SBF: Private donations to the Republican Party are the reason why the Democratic Party has completely abandoned me

Source: MarsBit

Editor's Note: In this interview, SBF and Tucker Carlson discussed his life in prison, his interactions with Diddy, the Democratic Party's betrayal of him, the future of cryptocurrency, and his reflections on effective altruism. SBF described the monotony and challenges of prison life, reflected on the reasons for the collapse of FTX, and criticized the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)'s regulation of the cryptocurrency industry. Although he still believes in the principles of effective altruism, he admits that helping others requires a deeper understanding. The interview also touches on SBF's uncertainty about the future and his dilemmas in legal and interpersonal relationships.

The following is the original content (the original content has been reorganized for easier reading and understanding):

What is prison life like?

Tucker Carlson: Where are you now?

SBF: I'm in a small room at NDC in Brooklyn.

Tucker Carlson: How is it here? How long have you been here?

SBF: I've been in prison for about two years.

Tucker Carlson: What was that like?

SBF: It was a bit dystopian, fortunately, there was no physical danger where I was. And to be honest, a lot of the staff here really tried to help, they were doing what they could within the current restrictions. But at the end of the day, no one wants to go to jail. You can imagine putting 40 people in a room, all of whom have been charged with at least one crime, for years, and throwing away the key. In this situation, even the most trivial things will become the only things they care about.

Tucker Carlson: Really? Did you encounter any problems?

SBF: Nothing too serious, like I wasn't attacked or anything like that. But I had a lot of logistical problems, the biggest of which was that I had very little access to legal documents during my trial. Usually, the trial day would be, they woke me up at 4 a.m., and then I'd spend five hours in various buses, trucks, and waiting rooms until the morning trial started. Then the trial would be in session until 5 p.m., and then another four hours of waiting rooms and transportation, and then I'd get back to my cell at 9 p.m., and by then I'd have missed the legal documents. That was the biggest obstacle to my case.

Tucker Carlson: So what did you do when you weren't in court?

SBF: There wasn't much to do in prison, I read books, I started reading novels again, I played chess occasionally, and I did what I could to prepare for my legal case. I had an appeal, and other legal matters, and I did what I could. But the most frustrating thing about prison was the lack of meaningful things to do.

Tucker Carlson: To be honest, we haven't talked about this before, but I've been following you. I also want to say that no matter what a person is accused of or what they have done, I feel sorry for all the people who are in prison. I don't think people should be locked up.

Tucker Carlson: Of course, I know the law requires that, but I really feel sorry for all the people who are in prison. You can call me a "liberal," but I have to say that after two years in prison, you seem healthier and less emotionally tense than before.

SBF: You know, I've had a lot of time to reflect on how to communicate with people. Looking back, I think I didn't do a good job of communicating, especially when the crisis first broke out and in the next month. I made a mistake I often make - I got so caught up in the details that I forgot to grasp the overall situation.

SBF Were you taking medication before you went to prison?

Tucker Carlson: Every time I saw you on TV, I thought you looked like you were high on Adderall. But now you don't look like that. Were you really not taking it at the time?

SBF: No, I wasn't. My mind was almost at a standstill because there was so much to process. Normally, during that time at FTX, I would be doing an interview, but at the same time, there would be two urgent issues at the company that needed to be addressed. So I was answering messages on Slack while doing the interview. Plus, I knew there would be other things to do after the interview that I hadn’t had time to prepare for, so in my mind I was trying to plan ahead.

Tucker Carlson: So the digital world might not be good for us? What do you think? You’re being forced away from your phone right now, which must be a big feeling?

SBF: It is, but if I had to choose, I would still prefer the digital world. Ultimately, for me, it’s not about enjoyment, entertainment or leisure, it’s about productivity, and the ability to make an impact in the world. From that perspective, it would be extremely difficult to get anything done without the digital world.

SBF meets Diddy in prison

Tucker Carlson: So did you make friends there? How did you hang out with Diddy? I heard he was in there too.

SBF: Yes, he was. But… I don’t know how to put it. He was very friendly to me. I made some friends. It was a strange environment. There were a few people who had high-profile cases similar to mine, and a lot of young people, or so-called ex-gang members and so on.

Tucker Carlson: It was indeed “so-called” ex-gang members. So, what about Diddy himself?

