SBF Prison Interview: The Real Reason Democrats Completely Abandoned Me Was Private Donations to Republicans | In-Depth Conversation

Original Interview: Tucker Carlson, American political commentator;
Guest: SBF, FTX Founder;
Original Translation: DeepSeek

Editor's Note: In this interview, SBF and Tucker Carlson discussed his life in prison, interaction with Diddy, betrayal by the Democratic Party, 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 FTX crash, and criticized the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) regulation of the cryptocurrency industry. While he still believes in the principles of effective altruism, he acknowledged that helping others requires a deeper understanding. The interview also touched on SBF's uncertainty about the future and his struggles in legal and interpersonal matters.

The following is the original content (slightly reorganized for readability):

What Is Prison Life Like?

Tucker Carlson: Where are you right now?

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

Tucker Carlson: What's it like there? How long have you been there?

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

Tucker Carlson: What has the experience been like?

SBF: It's a bit of a dystopian feeling, to be honest. Luckily, there's no physical danger where I am. And truth be told, many of the staff here are indeed trying to help; they are doing what they can under the current constraints. But ultimately, no one wants to be in prison. You can imagine, putting 40 people in a room, all of whom have been charged with at least some crime, and locking them up for years, throwing away the key. In that situation, even the most mundane things become their sole focus.

Tucker Carlson: Really? Have you encountered any issues?

SBF: Nothing particularly severe, like not being physically attacked. But I've had many logistical issues, the most serious of which was that I could hardly access legal materials during my trial. Usually, the process on trial days involves waking me up at four in the morning, then I spend five hours shuttling between various buses, trucks, and holding rooms until the morning hearing starts. Then court goes on until five in the afternoon, followed by another four hours of holding and transportation, so by the time I'm back in my cell, it's already 9 p.m., and by then, I've missed the window to review legal documents. This was the biggest obstacle for my case.

Tucker Carlson: So what do you usually do when you're not in court?

SBF: There's not much to do in prison. I read, started reading novels again, occasionally play chess, and try to prepare as much as possible for my legal cases. I have appeals and other legal matters, so I do everything I can. But the most frustrating thing in prison is the lack of meaningful things to do.

Tucker Carlson: Honestly, we haven't talked before, but I've been following you. I also want to say that regardless of what someone is accused of or has done, I feel sorry for all people in prison. I don't think people should be locked up.

Tucker Carlson: Of course, I know the law requires it, but I really feel sorry for everyone in jail. You can call me a "liberal," but I have to say, after two years of prison, you actually look healthier and less tense than before.

SBF: You know, I had a lot of time to reflect on how to communicate with people. Looking back, I think I didn't do well in communication, especially when the crisis first broke out and in the following month. I made a mistake I often make—I got lost in the details and forgot to see the big picture.

Did SBF take drugs before going to jail?

Tucker Carlson: Every time I saw you on TV, you seemed excited as if you had taken Adderall. But now you don't seem like that. Did you really not take anything back then?

SBF: No, I didn't. My thinking was almost stagnant because there were too many things to handle. Usually, during the FTX days, I would be giving interviews, but at the same time, there might be two urgent issues in the company that needed to be resolved. So I would be replying to messages on Slack while doing the interview. Additionally, I knew there were other things to do after the interview, and I hadn't prepared yet, so I was already trying to plan ahead in my mind.

Tucker Carlson: So the digital world might not be good for us? What's your opinion? You are now forced to stay away from your phone, that feeling must be quite significant, right?

SBF: Indeed, but if you ask me, I 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, without the digital world, achieving anything would become exceptionally difficult.

SBF Meets Diddy in Prison

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

SBF: Yes, he was indeed. But... I don't know how to put it. He was quite friendly to me. I also made some friends. The environment here is peculiar, with a few high-profile individuals similar to me, as well as many young people, or some so-called former gang members and the like.

Tucker Carlson: Indeed, the "so-called" former gang members. So, how was Diddy himself?

SBF: I only saw one side of him, the real-life Diddy. He was friendly to everyone here, including me. But this is definitely a place no one wants to be in. Obviously, he doesn't want to be here, and I want even less. As he put it, this place is soul-crushing for anyone. And what we can interact with here is just the people around us in the same situation, not the outside world.

