But the basic calculation is that I was convicted at 32 and sentenced to 25 years, so theoretically, I would be 57 when I get out.

Tucker Carlson: Now you’ve served two years, leaving 23 years. Do you think you can hold on?

SBF: That’s a hard question to answer; I’m not sure. The hardest part is that there’s nothing truly meaningful to do here.

You can look at those studies—of course, I’m not sure of their accuracy, but it’s said that the mortality rate in prison is about three times that of the general population. So, if we calculate based on a threefold rate of time passing, I entered prison at 32, sentenced to 25 years… maybe you can come to a conclusion. Perhaps.

Tucker Carlson: So, I mean, it feels a bit strange to me… you might have fallen more thoroughly from one world to a completely different world than anyone I’ve interviewed.

You were in the world of digital currency, and now you’re in a world with no money at all. So, in prison, what is the medium of exchange?

SBF: Well, it’s the things people can use to trade. For example, muffins are a common "currency." Imagine those plastic-wrapped muffins, like the ones next to the cash register at a gas station, a whole box of individually wrapped plastic bag muffins that might have been sitting at room temperature for a week.

Besides that, a pack of instant noodles, or a type of fish can in a foil pack that looks really disgusting (room temperature aluminum foil-packaged fish), these things can be used for trading.

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

SBF: Yes, that’s right.

Tucker Carlson: How do you compare the two? Of course, muffins are clearly not as easy for international transfers, right?

SBF: Well… as a currency, I don’t think muffins will quickly become a global strategic reserve asset. They’re merely a demand-based medium of exchange with no other use.

However, muffins do have a certain degree of "substitutability." Although they’re not perfectly homogeneous goods, two muffins are roughly similar, so they can be exchanged for one another. As long as the transaction amount doesn’t exceed $5, this system can still barely function.

But if you want to complete a $200 transaction with muffins, that’s completely unrealistic. Just imagine how many muffins you would need to complete that transaction? It’s physically impossible.

Tucker Carlson: Too cumbersome, right?

SBF: Yes, extremely inconvenient. And in prison, you quickly realize that the scale of everything is greatly reduced.

For example, you’ll see two people fighting over a banana. Not because they really care about the banana, but because—aside from that—they have nothing else to care about.

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

SBF: No, I don’t eat them. I just save them for trading. But I mainly eat rice, beans, and instant noodles.

Tucker Carlson: Well, it seems like that’s somewhat good for your health (laughs). Do you have any tattoos?

SBF: No, I don’t. I know some people who have tattoos in prison, but I don’t have any.

Tucker Carlson: Have you thought about getting a tattoo?

SBF: Well, you know, I did think about tattoos in the past. But when I talked to my cellmates about their "sanitation procedures"—or rather, the lack of sanitation—my thoughts were completely dispelled.

Now, I have no interest in it at all.

Tucker Carlson: Right, after all, it’s not worth the risk of contracting hepatitis.

SBF: Definitely not worth it. I heard they probably only "consider" sterilizing a needle after using it on four or five people.

Tucker Carlson: Oh… well, then you definitely won’t be getting a tattoo.

So, since you’ve been in prison, you still have 23 years to serve. I’ve been thinking—you’ve helped many people, and although you were sentenced because you harmed people, you also donated millions to many in Washington.

Have any of those you helped called you to say "good luck, hope you’re doing well," or at least advised you not to join a gang? Has anyone reached out to you?

SBF: In the initial stages after the collapse of FTX, I did receive a lot of friendly messages, including from some people in Washington. But six months later, the messages completely stopped.

By the time the trial started and I officially entered prison, no one was contacting me anymore. Political factors made everything too sensitive; no one wanted to take risks. Everyone’s interest considerations prompted them to stay away from me.

In fact, I heard that some people privately relayed some "friendly remarks" about me through third parties, but no one was willing to contact me directly.

Tucker Carlson: Really no one contacted you? I noticed your ex-girlfriend (referring to Caroline Ellison) testified against you in court. So, did you have any friends willing to stand by you, remain loyal, and support you?

SBF: Well… yes, but very few.

To be honest, that surprised me, but looking back, it’s actually understandable. Everyone who was once close to me ultimately faced extreme pressure—they had only two choices, one of which meant decades of imprisonment.

I think Ryan Salame’s (former FTX executive) experience is the most heartbreaking and the most disgusting example of government behavior. They brought a series of completely unfounded charges against him just to force him to yield.

SBF: Ryan Salame initially refused to plead guilty; he said, "See you in court."

Then the prosecution changed their threat tactic, saying to him: "What about your pregnant wife? What if we put her in jail?"

So, he was forced to plead guilty because he didn’t want his wife to go to prison.

No normal legal system should allow the prosecution to use such tactics to force a defendant to plead guilty. But they did.

Moreover, he wasn’t even charged with most of the charges faced by other plea deal participants. But because he refused to lie and didn’t want to cater to the government’s narrative in court, he ultimately received a sentence four times longer than the combined sentences of the other three—seven and a half years.

The signal released by this case couldn’t be clearer. They did this because he’s a Republican or because he refused to cooperate with the government’s narrative in court?

Aside from those two points, I can’t think of any other reasons that could explain why they sentenced him to seven and a half years in prison.

Tucker Carlson: That’s disgusting. I interviewed him at home, and I also know they even prosecuted his wife. This is utterly immoral.

SBF: Absolutely right. They even went back on previous promises and suddenly prosecuted her.

This completely shatters any illusions about the government acting with "goodwill."

Ryan is a good person; he absolutely shouldn’t be treated this way.

Tucker Carlson: Have you realized—I'm not sure how much news you can access or how much contact you have with the outside world, but it sounds like not much—that the outside world is changing at an astonishing pace?

By the time you get out, for example, artificial intelligence (AI) might have developed into AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), or even…

SBF: It might have reached the "singularity."

Tucker Carlson: Yes, it’s going to happen soon. The world you return to might be completely different from the one you left.

SBF: Yes, I feel very strongly about that.

Being locked up here feels like the world is moving on without you, and you can only watch it drift away.

Tucker Carlson: So, is having children part of your "Effective Altruism" philosophy?

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

But ultimately, over the past five years, I’ve felt like I have 300 children every day. My employees… of course, I can’t treat them like a real father, but I feel responsible for them.

Now, all their efforts have gone up in smoke, which pains me greatly.

During my time running FTX, I hardly had time to think about my personal life.

Let alone now that I’m in prison, I can’t possibly think about having children.

Tucker Carlson: Of those 300 employees, has anyone come to see you?

SBF: No. I think the answer is no. Yes, not a single one.

Tucker Carlson: Maybe you should seriously consider having a few real children, don’t you think? Because when things go wrong, real family will always be there for you.

SBF: This has indeed made me start to think about what true connections between people mean.

Also, our social systems sometimes wield immense power, even creating a significant deterrent without explicitly stating it.

But beyond that, I’ve also been thinking—how important it is to have someone you can truly rely on.

Tucker Carlson: Ultimately, relationships between people are the most important. Sam Bankman-Fried, I’m grateful that you were willing to do this interview; this might be the only time you won’t be attacked about your business issues, since others have already done that.

But I’m glad to talk with you, and I hope you say hi to Diddy for us.

SBF: I definitely will, absolutely.

Tucker Carlson: I still can’t believe you’re locked up with Diddy…

SBF: Yeah, if someone had told me three years ago, "You’ll be hanging out with Diddy every day."

I would have thought, oh? Interesting, is he entering the cryptocurrency industry?

Tucker Carlson: Life is truly bizarre. Good luck to you.

SBF: Thank you, thank you, thank you.