SBF: I only saw one side of him, the real Diddy. He was very friendly to the people here, and to me. But after all, this is a place that no one wants to be in, obviously he doesn’t want it, and I don’t want it either. As he said, this is a soul-destroying place for anyone. And the only people we can interact with here are the people around us who are also in it, not the outside world.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I can imagine. And you two are two of the most famous prisoners in the world, and you are in the same unit. What do other people, like the armed robbers, think of you?

SBF: That’s a very interesting question. Of course, some people might see this as an opportunity to meet a different group of people who they wouldn't normally have the chance to meet. From their perspective, that's actually a logical thing to think about, even though it's not the case for me at all.

Tucker Carlson: So that's not what you think, is it?

SBF: No, but sometimes, laughing might be the only thing to do. You know what? These people are really good at chess, and that's one thing I learned here. For example, many of the former armed robbers, who didn't speak English and might not have even graduated from junior high school, are pretty good at chess. Of course, I'm not saying they're chess masters, but they're much better than I expected, and I often lost to them, and I didn't expect that at all.

SBF A Change in Perspective After Incarceration

Tucker Carlson: Has this experience changed your perspective?

SBF: I think it's just part of a broader perception. One of the most profound things I've learned in my life, and one that I still don't fully understand, is that what we call intelligence, IQ, is important, and hard work is important, but there's something else that we can't define. I still haven't found the right words to describe it. But some people, with these ineffable qualities, demonstrate extremely outstanding abilities and even exceed everyone's expectations.

Of course, not everyone has these qualities, and everyone's situation is different. But at FTX, we often encounter this situation - some people have almost no highlights from their resumes and no relevant experience, but they eventually surpass most people in the company. They are resilient, intuitive, and have a strong sense of commitment. They know how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to quickly find solutions to problems. These things are often more important than pure IQ or experience.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I've seen a lot of people who make a lot of money in the financial field. They look very stupid, but obviously they have some kind of talent that I can't understand. They look like that in my eyes.

SBF: Huh? I'm curious about what type of person you are talking about. I used to work on Wall Street, and there are really all kinds of people there.

Despite SBF's large donations, the Democrats refused to rescue him

Tucker Carlson: I don't want to get into the details of your case, but overall it seems that your company was intentionally using political donations to build political relationships. This is not surprising, many entrepreneurs do this, and it can even be said to be an industry practice. But you donated so much money to the Democrats, I would have thought they would eventually rescue you. What about your Democratic friends? They usually keep their people out of jail, such as Tony Podesta, so why did you go to jail?

SBF: Obviously I can only guess at the answer because I have no way of knowing their true thoughts. But there is one fact that may be worth noting - even in 2020, my position was center-left, and I donated to Biden's campaign team. I was optimistic that he would be a moderate center-left president. In the following years, I went to Washington frequently, stayed there for a long time, and made dozens of visits. But I was shocked by what I was seeing, and the direction of this administration was not ideal. By mid-to-late 2022, I had started privately donating to Republicans in the same amount as I did to Democrats. And that fact began to become known around the time when FTX collapsed.

Tucker Carlson: Why were you shocked? I know you've been in Washington for a long time and have been in contact with a lot of politicians. What shocked you?

SBF: Some things were more extreme than I had originally worried about, like cryptocurrency regulation. I never thought that the Democratic Party as a whole would do well in financial regulation, but there are some good people in both parties and a lot of thoughtful policymakers.

But the SEC under Gary Gensler was a nightmare. For example, if a company wanted to provide a product or service in the United States, the SEC would sue them directly on the grounds that they were not registered. But if a company goes to Gensler and says they want to register and asks what category to register under, the SEC's response is usually - "There is no registration category for you" or even no solution at all.

They require companies to obtain certain licenses, but they don't know how to issue them. Basically, the entire cryptocurrency industry is stuck in this situation. This is a very disturbing phenomenon I see.

Tucker Carlson: Can you explain it in more detail? Even an outsider like me can see that Gary Gensler is obviously corrupt, and everyone knows that. But what is his motivation? What does he want?

SBF: Although I can't get into his head, I can share some impressions. He likes to be in power, of course, many people like to be in power, and he is no exception. In some ways, this is a power struggle. He wants his agency to have more power, even if he has no real plan to promote the industry, but just wants to stop the entire industry from moving forward. For example, he requires all crypto companies to register with him, but if these companies don't come to him, he will lose power. Even if he doesn't know how to regulate these companies, he still wants them to be under his jurisdiction.