Tucker Carlson: Right, I can imagine. And you two are arguably the most famous prisoners in the world, locked up in the same facility. How do others, like those armed robbers, view you both?

SBF: That's an interesting question. Of course, some people might see this as an opportunity to meet people from different circles that they wouldn't normally have a chance to encounter. From their perspective, this idea actually makes sense, although it's completely the opposite for me.

Tucker Carlson: So you don't see it that way, do you?

SBF: No, but sometimes, laughter might be the only thing you can do. You know? These people are particularly good at chess, that's one thing I've learned here. For example, those former armed robbers from the past, many of them can't speak English, may not even have completed middle school, but they are quite good at chess. Of course, I'm not saying they are grandmasters, but their level far exceeded my expectations. I often lose to them, which I never expected.

SBF's Shift in Perspective after Prison

Tucker Carlson: Have these experiences altered your perspective?

SBF: I think this is just a part of a broader awareness. One of the most profound things I've learned in my life, and something I still don't fully understand, is—our so-called intelligence, IQ, of course, is important, hard work is crucial, but beyond that, there are some things we can't accurately define. I still haven't found the right words to describe it. But some individuals, with these indescribable qualities, demonstrate extraordinary abilities that even surpass everyone's expectations.

Of course, not everyone possesses these traits, and everyone's situation is unique. But at FTX, we often encounter such situations—some individuals who, based on their resumes, seem to lack any standout achievements or relevant experience, yet end up outperforming the majority of the company. They have resilience, intuition, a strong sense of commitment; they know how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to quickly find solutions to problems. These qualities often prove to be more important than mere intelligence or experience.

Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I've seen many people make big money in the financial field who appear particularly foolish, but evidently, they possess some kind of talent that I can't understand. They are the kind of people in my eyes.

SBF: Hmm? I am curious about the type of people you are referring to. I used to work on Wall Street, and there were indeed all sorts of people there.

Despite SBF's substantial donation, the Democratic Party still refuses to bail him out

Tucker Carlson: I don't want to delve too much into the details of your case, but overall, your company seemed to have tried to build political connections through political donations. This is not surprising; many entrepreneurs do this, and it can even be said to be an industry norm. However, you donated so much money to the Democratic Party, I thought they would ultimately save you. What about your Democratic Party friends? They usually ensure that their people don't end up in prison; for instance, Tony Podesta is doing fine, so why did you end up behind bars?

SBF: Obviously, I can only speculate on the answer because I cannot know their true thoughts. But one fact may be worth noting—even in 2020, my stance was center-left-leaning, and I donated to Biden's campaign team. At the time, I optimistically believed he would be a stable center-left president. In the following years, I frequently visited Washington and spent a lot of time there, with dozens of visits. But I was shocked by what I saw, and the direction of this administration was far from ideal. By the latter half of 2022, I had begun privately donating to the Republican Party, with the amount almost matching what I gave to the Democratic Party. Moreover, around the time of the FTX collapse, this fact started becoming known to people.

Tucker Carlson: Why were you shocked? I know you spent a long time in Washington and interacted with many political figures. What shocked you?

SBF: Some things were more extreme than I had initially been concerned about, such as cryptocurrency regulation. I never thought the Democratic Party as a whole would perform well in financial regulation, but there are some good people within both parties, as well as many thoughtful policy-makers.

However, the presence of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under Gary Gensler's leadership is nothing short of a nightmare. For example, if a company wants to offer a product or service in the United States, the SEC will directly sue them for not being registered. But if the company goes to Gensler, expresses willingness to register, and asks under what category to register, the SEC's response is usually — "There is no suitable registration category for you," or there may be no solution at all.

They demand that companies obtain certain licenses, but they themselves do not know how to issue these licenses. Essentially, the entire cryptocurrency industry is trapped in this situation. This is a very unsettling phenomenon that I have witnessed.

Tucker Carlson: Can you elaborate on this further? Even someone like me, an outsider, can see that Gary Gensler is clearly corrupt, which everyone knows. But what are his motives? What does he really want?

SBF: Although I cannot get into his mind, I can share some impressions. He loves power, and of course, many people enjoy wielding power, and he is no exception. To some extent, this is a power struggle. He wants his agency to have more power, even though he does not have a real plan to drive industry progress, but rather wants to hinder the advancement of the entire industry. For example, he demands that all crypto companies register with him, but if these companies do not approach him, he will lose power. Even if he does not know how to regulate these companies, he still wants them under his jurisdiction.

