I'm not sure reporting that Alameda + FTX had little to no financial controls, terrible accounting, and unaccounted for deposits is really puffery, unless you stretch the definition. And I've seen stories about SBF spending FTX money on personal loans and Bahamas real estate all over the legacy media. Even the restructuring CEO couldn't account for all the lost funds until recently
Coindesk said this about The New York Times' interview with SBF after the collapse:
"Yaffe-Bellany says Bankman-Fried stayed on the line for over an hour – and yet there are no direct quotes concerning the conflict of interest between FTX and Alameda, neither a confirmation or denial that SBF illegally commingled funds between the two or further admissions of guilt. There's little sense SBF, who stepped down from the exchange, is taking responsibility for the situation.
But, what, you want SBF to perjure himself? It’s a shame that Yaffe-Bellany wrote about Bankman-Fried’s cryptic Twitter thread, rather than the tweets he has been deleting. It sucks we know nothing more about the Bahamian withdrawals FTX opened, claiming it was at the behest of the island nation’s securities regulator – which the agency debunked."
> The NYT profiles I've seen is pretty clear that Alameda and FTX were mingling customer funds, that he refused to answer questions about the handling of funds, and that he was under investigation.
>> But he would offer only limited details about the central questions swirling around him: whether FTX improperly used billions of dollars of customer funds to prop up a trading firm that he also founded, Alameda Research. The Justice Department and the S.E.C. are examining that relationship.
OK no quote, but if there's no information why should they quote three repeated "no comments"? If he did not answer the question there's nothing quotable there, that doesn't make it a puff piece.
Maybe coinbase has political motivation to call reporting from certain media puff pieces?
