Michael Saylor, the Bitcoin enthusiast and founder of MicroStrategy, recently made an appearance on a crypto podcast hosted by Daniel Prince, in which he discussed the FTX fiasco. Saylor claims that there is a negative connotation that is associated with dealings between connected parties and public companies.
Because Alameda was a linked party to FTX and FTT, it is only fair that this should be the case. Sam Bankman-Fried was the founder of FTX, in addition to being the owner of Alameda and the issuer of FTT.
Saylor said that now, if you took FTX public, and by the way, FTX takes FTT, the concern that a skeptical investor would have is, well since the same individual controls all three, if it turns out that Alameda has a trading loss of one billion dollars, will SBF liquidate Alameda to protect the interests of other customers?
The former head of MicroStrategy proceeded to question again whether Bankman-Fried refrain from liquidating in order to protect his own interests? It is obvious that the discredited originator of the cryptocurrency will have a conflict of interest.
Saylor further claimed that an honest and disinterested CEO of the cryptocurrency bank would have lent Alameda anywhere from zero to ten million dollars, but the crook lent billions of dollars instead.
Michael Saylor and Daniel Prince also discussed a variety of topics, such as how Bitcoin has altered people’s perceptions of time, risk, and property; the year’s highlights and lowlights; securities conflicts at FTX; and their perspectives on whether or not nation-states would adopt Bitcoin.
In a related development, Peter Schiff, an American economist, has stated that Saylor and his firm have been accumulating Bitcoin in a desperate effort to preserve the company from liquidation.
