I’m a huge Michael Lewis stan. I’ve loved every book of his I’ve read (and all the movies based on them), and frequently listen to his podcast. I also have worked as a software developer for a cryptocurrency project for almost three years. So when I saw these two interests of mine colliding in Going Infinite, I slammed that pre-order button hard and finished this book within a week, light speed for me these days. The book details the rise and collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and his crypto exchange, FTX. If you’re here, I’m assuming you have at least the basics of the story. So I want to focus less on the quality of the book (from a narrative standpoint, it’s pretty good, albeit not my favorite of Lewis’s), and more about the discussion it sparked.

SBF is Human

There’s been a lot of criticism directed at Lewis for this book, primarily because he was at least partially sympathetic towards SBF, both as a person, and about SBF’s side of the story when it comes to the collapse. Mostly I’m seeing a lot of people that are upset that SBF was painted as an odd human being, rather than the caricature of a sociopathic fraudster that everyone has already determined SBF to be¹. I have a few problems with this:

1. You’re misunderstanding the point of Michael Lewis, he’s not an investigative journalist or a judge searching for scandal, he’s a writer who has a knack for finding interesting, complexly human characters amidst unusual circumstances.
2. I don’t think it’s particularly flattering towards SBF at all.
3. The book doesn’t attempt to absolve him of anything the U.S. government has accused him of.

There’s been accusations that Sam put Lewis under his spell, and uses that visionary-jedi-mind-trick shit that Elizabeth Holmes was still pulling off even after Theranos went kaput. Or even that Lewis was wowed into loving SBF after being brought to ritzy parties with Leonardo DiCaprio and Hillary Clinton². Or even more ridiculously, that Lewis was bribed by SBF to portray him positively³. I think Lewis was certainly fascinated by Sam, and tried to paint him as a human being (as much as he can resemble one) with plenty of flaws, and also as someone who would most definitely risk a bunch of money that he should not have been risking.

SBF Is Compelling

Lewis spends a lot of time on SBF’s positive qualities. He paints SBF as interesting and intelligent, a curious case of someone with almost negative charisma that turns it around into dazzling sophisticated investors and media types with his brilliance and quirkiness. This is a perfect character for Lewis, but I’ve heard a lot of people claim that mentioning these parts of SBF at all is proof that Lewis sees SBF as innocent or an overall good person. Or that Lewis is lying about these traits purely to puff up SBF. This is part of what I’m talking about that people have created a caricature of pure evil and negativity that SBF must match, or else Lewis is a fraud. If SBF wasn’t smart and compelling, none of us would be here. The same way Jobs bedazzled audiences with his vision and intelligence while being a raging asshole behind closed doors, SBF was an interesting person who managed to charm plenty of people, who also happened to have massive character flaws. Calling SBF intelligent, a good trader, or an interesting person to talk to doesn’t deny that he can also be a manipulative, irresponsible, prick. If he were just the last 3 things, I don’t think he would have gotten as far as he did, and Lewis would never have written about him.

SBF is a Dick

SBF exhibits great qualities for a Wall Street trader; if given a good enough argument, he’ll unwaveringly commit, even if he personally has reservations. He ignores any personal hangups or emotions and follows whatever will most probably produce his desired outcome. And that desired outcome is not always bad, but he’s very ends-justify-the-means coded. He has no problem disregarding others’ emotions and desires in pursuit of his own. Through how SBF treats his friends (exploiting their talents until they are no longer of use), his employees (making huge demands and failing to manage, empathize, or generally give a shit about their problems), and his girlfriend (emotionally neglecting her until he wants sex from her, then love-bombing until he gets what he wants and leaves), Lewis shows incontrovertibly that SBF is an emotionally manipulative asshole.

