The Battle of the Experts
In the high-stakes courtroom drama surrounding Sam Bankman-Fried, an expert witness is gearing up to enter the fray like a superhero through a cloud of legal fog. The witness, Joseph Pimbley from PF2 Securities, has been duly summoned to challenge the narratives spun by former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison and other FTX big shots regarding their financial entanglements.
What Will Pimbley Say?
Pimbley is set to wow the court with data pulled directly from the FTX database, specifically detailing how Alameda’s line of credit danced around the $1 billion to $3 billion range from October 2021 to September 2022. And let’s not forget June 2022—when the line of credit apparently took a nosedive. This testimony hopes to outline a clear timeline of fiscal fortune (or misfortune?) that paints a different picture than Ellison’s testimony.
The Numbers Game
Among the treasure trove of figures that Pimbley will unveil, he plans to reveal that the majority of balances for non-FTX and non-Alameda users are seated pretty in the realms of USD, Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Tether (USDT). What’s more, over 75% of these user balances are enjoying the fruits of spot margin trading, lending, or kicking it back while futures activity occurs, offering a counter-narrative to the earlier claims of Alameda’s extravagant credit usage.
What’s at Stake?
This isn’t just about numbers; it’s about setting the stage for a new narrative. Pimbley’s evidence aims to undermine the assertions made by Ellison, FTX co-founder Gary Wang, and other prominent figures who claimed that Alameda was given free rein on a seemingly unlimited credit line, giggling all the way to the bank — or at least to the trading platform. As the courtroom drama unfolds, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The Costs of Expertise
Pimbley isn’t working for peanuts — he’s raking in $720 an hour plus expenses. Now, that’s a princely sum for an expert whose only interest lies in clarifying the foggy details surrounding this tangled web of alliances and financial maneuvering. It’s reassuring to hear he claims to have “no financial interest” in the case’s outcome, but we’ll chalk that up to courtroom etiquette.