There are many rumors about him (Gary Gensler), saying that he is very politically ambitious, thinking that if he can get enough exposure on media like MSNBC, express enough views, shape his image, perhaps one day he could become an important figure like the Secretary of the Treasury. He has successfully become one of the prominent figures in the Democratic Party in the financial regulatory field, which is not common.

Tucker Carlson: Interesting, it sounds very typical of Washington style; I have seen similar situations before.

SBF: It's not out of moral considerations, nor is it because he holds deep-rooted communist beliefs, right?

Tucker Carlson: Right, I also know it's not that. His drive seems more like self-interest rather than some firm belief. So, when things start to deteriorate, and you are facing criminal charges, or when you realize that you might be facing criminal charges, after donating so much money to the Democratic Party in the past...

Typically in business, donors usually call the politicians they have funded and say, "Hey, I'm in trouble, can you help me?" Have you reached out to Chuck Schumer or other politicians you have supported, asking them to pressure the Department of Justice of the Biden administration to help you get out of trouble?

SBF: I did not, for multiple reasons. First, I didn't want to do anything inappropriate. Second, many people quickly made their stance clear and swiftly distanced themselves from me. By that point, my relationship with the Republican party in Washington may have been better than with the Democratic party, although this was not obvious from the outside.

SBF: There is actually a more complex story behind this, involving a law firm that played an unusual role in the case. But before I gave up control of FTX, or even before filing for bankruptcy, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had already made up their mind to come after me.

Tucker Carlson: So you didn't try to pull strings or ask for help? Interesting. So, how do you see the future of cryptocurrency? Obviously, given your experience, your feelings on this topic may be quite complex. After all, you once ran a cryptocurrency company and are now in prison because of it. But you have a deep understanding of this industry, and the cryptocurrency space is evolving rapidly. What do you think its future looks like? I know this question may seem odd to you, but I can't help but ask.

The Future of Cryptocurrency Under Trump's Leadership

SBF: Well, I hope the future will be better. Look at what was said when the Trump administration took office; many aspects were positive. There are many differences compared to the current administration, especially in the direction the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken.

Obviously, enforcement is the most important thing; in fact, we are now in this stage — we will see how the future unfolds. It's not surprising, government turnover sometimes brings change, but financial regulatory bodies are massive institutions that can't change instantly. Over the past decade, they have been a significant barrier in the cryptocurrency space. You see, the U.S. has 30% of the global financial share, but only about 5% in the cryptocurrency market, and this is entirely a regulatory issue. The U.S. is particularly challenging to work with in this regard.

SBF: So the big question is, when a real challenge arises, will the current government make the necessary decisions and find the right way to enforce them?

Tucker Carlson: I remember when cryptocurrency first entered the public eye, the perception was that it was a currency that could restore individual business freedom. In other words, I could buy and sell things without government control and still ensure privacy. But obviously, that has never happened and it seems like it never will. Now, cryptocurrency seems to be just another asset scam. What about privacy? How did all this change?

SBF: In fact, this is also related to technology, such as payment methods like remittances—these are not just investment issues, many people once believed that cryptocurrency could bring about change in the world. You see, the progress of these things is usually slower than the speed of investment. In fact, the rise of social media is similar; you will see bubbles grow and burst continuously, with very rapid changes, while technological development is built on a longer-term foundation.

Currently, cryptocurrency has not yet developed to the stage where it can be used daily by a quarter of the global population. The goal has not been reached, but it is not far off either. If—this is an assumption—this industry continues to progress, without being overly distracted by market price fluctuations, then in five to ten years, you can imagine a world like this: by then, anyone can have a cryptocurrency wallet, and even a billion people can use it every day, ensuring privacy, security, speed, affordability, global reach—all the things initially promised, rather than being distracted by hype and speculation.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think governments around the world would allow this situation to happen? If the global population were to engage in financial transactions without government control, wouldn't governments collapse immediately?

SBF: In fact, there is a lot of discussion about the extent of regulatory control. Take Bitcoin as an example, where wallets are anonymous, but every transaction has a public ledger. So, governments can obtain some degree of information without complete control.

