Like every other decision SBF would prefer you not examine: It fits because the ends justify the means.

It's important for the business that the insurance fund is safe. If you look closely you will find that it is unsafe. But if people believe it is safe you won't need the insurance fund, so do whatever you need to to inspire confidence in the insurance fund.

The safety (or not) of the insurance fund is not related to the need for it. The need would come from a counterparty defaulting - which is generally unrelated.

That's typical startup shenanigans, not specific to FTX. Lying to customers and embellishing the truth is business as usual. I'm sure they hoped that the plan is that at one point they'd turn this into a real insurance fund.

If that is the case then the standard operating procedures of startups is fraud, not that Sam isn't somehow a deliberate scammer and con artist.

FTX had "infinite money", so the actual insurance fund was that supply of money; having a pretend number on the front page was simpler than actually implementing it; in a sense it was a favor to investors, because it saved on operational costs.

(All things SBF may have told himself.)