[rathel]

From what I was able to gather, the onus is on the SBF for misappropriating FTX customers' funds. On the Alameda side it does not seem like a typical scam in the sense of "get money and run with it". "Just" a desperation out of illiquidity due to a credit crunch. Keep in mind that SBF was a 90% owner in Alameda anyway.

I am however positive she should have stayed out of crypto. Everybody in this space becomes at least morally gray at some critical point, even if they started well-intentioned.

But regardless of CE's intentions, you're posing a philosophical question: should we evaluate worldviews for what they are, or by who is possessing them. I lean towards the first one.

[sn0w_crash]

That’s a valid outlook and you’re free to do so, but we’ve seen enough scammers throughout history to know that simply having a good viewpoint does not mean much.

Remember that countless figures in the present day project great morals, progressive viewpoints, or socially conscious viewpoints, who turn out to be horrible people.

Even the Jeffrey Epsteins of the world project plenty of agreeable philosophies and worldviews.

Personally I am interested in a persons character, not that they speak about stuff I happen to agree with.

On the topic of Alameda, to pretend Caroline was not part of the scam loop is to remove her agency as a person who is at the head of an organization. She knowingly propagated this behavior, got rich off it, and continued it.