But it should be noted that not all governments in the world have the same view on this matter. For the past 30 years, the U.S. government has had a certain view on global monetary affairs, not only the U.S., but countries like France also have a similar stance. Another view you see is more authoritative, and even in many authoritarian countries, this control is more closed. And half of the countries in the world actually do not attempt such large-scale government intervention in daily financial transactions as the U.S. does.

Does SBF Still Have Money?

Tucker Carlson: After going through all this, do you still have money?

SBF: Basically, no. The company I previously owned has already gone bankrupt. If there had been no intervention, it would now have about $150 billion in debt and about $930 billion in assets. So theoretically, the answer is yes, at that time or now there is enough money to repay everyone, with plenty of interest remaining, and leaving behind hundreds of billions for investors. But things did not unfold that way. Instead, everything was sucked into bankruptcy, the assets were rapidly depleted by the controllers, who drained away billions of dollars in value. It was truly a huge disaster. And my failure to prevent all this from happening is the biggest regret of my life.

Tucker Carlson: You know everyone in the crypto industry. Before the charges and all of this happened, you were one of the most famous people in the industry. 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 obviously no. I think the Department of Justice might think I am, but I don't care about their opinion.

Tucker Carlson: You are now in prison. Anyway, that's their claim. But I want to know, I have indeed criticized your business and similar businesses in the past. However, I won't delve into the details of your case because it's too complicated. I just want to ask, do you think there is a lot of shady behavior in the crypto industry? Honestly.

SBF: Yes, the answer was obviously yes 10 years ago, 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 transactions—or at least a significant portion of them—were used for some shady purposes. For example, Silk Road, where people bought drugs online, was a common use of cryptocurrency at that time. Obviously, every industry has its criminals, but over time, the proportion of this in the industry has decreased significantly. Part of the reason is the growth in other aspects of the crypto space, and also because of more government intervention in anti-money laundering. So, there are still some now, but not as prevalent as before.

Tucker Carlson: You were once renowned for your worldview or ideology of "effective altruism"—some might even say it's a religion. At its core, the idea is to do the greatest good for the most people, that you make money to help as many people as possible. It has been pointed out that ironically, about a million people lost funds when your company folded. So, in your pursuit of "doing the most good for the most people," a lot of people were hurt. I wonder, has all of this made you reconsider the principles of effective altruism?

SBF: This has not made me reconsider those principles. Obviously, I feel very bad about what happened. That was not at all what I wanted, nor was it anyone's intention. When you mess up, the outcome can be different. Ultimately, people got their money back, but the waiting process was painful. They got back in dollars, not in the original form. And most of what I had hoped to do for the world disappeared with the collapse of the company.

Tucker Carlson: What I want to say is, I think most people find it hard to understand this idea: that helping people you have never met is more worthwhile or valuable than helping people right 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 this is the intuition of most people. But you disagree.

SBF: I disagree, but with one caveat. Indeed, a classic mistake that people often make — one that I have made at times as well — is assuming you know what those distant from you truly need. It's a bit of a top-down approach. You know, many international aid projects have ultimately failed, wasting money entirely, because no one really understood the lives of those being helped. They simply guessed at what the other side needed, and the result was often wrong. For example, they took a bunch of water pumps to a Fijian village that didn't lack water but lacked food. These individuals dropped out of Harvard to distribute these unwanted water pumps. Similar examples abound. And when you help those you know, you clearly understand better how to help them. This effect is real. Even though I believe a life in one place is as important as a life in another, it doesn't mean you know equally well how to help everyone.

Tucker Carlson: I feel like you are arguing against your own position. What I mean is, my issue with effective altruism is that it's too easy. For instance, eradicating polio is easy, but making the same woman happy for 30 years is very hard. So perhaps doing the harder thing is more meaningful.

SBF: What I mean is, take malaria, for example; in the U.S., basically no one dies from malaria anymore. But globally, about 1 million people still die from malaria each year, which is terrible. This is a disease we should have already eliminated, and we absolutely should address this issue worldwide. But just because it is "easy" to some extent, that shouldn't stop us from helping others. You see, if we were to put resources into many interventions in the world's poorest areas, the scale of resources needed isn't actually huge. If done efficiently, it wouldn't have a significant impact on our domestic aid. But efficiency is key. You can freely distribute useless water pumps to villages without food, but it won't help anyone.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, I think you make a valid point. The past 60 years of aid to Africa have proven this, even though life expectancy is decreasing. But as a moral issue, how can you prove that while worrying about malaria, your cousin is addicted to Xanax? Shouldn't you address that issue first?

