SBF Claims FTX Was Solvent, Faces Backlash Over Comments

The controversy erupted when Bankman-Fried responded to a satire post by an FTX creditor alleging that John J. Ray III, the court-appointed CEO overseeing the bankruptcy, deliberately kept a “perfectly solvent” platform in Chapter 11 to generate record fees. The creditor’s post accused the bankruptcy estate of selling billions in valuable equity and venture stakes at deep discounts, mishandling assets, mismanaging clawbacks, and forcing subsidiaries into bankruptcy without proper board authority.

Bankman-Fried’s X account replied, “I don’t quite agree with every point – but, yeah, this is basically what happened.” While stopping short of claiming these issues proved his innocence, he added, “the Debtors are still withholding funds.” This marked his latest attempt to reframe the narrative around FTX’s collapse, suggesting the exchange’s problems were manageable until outside intervention exacerbated them.

The response from the crypto community was swift and critical. On-chain investigator ZachXBT immediately demanded answers about the alleged $40 million transfer to Chinese authorities that he says Bankman-Fried hid from the public. The exchange highlighted ongoing concerns about transparency and accountability in the FTX saga.

Venture capitalist Adam Cochran articulated the broader sentiment, stating that Bankman-Fried continues to show no remorse for his role in the collapse. Cochran argued that these attempts to reframe events demonstrate exactly why the former billionaire deserves harsh punishment and “does not get to rewrite history.” The backlash reflects persistent anger among those affected by FTX’s downfall and skepticism toward Bankman-Fried’s evolving narrative.

The social media controversy comes amid significant legal setbacks for Bankman-Fried. Judges on the 2nd Circuit in New York recently offered little indication they were persuaded by his appeal claims during a hearing. His attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, argued the conviction should be overturned because the first trial was “fundamentally unfair,” but the three-judge appeals panel repeatedly pushed back.

Judge Barrington Parker directly challenged Shapiro’s arguments, stating, “From my reading of the record, (there was) very substantial evidence of guilt.” He questioned whether Bankman-Fried’s proposed testimony about attorneys’ roles in document preparation would have changed the outcome, asking, “Are you seriously suggesting to us that if your client had been able to testify about the role that attorneys played in preparing these various documents, the not-guilty verdicts would have rolled in?” The judicial skepticism suggests an uphill battle for Bankman-Fried’s appeal.

Last month, Bankman-Fried’s suddenly reactivated X account posted a 14-page document claiming FTX was “never insolvent” and asserting that outside lawyers and political forces sabotaged a solvable liquidity crunch. The document insisted bankruptcy estate managers misrepresented FTX’s balance sheet and claimed the exchange’s locked portfolio today would be worth “well over $100 billion.”

This narrative has been widely rejected by experts who note the claims mirror arguments the jury already heard and rejected during the 2023 trial. The persistent attempt to portray FTX as fundamentally solvent despite billions in customer losses has failed to gain traction among legal and financial professionals familiar with the case. The continued backlash shows no signs of fading as Bankman-Fried continues his campaign to reshape public perception from prison.