If you're talking about FTX: MIT is also not an Ivy League school.
The Ivy League is really just a sport league. Back when I was applying to colleges I read that Colgate was invited to join but when they declined Cornell was recruited instead. (but can't find anything about this on the web).
More generally, this is how the world works. Go look more deeply into how other great American heroes like Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Nobel, the Kennedy clan, LBJ, Fred Terman, David Packard, Bill Gates, Elon Musk et al operated. There's usually a pattern of failing upwards (usually at public expense) until they do the one thing that cements their legacy, and then doing their best to whitewash their deeds with philanthropy so everybody remembers them as a benefactor of universities rather than a cold-blooded murderer. People for whom the ends do not justify the means tended to meet untimely ends at the hands of those for which it does.
[1] https://www.whatitmeanstobeamerican.org/journeys/was-leland-...
They were both stupid and short-sighted in a way that the others weren't. They weren't competent.
There was no outcome where they went down in history as good, but were actually bad.
---
I think most of the "fallen heroes" you list have done things competently -- sometimes amazingly competently -- but their behavior was terrible in some standout cases.
To take Gates as an example, he started a company that arguably made the computing world worse off for a couple decades with anti-competitive tactics. He arguably "stole" a lot of money from his competitors.
Microsoft treats a lot of their enterprise customers like shit (but that's not a crime).
But I don't think Microsoft was at its core a fraudulent company (I personally avoid most of their products -- but then again I avoid a lot of software companies). It may have been bad, but at the end of the day there was and is an actual business there. It's qualitatively different than the frauds.
(Also, Microsoft arguably "invented" the idea of selling software (without hardware), which unlocked a lot of value. They were very early to the game. And, the more we learn, there seems to be less and less light between Google in the last 10 years and Microsft in the 90's. I also don't consider Google fraudulent at its core, though it's been taken over by bad actors.)
---
SBF is a lot closer to say Bernie Madoff. Madoff just took people's money and literally never invested it. He just had a computer program print up reports that showed 25% a year gains. He was running a confidence game.
SBF was maybe a hair better than that, since I guess he did actually perform crypto trades lol. (But if he had Madoff's regulatory access, he probably wouldn't have)
Either way, not much better. He sent the same kind of fabricated reports, and made up safeguards out of thin air, and he didn't produce anything positive to compensate for it. It was a pure loss for everyone!
Didn't they make their initial money basically rebranding an OS they licensed and then selling it to Intel, whose CEO was buddies with Gates' mom, with ridiculous terms?
And then I saw a tweet a while back, that I admittedly can no longer find, that if you filter for "Stanford" in that list, the ratio blows out to nearly 3:1 (ill-gotten gains:revenue).
SBF, Elizabeth Holmes, Do Kwon, Stan Cohen, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, and more.
They seem to produce or attract people for whom truth is an inconvenience and to whom the ends justify the means. Entitled people taught to "fake it til you make it" with some weird hyper-capitalistic/accelerationist philosophy. For whom a moral compass is only for the kids at state schools who don't have the right connections.