SBF: If I can. But ultimately, we all have a responsibility. If I know my cousin well and know how to address this issue, then I absolutely have a responsibility to do so. But if I try and fail, make no progress, and yet I can save lives internationally, or someone can, I don't think it diminishes what they can do for good internationally, even if they can't solve their own family's issues.

Tucker Carlson: Well, I see what you're saying. I don't think that's a crazy point of view. One last question: Can you think of a recent international aid project that has been clearly successful?

SBF: To some extent, yes, but I wouldn't pinpoint a specific project. It's not a government project but rather some private initiatives. In fact, malaria is a prime example. Through primarily private donations, the global malaria incidence has significantly dropped, especially in Africa and India, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of lives annually, with an average cost of a few thousand dollars per life saved. In relative terms, this has been a staggering success.

We're not talking about a trillion dollars, but rather billions of dollars that have been very carefully deployed for malaria prevention. Of course, you can also see some government projects that are utterly ineffective. If you want to find a successful government project, the Marshall Plan might be a good example—although that dates far back—it was hugely successful in reconstructing Germany post-World War II.

Tucker Carlson: Yes, although we might have undone all of that through blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline. But you're right. How old are you now?

Can SBF Really Get Paroled?

SBF: To be honest, I have to think about that. Time becomes blurry in prison, every day is the same as the one before, all blending together. The answer is, tomorrow is my birthday, so right now I'm 32, but soon to be 33.

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

SBF: I don't celebrate. I've never really been big on birthdays even when I'm outside, and in prison, it's just another year gone by, nothing particularly exciting for me.

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

SBF: Maybe someone else will tell him, but I have no plans to.

Tucker Carlson: Well, you'll be 33 tomorrow. If you're not pardoned, how old will you be when you get out of prison given the current scenario?

SBF: That's a complex calculation, and I'm not entirely clear on the details as there is a possibility of parole. If you simply add my sentence to my age, the answer is close to 50.

Tucker Carlson: Can you handle that?

SBF: Sorry, I misspoke. With all possible sentence reductions, it might be in my 50s. But the correct answer is, I was convicted at 32 with a 25-year sentence, so it would be 57.

Tucker Carlson: You've served 2 years, with 23 to go. Do you think you can make it?

SBF: That's a good question. I'm not sure. The hardest part is that there's nothing meaningful to do here. You see, research shows that the suicide rate in prison is about three times higher than in normal circumstances. So, multiplying the 25-year sentence by 3, plus my age of 32 at conviction, might give an answer. Maybe.

Tucker Carlson: I find this a bit strange. You might be the most extreme example I've spoken to of someone going from one world to a completely different world. You were in the world of cryptocurrency, and now you're in a world with no money. What is the medium of exchange in prison?

SBF: You know, it's what people have on hand. Like honey buns, those little plastic-wrapped honey buns you see at gas station counters, stored in a plastic ball, packaged a week prior and left at room temperature. Imagine that kind of thing, that's the standard. Or it's a pack of ramen noodle soup, or a pack of disgusting-looking, oil-soaked fish that's also at room temperature.

Tucker Carlson: So, you've transitioned from cryptocurrency to the honey bun economy. Got it. How do you compare the two? Obviously, honey buns are less likely to circulate internationally, but as a currency, what do you think?

SBF: In the short term, honey buns are unlikely to become a global strategic reserve currency. They are a demand currency, with no other purpose and not much store of value. But ultimately, they have some fungibility. Though not entirely fungible, they are close enough. Two honey buns are about the same, so you can exchange them. As long as the transaction amount is not more than $5, they can still be used. But if you want to make a $200 transaction with honey buns, that's not realistic.

Tucker Carlson: Too cumbersome.

SBF: Exactly. One thing you quickly realize is that everything in prison is downsized. You'll see people fighting over a banana, not because they care so much about the banana, but because they have no other outlet.

Tucker Carlson: That sounds harsh. Do you actually eat those honey buns? Or just use them for trade?

SBF: I just use them for trading. I don't eat them. I mainly eat rice, beans, and ramen.

