I read this book. The tone of the entire thing is “look how amazing this guy is”.

If you read a book that presented Elizabeth Holmes or Bernie Madoff in this way, what would be your perspective?

I don’t pretend to have the facts or know for certain of anyone’s sure guilt, but a lot of the evidence is awfully damning.

(For example) Michael Lewis strongly insinuated that SBF took calculated and justifiable risk when losing track of $X00M for months at a time

It gets worse. Lewis is now saying that the jury should read his book, and that either the jury will acquit SBF, or they will "lynch" him. He's evidently convinced that SBF did nothing wrong.

https://hachyderm.io/@molly0xfff/111212491776903022

I wasn't aware that reading a hagiography on the main suspect is now a requirement for jury duty. It would seem that the judge might have a thing or two to say about that.

I haven't read the book but was inclined to give Lewis the benefit of the doubt given Matt Levine's take and Lewis' other work, but that Time interview really shifted my opinion. Lewis comes off terrible in that. The folks saying he got taken in by SBF make a lot more sense to me now.

To be fair, SBF is pretty amazing.

I just finished the Lewis book and he is completely sympathetic to SBF, if you listen to the audiobook which Lewis reads, his tone of voice is borderline apologetic.

The jabs at John Ray are so unfair, how is that guy the bad guy ?? I completely understand the pleasure he feels uncovering all the traces of crime, like a bankruptcy liquidator is often asked to do. Why is Lewis showing him as an incompetent fool that is losing money to greedy lawyer because he refuses to speak the the guy who blew through billions to save the world from a robot AI we could just have unplugged ?