Sam Bankman-Fried Blames Lawyers for FTX’s $100B Collapse, Claims Exchange Was Never Insolvent

Sam Bankman-Fried, the embattled founder of FTX, has returned to the public spotlight with a fresh attempt to rewrite the story of his exchange’s collapse. In a new statement posted on X, he insists that FTX was never insolvent and places full blame on lawyers and bankruptcy administrators for destroying what he claims was more than $100 billion in value.

Fresh Allegations Point to Lawyers in FTX’s $100B Value Wipeout

Bankman-Fried’s post, published on October 30, 2025, argues that FTX’s downfall was not caused by mismanagement or fraud but by outside legal advisors who pushed the company into unnecessary bankruptcy proceedings. He claims that if left alone, the exchange could have recovered from its liquidity shortfall and repaid customers by late November 2022.

In his 15-page document, Bankman-Fried accuses John J. Ray III and law firm Sullivan & Cromwell (S&C) of seizing control of the company and selling off assets such as Solana, Anthropic, and Robinhood shares at deep discounts. He argues that this process wiped out enormous value for stakeholders and deepened losses that could have been avoided.

That’s over $120 billion of lost value so far. $120 billion that would have gone to FTX’s stakeholders if the Debtors had simply done nothing at all.

Sam Bankman-Fried 

He maintains that the so-called “liquidity crisis” in November 2022 was a temporary cash flow issue, not a true insolvency. According to him, FTX was in talks to secure $8 billion in financing to fill the shortfall before being forced into bankruptcy.

Bankman-Fried’s claims center on these main accusations:

• Lawyers from Sullivan & Cromwell allegedly pressured the company into bankruptcy unnecessarily.
• The appointed administrators, he says, removed competent internal teams familiar with the business.
• Key assets were sold below market value, erasing potential future gains.
• The insolvency narrative was deliberately exaggerated to justify control by outsiders.
• Stakeholders could have been fully repaid had FTX been allowed to continue operations.

Despite the elaborate defense, his statements have drawn sharp criticism from across the crypto community. 

Bankman-Fried’s Defense Met with Backlash as Critics Reject His Latest FTX Claims

Many users on X dismissed his remarks as self-serving and out of touch with reality. Critics accused him of trying to justify actions that amounted to misuse of customer funds and argued that his continued defense only shows he has not accepted responsibility for the collapse. 

Crypto investigator ZachXBT also pushed back, arguing that FTX’s creditors were repaid based on cryptocurrency prices at the time of the bankruptcy—prices that have since surged.

Observers see Bankman-Fried’s renewed public presence as an attempt to reshape public opinion ahead of future legal battles or appeals. His portrayal of FTX as a solvent company undone by its lawyers clashes sharply with court findings and the testimony of former executives, who detailed how billions in customer funds were diverted to cover losses at Alameda Research.

While his latest explanation seeks to reclaim his reputation, many industry voices say the damage—both financial and reputational—is beyond repair. FTX’s downfall remains one of the largest corporate collapses in crypto history, leaving users with shattered trust and massive losses.

For many in the crypto community, Bankman-Fried’s repeated claims that FTX was financially sound are viewed as repetitive and unconvincing. His continued efforts to defend his actions are seen as an attempt to revive a story that most investors and observers consider closed.