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

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

Tucker Carlson: Have you ever thought about getting one?

SBF: I did consider getting a tattoo at one point. But after talking to some of my fellow inmates about their sterilization process—or lack thereof—the idea was quickly dismissed. I lost interest in getting a tattoo; it's not worth the risk of contracting hepatitis. They probably sterilize the needle after using it on four or five people.

Why did everyone around SBF abandon him?

Tucker Carlson: Well, so you won't be getting a tattoo. Now that you're out of the outside world and facing a 23-year sentence, I'm wondering, the people you've helped—I mean, you went to prison for harming someone, but you've also donated millions of dollars to help many people in Washington. Have any of them reached out to wish you good luck and all the best? Or did they say nothing?

SBF: At the immediate aftermath of the collapse, I received many friendly messages, including some from people in Washington. But six months later, no one contacted me anymore. By the time the trial came around, I was in jail, and there was no more communication. It became too politically sensitive, and people were not willing to take the risk of reaching out to me. I even heard that some people spoke kindly of me in private, but no one was willing to contact me directly.

Tucker Carlson: Has anyone reached out to you? I noticed that someone I thought was your girlfriend testified against you in court. Do you have friends who have been loyal to you all this time, or almost none?

SBF: Yes, but very few. I later realized that anyone close to me would eventually be threatened. They were given two options, one of which could mean decades of imprisonment. Ryan Salem is the most heart-wrenching example, and from the government's perspective, the most despicable. They accused him of some completely absurd crimes. He said, "No, let's meet 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 imprison his wife. No legal system would allow the prosecution to do that. And, he wasn't even charged with most of the crimes that the other plea bargainers were. Ryan didn't testify in the trial because he didn't want to lie, didn't want to say what the government wanted him to say. And he ended up with a sentence four times longer than the other three combined. The message couldn't be clearer. Was it because he's a Republican, or because he refused to cooperate with the government's lies in court? I can only think of these two reasons why he would be sentenced to seven and a half years.

Tucker Carlson: This is disgusting. I have interviewed him at home. I believe they even charged his wife. Their actions are completely unethical.

SBF: Absolutely agree. They have violated their commitment, which has utterly shattered any notion of their integrity. This is disgusting. He is a good person, and he should not have to endure this.

Tucker Carlson: Have you realized how fast the world outside is changing? By the time you get out of prison, the world may be completely different from when you left. For example, the development of AI, it sounds like we are approaching Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or some kind of singularity.

SBF: Yes, I deeply feel that. It's a feeling of a world moving forward while you are left behind.

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

SBF: No. Different people in the community have different views on this. Over the past five years, I have felt like I have around 300 children every day—my employees. Obviously, I can't treat them all like a father, but I have a responsibility to them. I am very saddened by the destruction of their work. But in running FTX, I had almost no personal life. Now in prison, I clearly don't have the conditions to have children either.

Tucker Carlson: Have any of those 300 employees visited you in prison?

SBF: No. I think the answer is no. Maybe one or two may have come.

Tucker Carlson: You might want to consider having a few real children at some point because when things go bad, they will be there for you.

SBF: This made me start thinking about what real reliance is and to what extent the intimidating tactics in some of our country's systems can reach. But it also made me realize how crucial it is to have people to rely on.

Tucker Carlson: Others are everything. SBF, I appreciate you accepting this interview, probably the only time you weren't asked about business because that's someone else's issue. But I'm glad I talked to you about these things, and I hope you send our regards to Diddy.

SBF: I will definitely do that.

Tucker Carlson: I can't believe you and Diddy are in the same prison.

SBF: I know, right? If someone had told me three years ago that I would be hanging out with Diddy every day, I would have found it very amusing. I wonder if he has also ventured into cryptocurrency?

Tucker Carlson: Life is truly strange. Wishing you all the best, thank you. It seems like YouTube is suppressing this show. From one perspective, this is not surprising, as that's what they do. But from another perspective, it's shocking. With so many changes happening in the world, in our economy and politics, on the brink of war, Google has decided that you should receive less information, not more. This is entirely wrong. What can you do tomorrow? We can complain, but that would be a waste of time. We cannot control Google. Or we can find ways to bypass it, so you can truly access real information rather than deliberately misleading information.

「Original Article Link」