There were a lot of rumors about him (Gary Gensler) that he was very ambitious politically and felt that if he could get enough exposure on MSNBC and other media, express enough opinions and shape his image, maybe one day he could become an important position like Treasury Secretary. He has successfully become one of the Democratic Party’s faces in the field of financial regulation, which is unusual.

Tucker Carlson: Interesting, that sounds very Washington style, I have seen similar situations before.

SBF: It was not out of moral considerations or because he had deep-seated communist beliefs or something, right?

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I know that’s not the case. He was driven more by personal interest than by some deep-seated belief. So when things started to go bad and you were criminally charged or realized that you might be criminally charged, you had donated so much money to the Democratic Party before.

In business, it's common for donors to call politicians they've funded and say, "Hey, I'm in trouble, can you help me?" Did you contact Chuck Schumer or other politicians you supported to ask them to pressure the Biden administration's Department of Justice to help you out?

SBF: I didn't, for a number of reasons. First, I didn't want to do anything inappropriate. Second, a lot of people were very quick to make their positions clear and quickly distanced themselves from me. By that time, I was probably better connected with Republicans in Washington than I was with Democrats, although that wasn't clear to the outside world and wouldn't have been so obvious from the outside.

SBF: There's actually a more complicated story behind this involving a law firm that played an unusual role in the case. But the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had already made up its mind to deal with me long before I gave up control of FTX and even before the company filed for bankruptcy.

Tucker Carlson: So you didn't try to pull strings or ask for help? Interesting. So, what do you think about the future of cryptocurrency? Obviously, you have mixed feelings about this topic because of your experience, having run a cryptocurrency company and now being in jail for it. But you know the industry well, and the cryptocurrency space is moving very quickly. Where do you think it’s headed? I know this is a bit of a strange question for you, but I couldn’t help but ask.

The Future of Crypto Under Trump

SBF: Well, I hope it’s better. If you look at what the Trump administration said when it came into office, a lot of it was positive. There are a lot of differences compared to the current administration. Especially the direction that the SEC has taken.

Obviously, enforcement is what matters, and we’re actually in that phase now—we’ll see how it goes. It’s not surprising, sometimes changes in government can bring about changes, but financial regulators are huge, they’re not the kind of institutions that can change instantly. They’ve been a big hindrance to the cryptocurrency space over the past decade. You see, the U.S. has a 30% share of global finance, but only about 5% of the cryptocurrency market, and it’s all about regulation. The United States is particularly difficult to work with in this regard.

SBF: So the big question is, when the real challenge comes, will the current government make the necessary decisions and find the right way to execute?

Tucker Carlson: I remember when cryptocurrency first came into the public eye, the idea was that it was a currency that would restore the freedom of commerce to individuals. In other words, I could buy and sell things without government control and still have privacy. But obviously, that never happened and it looks like it never will. Now it seems that cryptocurrency is just another asset scam. How did the privacy thing go away? How did all this change?

SBF: Actually, it's also about technology, like remittances, payment methods, etc. - these are not just investment issues, and many people once thought that cryptocurrency could change the world. You see, these things usually move slower than investment. In fact, the rise of social media is similar, you see bubbles growing and bursting, changes very quickly, and the development of technology is based on a longer-term foundation.

Right now, cryptocurrency has not yet developed to the stage where it can be used by a quarter of the world's population every day. The goal is not there yet, but it is not far away. If - and this is a hypothesis - the industry continues to progress and is not overly distracted by market price fluctuations, then in five to ten years, you can imagine a world where anyone can have a crypto wallet, and even a billion people can use it every day, and it is private, secure, fast, cheap, international - all the things that were promised, without being distracted by gimmicks and hype.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think governments will allow this to happen? If the global population is really allowed to conduct financial transactions without government control, wouldn't the government collapse immediately?

SBF: There is actually a lot of discussion about the degree of regulatory control. If you look at examples like Bitcoin, the wallet is anonymous, but there is a public ledger for every transaction. So, the government can obtain a certain degree of information without complete control.

But it is important to point out that not all governments in the world have the same view on this matter. The US government has a view on the control of global monetary affairs for the past 30 years, not just the United States, but countries like France have similar positions. The other view you see is more authoritative, and even in many authoritarian countries, this control is more closed. And half the world doesn't actually try to have the kind of massive government intervention that the United States has done in everyday financial transactions.

