Sam Bankman-Fried Says FTX Was Never Insolvent — But Does His Claim Hold Up?

Sam Bankman-Fried is once again trying to rewrite the story of FTX’s collapse. In a new document dated Sept. 30, 2025, the disgraced founder insists that his now-defunct crypto exchange was “never insolvent” — only the victim of a liquidity crunch and a crisis of confidence.

According to Bankman-Fried, the $8 billion owed to FTX customers at the time of its November 2022 bankruptcy “never left.” In his view, the company always had enough assets to repay users “in full, in kind,” using the current payback efforts as a evidence of his claims.

“There have always been enough assets to repay all customers—in full, in kind—both in November 2022, and today.”

In his new account, Bankman-Fried paints FTX’s implosion as a classic bank run rather than a case of missing funds. As panic withdrawals surged into the billions, he claims FTX was in the process of selling assets, securing financing, and even preparing to resume withdrawals before the plug was pulled.

He argues that both FTX and its sister company Alameda Research had assets exceeding liabilities through most of 2022 — and even at the point of bankruptcy, internal records allegedly showed a balance sheet that was roughly neutral or positive.

But SBF’s defense goes further: he blames the bankruptcy process itself for destroying value. According to him, decisions made by the appointed administrators—including “poorly timed” asset sales—cost creditors billions in potential recovery.

The Missed Windfall Argument

SBF and his team highlight what they see as the ultimate proof of their claim: the soaring value of several key assets FTX once held. Tokens like Solana (SOL) and Sui (SUI), along with a private stake in Anthropic, have all skyrocketed since being liquidated by the estate.

In his telling, if FTX’s management had been left in place and allowed to wait out the market downturn, customers could have been repaid directly in crypto — and would now be sitting on enormous gains. Instead, because repayments are being made in U.S. dollar equivalents based on 2022 prices, SBF argues customers were denied the upside of the recent crypto bull run.

It’s a bold argument — one that positions him not as a fraudster, but as a misunderstood founder caught in a panic spiral.

A Story That’s Hard to Believe

Still, SBF’s narrative has glaring holes. The same bankruptcy investigation he criticizes uncovered massive intercompany loans, commingled funds, and billions in customer deposits diverted to Alameda — facts that severely undermine his “bank run” framing.

While it’s true that creditors are now on track to receive near-total repayment, that’s largely thanks to the bankruptcy team’s asset recovery and litigation wins, not SBF’s foresight. The “liquidity crunch” he describes was, in reality, a symptom of FTX’s structural misuse of funds.

Even if the numbers technically balanced at moments in time, the way they were managed — and who had access to them — remains the core issue.

A Redemption Attempt or Reputation Play?

Bankman-Fried, now serving a 25-year prison sentence for fraud and money laundering, is clearly attempting to reshape his legacy. His latest claims seem designed to position him as a fallen visionary rather than a criminal mastermind.

But while his arguments make for an intriguing thought experiment — what if FTX had simply been given more time? — the broader crypto community remains skeptical. After all, solvency isn’t just about assets exceeding liabilities on paper; it’s about trust, transparency, and responsible control of customer funds — all things FTX catastrophically lacked.

There’s no denying the irony here: FTX’s creditors are getting back more than they lost, a rarity in crypto collapses. But to frame that outcome as proof that the company was “never insolvent” misses the point. The returns stem from a booming market and diligent recovery efforts — not from the integrity of FTX’s internal systems.

If anything, this saga proves that crypto institutions must be built on transparency, not charisma or complexity. Bankman-Fried may be trying to reclaim the narrative, but numbers alone can’t rewrite history.