Stealing the Future is the first book to tell the true and full story of Sam Bankman-Fried and his historic crimes. It chronicles the $11 billion FTX fraud with the detail and nuance of a financial fraud expert and cryptocurrency insider - but unlike any book before it, it also traces the ideas that enabled the crime. "Effective Altruism" and related tendencies, such as longtermism and transhumanism, remain dangerously influential in today's Silicon Valley. Despite Bankman-Fried's pose as a cuddly liberal philanthropist, they are now center stage in the global rise of the far right, and also lie at the heart of OpenAI, the tech darling that took FTX's place as the face of the future.
David Morris, author of Tactical Firearms Training Secrets, is a specialist in practical firearms training and survival techniques. His book, published in 2012, focuses on teaching tactical skills that can be practiced at home using methods like dry firing and airsoft. It emphasizes cost-effective ways to develop advanced shooting skills without extensive range time. Morris is also known for offering advice on broader preparedness topics in other works, including urban survival.
I was really looking forward to this book, but it was a disappointing read. That may have more to do with the nature of SBF’s crime than the author. At the end of the day, SBF just stole money from his customers. And he didn’t do it very well. The cover up was poorly executed. The fraud is easy to understand. Because the crime was so simple minded, David Morris tries to drive the narrative by hammering away at SBF’s motivation as a member of the Effective Altruist cult. This just gets repetitive and boring. In the end, the story just lacks the energy of other infamous financial frauds like the Enron and Madoff scandals.
An over-ambitious book. Perhaps if the author had narrowed his research to one small topic, he may have been able to contribute something valuable. Instead, the book attempts to sweep a broad range of ideologies, people, and companies into one grand conspiracy, and in doing so, sacrifices some much-needed depth of argument.
I also found the frequently derisive tone unnecessary and quite off-putting, particularly given the author's acknowledgement that the main subject of his derision is neurologically unable to ever experience happiness.