As far as SBF is concerned, books are stupid, boring, long, and should be shortened to a blog post. Adults are stupid too, anyone over the age of 30 has nothing useful left to say or do in their life (I wonder how this became a self-fulfilling prophecy given SBF’s conviction at the ripe age of 31). In fact, most everyone in the world is stupid besides SBF, because according to himself, SBF is a being of pure logic and thought rather than all those messy emotions that cloud judgement. Except for all those times that Lewis mentions his actions were clearly influenced by irrational emotion and lust, like when he moved the entire headquarters of FTX twice because of where his on-and-off girlfriend was located. Lewis showcases uncountable red flags in SBF’s personality, and while there is some acknowledgement of his better qualities, I don’t see how anyone could see this book as complimentary of Sam the person.

SBF Would Totally Do Illegal Shit

He’s a gambler that has had reckless and illegal bets pay off before. It’s very clear that if he can make a bet he thinks he’ll win, he’ll take it.

Alright, I’ve talked about how I think the book was good and painted SBF as a human, albeit not a sympathetic one. Now for the issues I have with it, which have grown in severity as I’ve written this.

It’s Weird Lewis Didn’t Mention The Thing(s)

Lewis has mentioned that he left certain things out of the book because he felt it didn’t fit the story. This isn’t as sinister as it usually sounds (remember point 1 at the beginning of this), but it does remind us that he’s looking for an interesting tale, not so much an exhaustive expose to be read aloud in a court room. Even so, there are some bits that I think are pretty relevant to the story, and at the least it’s odd that Lewis doesn’t include them.

Molly White goes over these omissions in more detail; basically Lewis would mention something SBF did or said, but Lewis neglected to explicitly call out that the thing he did or said was immoral, illegal, or a lie. I’d be more willing to brush these omissions aside with the idea that Lewis wants to only tell the event how they happened, and not pass judgement. But in his other books, The Big Short, The Fifth Risk, and The Premonition Lewis has no problem calling organizations and individuals out as corrupt, incompetent, or evil. So while he never defends SBF’s actions⁴, he never admonishes them either. And that leaves a bad taste in my mouth now that I compare how he handled figures like Trump in his previous books.

Also, you’ve got to talk about when Sam Bankman-Fried tries to explain himself. It’s a conversation SBF has with a reporter soon after the walls start to tumble down where he disavows his image as an effective altruist, claiming it was all just a PR stunt. In fact, all of his talks of ethics and altruism was a front for his true 4D chess match of minimizing risk to his reputation while maximizing returns to his bank account. I think this is a crucial part of SBF’s story, and for Lewis to not even mention it (the book was being written while this came out) still baffles me. Lewis’ ongoing argument through the book is that SBF was nothing if not dedicated to his ideals, and while the ideals were admirable, Lewis paints SBF as a person who would do immoral, illegal, and emotionally abusive things on the road to those goals. Lewis definitely should have called out when SBF realized his goose was cooked, that he said, “nah, jk” to what those goals even were. Maybe Lewis didn’t want to include anything other than his own experience in the book? But come on man, give it a footnote at least.

Behind the Bastards

I’m a fan of another podcast, Behind the Bastards, a wonderfully researched and funny exploration into some of history’s worst people (plus some less worse ones). They did a short series on SBF when he was under investigation, and then posted updates shortly after his conviction. That 2 episode update was primarily a Michael Lewis beat down. I won’t go over all of it here, but it had some convincing arguments and information that helped sway me towards the side of Lewis being more wrong than right in his book. While it also contains some fallacies that I argue against at the beginning of this review, I found it to largely be the best critical-of-Lewis side of this argument I’ve seen.

Effective Altruism

Scott Alexander’s defense of effective altruism is a worthy read in the face of all this. Much like Lewis’ praise of SBF’s intelligence doesn’t make Lewis a fraud, SBF’s fall does not make effective altruism a fraud. I think it’s a movement that has caught a lot of undeserved stray shots in these SBF headlines. People donating their money for effective good in the world is always a win in my book, assuming they’re balancing their motives and bets.