Okay. So he's on house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, and if he flees his parents will never recover financially. What's the problem?

Some people may see it as unjust that SBF gets to chill in a $4mm Palo Alto house while some of his depositors may not have houses as a result of having their funds stolen by SBF.

That makes sense, but shouldn't impact the decision of the court, since he's presumed innocent.

I'm totally game for working for a more equitable society where everyone gets to live in dignity even if they put their money into bad crypto exchanges though. Let's definitely do that, regardless of what happens in this case.

> on house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, and if he flees his parents will never recover financially. What's the problem?

That it’s not a jail. Jails are tougher to get out of than ankle bracelets.

His parents are going to spend the rest of their lives fighting civil lawsuits, if not criminal cases of their own. Losing their home is a matter of time. It is difficult to even say to what degree their plight matters to him.

What do you believe their motivation is for contributing towards his bail based on the consequences they're facing? It seems somewhat strange they didn't say, "nah, lock him up until trial" considering the sword of Damocles above their estate and past performance of the accused.

> What do you believe their motivation is for contributing towards his bail based on the consequences they're facing?

The love of a parent for their son. That's a benefit of doubt I'd need to see extraordinary evidence of sociopathy to discard.