Did they? The way I read it Sequoia bought ~$200m of magic beans from FTX, but in exchange banksman fraud invested ~$200mil back in Sequoia ventures.

That's a wash-bet. Nothing was gained.

Magic beans gained market cap and valuation.

Presumably Sequoia wouldn't have done it if they weren't getting anything out of it. Is it too crazy to assume that they agreed to invest ~200M, in return for ~200M back and a percent of some token or stream? Both they and SBF would know a 200M investment would attract serious attention and retail buyers but both would need the other to make the headline.

I don't want to sound too conspiratorial but seems odd they would bother to do a transaction for this while lending their name unless they were getting something back.

when Elon Musk talks about 'citizen journalism' disrupting the media, that post is what he means ... 'private historians' and puffers employed by VCs and oligarchs controlling the narrative.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591121142961799168

In this case it doesn't seem to matter whether the puffer is employed by a VC or the New York Times.

my personal view is, it does matter.

the biggest problem with NYT is they bend over backwards to appear neutral and give all sides the benefit of the doubt. it becomes doublespeak and provides cover for bad faith. for instance today's article on SBF - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/technology/ftx-sam-bankma... . it's an embarrassment to let him call looting client funds 'a margin position' without hard pushback.

but in the NYT they distinguish fact from opinion, and take reasonable steps to verify the stuff they print as fact. so even if they don't discount what SBF says as they should and draw the appropriate conclusions, a critical reader can. (even if it's while they are yelling at the screen)

so they are not going to print something like the Sequoia garbage that is completely one-sided, with technical absurdities and factual inaccuracies (and they will edit and copy-edit properly).

people say the NYT is 'biased' but I think that accusation is misguided. Of course they have a point of view (like, democracy and government are usually good good). the word 'bias' presumes the existence of some unbiased reference frame like 19th century ether theory. many people who call things 'biased' are just announcing, my own point of view is the one that must be privileged.

the question is not, do they have a point of view, but what is the point of view, is it transparent, do they check facts and distinguish between fact and opinion and dig regardless of who benefits.

the crap media is this stuff that prints bogus facts, is one-sided and self-serving, doesn't distinguish between fact and opinion.

and yes, it's important to note that Musk and other people want to control the narrative with their own crap media like this, and a Twitter zone flooded with BS.

Why is everything about Elon musk?

Is this the new Trump Derangement Syndrome?