The
story
of
Sam
Bankman-Fried
was
obvious
enough:
a
Shakespearean
level
of
arrogance
that
led
to
tragedy.
But
I
have
been
puzzled
for
some
time
by
Caroline
Ellison,
the
former
CEO
of
Alameda
Research
and
star
witness
of
the
FTX
trial.
Now,
after
her
sentencing,
I
believe
what
she
did
is
weirder
and
perhaps
sadder.
Ellison
spoke
on
her
own
behalf,
beginning
by
apologizing
to
everyone
she’s
hurt.
“I
think
on
some
level
my
brain
can’t
even
truly
comprehend
the
scale
of
the
harms
I’ve
caused,”
she
said.
“That
doesn’t
mean
I
don’t
try.
So
to
all
the
victims
and
everyone
I
harmed
directly
or
indirectly,
I
am
so,
so
sorry.”
Ellison
never
really
left
work
Ellison
went
on
to
say
that
she’s
always
thought
of
herself
as
an
honest
person
— and
that
her
2018
self
couldn’t
imagine
being
here.
“The
longer
I
worked
at
Alameda,
the
more
my
sense
of
self
became
inextricably
intertwined
with
what
Sam
thought
of
me
and
the
more
I
subordinated
my
own
values
and
judgment
to
his,”
she
said.
There
was
something
culty
about
FTX
and
its
sister
company,
Alameda.
The
crypto
industry
is
always
on,
which
tends
to
lead
to
sleep
deprivation
among
crypto
traders.
Many
traders,
including
Ellison,
rely
on
stimulants
such
as
Adderall,
which
suppresses
appetite
and
tiredness.
And
Ellison
never
really
left
work
— instead,
she
went
back
to
an
apartment
she
shared
with
her
friends
and
coworkers.
Leaving
would
have
meant
abandoning
her
nearest
and
dearest.
She
was,
as
she
put
it,
isolated.
“At
each
stage
of
the
process,
it
felt
harder
and
harder
to
extricate
myself
and
to
do
the
right
thing,”
she
said.
And
then
there
was
her
on-and-off-again
relationship
with
Bankman-Fried.
According
to
her
lawyer
Anjan
Sahni,
she
met
Bankman-Fried
when
she
was
in
college
and
had
a
crush
on
him
“from
the
beginning.”
Eventually,
her
entire
world
revolved
around
whether
she
made
him
happy
or
not,
which
resulted
in
diary
entries
like
“Sam
doesn’t
love
me
because
I’m
not
good
enough
for
him.”
She
went
on
to
write
“I
can
become
good
enough
for
him”
by,
among
other
things,
working
harder.
Some
of
this
can
be
chalked
up
to
inexperience;
those
of
us
who
are
older
know
this
is
not
how
a
job
— or,
for
that
matter,
a
relationship
—
works.
The
letters
submitted
on
Ellison’s
behalf
emphasized
that
she
was
a
good,
kind
person
— focusing
on
her
volunteering,
the
money
she
donated,
her
selflessness,
and
her
perfectionist
streak.
Cults
tend
to
attract
good
people,
smart
people,
people
who
want
to
make
the
world
better.
And
we
know
Ellison
was
already
associated
with
something
culty
— effective
altruism
—
that
also
purported
to
improve
the
world.
“Unlike
Bankman-Fried,
she
is
not
cunning.”
We
also
know
that
when
Ellison
got
caught,
she
immediately
came
clean.
That
was
part
of
the
reason
her
testimony
against
Bankman-Fried
was
so
“devastating,”
said
prosecutor
Danielle
Sassoon,
who
asked
for
a
lenient
sentence
for
Ellison.
She
was
credible “because
of
her
candor
and
her
refusal
to
minimize
her
own
role
or
sidestep
the
most
humiliating
aspects
of
her
conduct,”
Sassoon
said.
“Unlike
Bankman-Fried,
she
is
not
cunning.
There
is
no
evidence
that
she
was
driven
by
greed
or
that
an
appetite
for
risk
or
power
is
part
of
her
nature.”
Even
in
sentencing
her,
Judge
Lewis
Kaplan
remarked
on
Ellison’s
testimony.
“I’ve
seen
a
lot
of
cooperators
in
30
years,”
he
said.
“I’ve
never
seen
one
quite
like
Ms.
Ellison.”
Her
testimony
was
consistent
and
damning;
she
did
not
seek
to
exonerate
herself.
In
particular,
when
it
came
to
the
spreadsheets
of
doom
— the
forged
balance
sheets
that
essentially
sealed
Bankman-Fried’s
fate
— it
was
Ellison
found
the
document
and
alerted
prosecutors
to
it. It
was
like
she
was
seeking
a
perfect
grade
in
cooperating
with
the
government.
So
what
was
Ellison’s
nature?
The
diaries
she
submitted
with
her
sentencing
document
show
her
trying
hard
to
be
better
at
work
and
include
resolutions
such
as
“take
time
off
work
and
detox
from
Adderall.”
Ellison
appears
to
be
focused
on
trying
to
optimize
herself
as
much
as
possible,
giving
herself
bulletpointed
advice
such
as
“try
and
get
small
things
done
and
bootstrap
that
into
increasing
confidence”
and
“give
myself
positive
feedback
regularly.”
During
her
testimony,
listening
to
her
discuss
making
decisions
during
her
time
at
Alameda
was
like
watching
a
character
in
a
horror
movie
make
choices
that
played
right
into
the
killer’s
hands.
At
any
point,
a
willingness
to
be
both
selfish
and
disobedient
would
have
saved
her.
“For
some
reason
that
is
hard
for
me
to
understand,
Mr.
Bankman-Fried
had
your
Kryptonite,”
Kaplan
said.
Give
Ellison
an
authority
figure,
and
she
will
try
to
please
them
When
Ellison
joined
Alameda
Research,
for
instance,
she
discovered
Bankman-Fried
hadn’t
been
entirely
honest
with
her
about
the
company’s
circumstances.
There’d
just
been
a
mass
resignation
on
staff,
and
lenders
had
pulled
millions.
You
can
imagine
someone
else
hitting
the
bricks
— after
all,
Ellison’s
old
job
at
Jane
Street
probably
would
have
opened
doors
to
a
lot
of
other
places
if
she’d
been
able
to
handle
being
briefly
unemployed.
But
she
didn’t.
Instead,
according
to
her
testimony,
she
stayed
as
Bankman-Fried
convinced
her
that
lying
and
stealing
were
fine
in
the
service
of
the
greater
good.
Little
by
little,
she
got
more
comfortable
with
dishonesty,
until
she
was
sending
false
balance
sheets
to
lenders
and
taking
customer
money.
And
as
her
diaries
—
both
published
in
The
New
York
Times
and
submitted
as
part
of
her
sentencing
—
demonstrate,
she
wanted
to
make
Bankman-Fried
happy.
Maybe
Kaplan
had
a
tough
time
understanding
why
Ellison
got
sucked
into
this,
but
I
think
I
have
a
clearer
picture
now.
Give
Ellison
an
authority
figure,
and
she
will
try
to
please
them
— behaving
as
obediently
as
she
can,
stressing
about
how
she
can
be
better,
and
basing
her
happiness
on
how
close
she
comes
to
perfection.
A
straight-A
student,
a
reliable
employee
(and
co-conspirator),
and
—
eventually
—
a
matchless
cooperating
witness.
If
this
is
where
being
a
good
girl
gets
you,
I
recommend
being
bad.
Comments