Does SBF still have money?

Tucker Carlson: Do you still have money after what happened?

SBF: Basically, no. The company I previously owned went bankrupt. Without the intervention, it would now have about $15 billion in liabilities and about $93 billion in assets. So in theory the answer is yes, there was or is enough money to pay everyone back, even with a lot of interest left, and leave tens of billions of dollars for investors. But it didn't work out that way. Instead, everything was swept into bankruptcy, and the assets were quickly consumed by the controllers, who siphoned off tens of billions of dollars worth of funds. It was a huge disaster. And the fact that I didn't prevent this from happening is the biggest regret of my life.

Tucker Carlson: You know everyone in the crypto industry. You were one of the most famous people in the industry before the allegations and all this happened. To be as honest as possible, do you consider yourself the biggest criminal in the crypto industry?

SBF: I don't think that's a crime. So the answer is clearly no. I think the DOJ probably thinks I am, but I don't care what they think.

Tucker Carlson: You're in jail now. That's what they say, anyway. But I'm wondering, I did criticize your business and others like it in the past. I'm not going to get into the details of your case, though, because it's too complicated. I'm just asking, do you feel like there's a lot of shady behavior in the crypto industry? Be honest.

SBF: Yeah, 10 years ago the answer was clearly yes, at least relative to the size of the industry. If you look at around 2014 to 2017, the industry was much smaller than it is now, and a lot of the transactions - or at least a large portion of them - were for some shady purposes. For example, Silk Road, where people were buying drugs online was one of the common uses of cryptocurrency at the time. Obviously, there are criminal elements in any industry, but that portion of the industry has declined significantly over time. Part of that is due to the growth of other aspects of the crypto space, but also because of more government involvement in anti-money laundering. So, there is still some, but it's not as prevalent as it used to be.

Tucker Carlson: You've been known for a worldview or ideology - you might even say a religion - called "effective altruism." The core idea is that you do the most good for the most people, and you make money to help as many people as possible. Some people have pointed out that, ironically, about a million people lost money when your company collapsed. So, in the effort you describe to "do the most good for the most people," a lot of people were hurt. I wonder if all of this has made you rethink the principles of effective altruism?

SBF: It hasn't made me rethink them. Obviously, I feel really bad about what happened. It was not at all what I wanted or what anyone had intended. If you had screwed up, it could have turned out differently. Eventually people got their money back, but the wait was painful. They got it back in dollars, not in the form it was meant to be. And most of the good that I had hoped to do for the world was lost with the collapse of the company.

Tucker Carlson: What I would say is that I think it's hard for most people to grasp the idea that helping people you've never met is more worthwhile or valuable than helping people in front of you. In other words, helping your wife, girlfriend, mother, daughter, brother, college roommate is more valuable than helping a village in a country you've never been to. I think that's what most people intuitively feel. But you disagree. SBF: I disagree, but only on a premise. Indeed, a classic mistake people make - and I've made it at times - is to assume you know what people need when you don't really know them. It's kind of condescending. You know, there are so many international aid programs that fail and are a complete waste of money because no one really knows the lives of the people being helped. They just guess what they need, and they're often wrong. For example, they took a bunch of water pumps to a village in Fiji that didn't have a shortage of water, but they did have a shortage of food. These people dropped out of Harvard to hand out these pumps that no one wanted. There are so many examples like this. And when you help people you know, you obviously know how to help them better. This effect is real. Even if I think that life in one place is as important as life in another, it doesn't mean that you know how to help everyone equally.

Tucker Carlson: I feel like you're contradicting your own position. I mean, my problem with effective altruism is that it's too easy. Like, eradicating polio is easy, but keeping the same woman happy for 30 years is very hard. So, maybe it makes more sense to do something harder.

SBF: I would say, take malaria, for example, nobody in the United States is dying from malaria anymore, basically nobody. But globally, it still kills about a million people a year, which is horrible. It's a disease that we should have eradicated, and we absolutely should be addressing it globally. But because it's somehow "easy," that shouldn't stop us from helping people. Look, if we put resources into many of the interventions in the poorest parts of the world, the scale of the resources required is actually not that large. If it's done efficiently, it won't have much of an impact on our domestic aid. But efficiency is key. You can hand out useless water pumps to villages with no food, but it's not going to help anyone.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I think you have a point. Aid to Africa over the last 60 years has proven that, even though life expectancy is falling. But as a moral question, how can you justify worrying about malaria while your cousin is addicted to Xanax? Shouldn't you fix that problem first?

