The #SBF (#FTX) conundrum might be solvable by throwing these propositions into the mix:

1. He’s “earning to give”
2. He’s an utilitarian
3. He thinks that “the end justifies the means”
4. He’s explicitly risk-neutral

He simply computed the probability of getting away with financial engineering and deception times the potential increase in well-being (by tossing billions at #EffectiveAltruism causes), and that seemed to him higher than the odds of being caught times {investors and customers’ funds lost plus the huge reputational damage that would inflict to the #EA cause}.

So he pressed the red button and bet the world. And he lost.

It’s not trivial to find the flaw in his reasoning, though.

Exhibit A