SBF: If I can. But at the end of the day, we all have a responsibility. If I know my cousin well and I know how to fix that problem, then I absolutely have a responsibility to do it. But if I try and I can't do anything and I can't make progress, and I can save lives internationally, or someone can do it, then I don't think that diminishes the good that they can do internationally, even if they can't fix the problem in their own family.

Tucker Carlson: Okay, I see what you're saying. I don't think that's a crazy point. Last question: Can you think of a recent international aid program that was clearly successful?

SBF: To some extent, but I wouldn't say which one. It wasn't a government program, it was some private program. Malaria is actually a good example. Through mostly private donations, malaria rates have been dramatically reduced worldwide, especially in Africa and India, saving probably hundreds of thousands of lives a year, at an average cost of a few thousand dollars per life saved. In relative terms, that's an astonishing success.

We're not talking about $1 trillion, we're talking about billions of dollars that have been put toward malaria control through very careful work. Of course, you also have government programs that are completely ineffective. If you want to look for a successful government program, the Marshall Plan is probably a good example - although that goes back a long time - it was a huge success in rebuilding Germany after World War II in many ways.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, although we may have ruined that by blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline. You're right, though. How old are you now?

Will SBF really get out of prison?

SBF: To be honest, I'd have to think about it. In prison, time blurs, and every day is the same as the day before, blending together. The answer is, tomorrow is my birthday, so I'm 32 now, but I'm going to be 33 soon.

Tucker Carlson: How are you going to celebrate your birthday?

SBF: I'm not. I don't really celebrate birthdays when I'm out there, and celebrating another year in prison is not exciting for me.

Tucker Carlson: So you're not going to tell Diddy it's your birthday tomorrow? I don't believe it.

SBF: Maybe someone else will tell him, but I don't plan on it.

Tucker Carlson: Well, you're going to be 33 tomorrow. If you hadn't been pardoned, how old would you have been when you got out of prison, given the current situation?

SBF: It's a complicated calculation, and I don't know all the details, because there are possibilities for commutations. If you simply add up my sentence and my age, the answer is closer to 50.

Tucker Carlson: Can you handle that?

SBF: Sorry, I misspoke. If you add in all the possible commutations, it's probably in the 50s. But the correct answer is, I was 32 when I was convicted, and I was sentenced to 25 years, so 57.

Tucker Carlson: You've served two years, and you have 23 years left. Do you think you can make it?

SBF: That's a good question. I'm not sure. The hardest thing is that there's nothing meaningful to do here. You see, there are studies that show that the suicide rate in prison is about three times what it should be. So, 25 years times three, plus the fact that I was 32 when I was convicted, might give you an answer. Maybe.

Tucker Carlson: I think that's a little strange. You're probably the most extreme example of someone I've talked to who has jumped from one world to another completely different world. You've been in the world of digital currency, and now you're in a world without money. What is the medium of exchange in prison?

SBF: You know, what people have on hand. Take muffins, the little muffins that come in plastic, like you see at a gas station counter, in a plastic ball, and inside that is a week-old individually wrapped muffin that's been sitting at room temperature. Imagine that kind of thing, that's the standard. Or a package of ramen soup, or a package of fish that looks gross and is soaked in oil, also at room temperature.

Tucker Carlson: So, you went from crypto to the muffin economy. Exactly. How do you compare the two? Obviously muffins are harder to circulate internationally, but as a currency, what do you think?

SBF: Muffins are unlikely to become a global strategic reserve currency in the short term. They're a demand currency that has no other uses and doesn't have much to recommend it. But at the end of the day, they're somewhat fungible. Not completely fungible, but close enough. Two muffins are about the same, so you can trade them. As long as the transaction is less than $5, they're still usable. But if you want to do a $200 transaction with a muffin, that's not realistic.

Tucker Carlson: Too clunky.

SBF: That's right. One thing you realize very quickly is that everything in prison is scaled down. You'll see people fighting over a banana, not because they care about that banana, but because they have no other outlet for it.

Tucker Carlson: That sounds brutal. Do you eat those muffins? Or do you just trade them?

SBF: I just trade them. I don't eat them. I mostly eat rice, beans, and ramen.

Tucker Carlson: It looks like it's good for you. Do you have tattoos?

SBF: I don't. I know some people do, but I don't.

Tucker Carlson: Have you ever thought about it?

SBF: I did think about getting a tattoo. But talking to fellow inmates about their sterilization procedures - or lack thereof - put that idea behind me. I'm not interested in getting a tattoo. It's not worth the risk of getting hepatitis. They sterilize the needles after they've used them on maybe four or five people.

Why did everyone around SBF abandon him?

Tucker Carlson: Okay, so you don't get tattoos. Now that you're out in the world and facing a 23-year sentence, I wonder, the people you helped - I mean, you went to prison because you hurt people, but you also helped a lot of people in Washington by donating millions of dollars. Did any of them call you and say, "Good luck, hope everything works out for you"? Or did they say nothing?

SBF: In the immediate aftermath of the collapse, I received a lot of friendly messages from people, including some in Washington. But six months later, no one contacted me. By the time of the trial, I was in jail, and there was no news. It became so politically sensitive that people didn't want to risk contacting me. I even heard people say good things about me privately, but no one wanted to contact me directly.

Tucker Carlson: Did anyone contact you? I noticed that someone I thought was your girlfriend testified against you in court. Do you have friends who have been loyal and supportive? Or almost none?

SBF: Yes, but rarely. I later learned that anybody who was close to me would eventually be threatened. They were told there were two options, one of which could mean decades in prison. Ryan Salem was the most heartbreaking example, and the most disgusting example from the government's perspective. They charged him with some completely ridiculous crimes. He said, "No, we'll see you in court." So the government came back and said, "Well, what about your pregnant wife? What if we put her in jail?" So he pleaded guilty because the government threatened to lock up his wife. No legal system would allow prosecutors to do that. And he wasn't even charged with most of the crimes that the other people who pleaded guilty were charged with. Ryan didn't testify at trial because he didn't want to lie and say what the government wanted him to say. And he ended up getting four times more than the other three people combined. The message couldn't be clearer. Was it because he was a Republican or because he refused to play along with the government's lies at trial? Those are the only two reasons I can think of that they sentenced him to seven and a half years.

Tucker Carlson: It's disgusting. I interviewed him at his home. I think they also charged his wife. What they did was completely unethical.

SBF: Absolutely agree. They broke their promise, and it completely shatters any notion that they had any integrity. It's disgusting. He's a good man, and he didn't deserve this.

Tucker Carlson: Do you realize that the world out there changes so quickly? By the time you get out of prison, the world may be completely different than when you left. For example, the development of AI, it sounds like we're getting close to artificial general intelligence (AGI) or some kind of singularity.

SBF: Yeah, I feel that deeply. It's a sense that the world has moved on and you're being left behind.

Tucker Carlson: Is having children part of your philosophy of effective altruism?

SBF: No. Different people in the community have different views on it. I feel like I've had about 300 children every day for the last five years - my employees. Obviously, I can't treat all of them like a father, but I have a responsibility to them. I feel very sad that their work has been destroyed. But I had almost no personal life when I was running FTX. Now in prison, I obviously don't have the luxury of having kids.

Tucker Carlson: Did any of those 300 employees visit you in prison?

SBF: No. I think the answer is no. One or two people may have.

Tucker Carlson: You should probably consider having some real kids at some point because they'll be there for you when things get bad.

SBF: It made me think about what real support is and the extent of intimidation in some of the systems in our country. But it also made me realize how important it is to have people you can support.

Tucker Carlson: Other people are everything. SBF, I appreciate you doing this interview, probably the only one where you're not asked about your business because that's other people's business. But I'm glad we talked about this and I hope you'll give our regards to Diddy.

SBF: I definitely will.

Tucker Carlson: I can't believe you're in the same jail as Diddy.

SBF: I know, right? If someone had told me three years ago that I'd be hanging out with Diddy every day, I would have found it hilarious. I guess he's into crypto, too?

Tucker Carlson: Life is weird. I wish you the best, and thank you. It looks like YouTube is suppressing the show. In one sense, that's not surprising, that's what they do. But in another sense, it's shocking. At a time when so much is changing in the world, in our economy and politics, on the brink of war, Google has decided that you deserve less information, not more. It's just wrong. Tomorrow, what can you do about it? We can complain, but that's a waste of time. We can't control Google. Or we can find ways around it so that you actually get real information, not deliberately misleading information.