Sam Bankman-Fried’s interview about the collapse of FTX tells us a lot about him, about investors, and about regulation. Bankman-Fried chose to tell his story to New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin via video from the Bahamas. (See transcript.) Starting with a discussion of the many people were “hurt” by the business failing, Sorkin tried to hold Bankman-Fried responsible for billions of losses. He offers two divergent views of what happened to the company: that Bankman-Fried is a “young man who made series of terrible, terrible, very bad decisions,” or that he “committed a massive fraud—that this is a ponzi scheme, a manipulation of the system.”

Business communication students might see this as a false dichotomy. Bankman-Fried claimed that his goal was to “do right” by people and that he made mistakes. He said, “Look, I screwed up. I was C.E.O. I was the C.E.O. of FTX. And I say this again and again that it means I had a responsibility, and I was responsible ultimately for us doing the right things and didn’t. We messed up big.” But he denied setting out to commit fraud. Ross read a letter from someone who says he lost $2 million—his life savings—and that Bankman-Fried used his money to fund his hedge fund. Maybe both narratives are true, and Bankman-Fried isn’t seeing or admitting it.

Students might benefit from a class discussion or assignment about the investor perspective. Not to the blame the victim, but what accountability do investors have in this situation? What were they hoping to achieve compared to other investors—or compared to the general public who do not have $2 million to invest? Depending on how far you want to take this story, a discussion about regulation is certainly relevant, and students, particularly if they or they families have benefitted from crypto investments, might have a lot to say about it.

Otherwise, the video serves as a good example to analyze for delivery, persuasion, character, and interview skills. How is Bankman-Fried as a presenter? How does he balance logical arguments, emotional appeals, and credibility? What character dimensions are at play? Was it the best decision, going against his lawyers’ advice, to do this interview—and from his penthouse in the Bahamas? How well did he respond to questions? Overall, are students more—or less—favorable about Bankman-Fried after watching the interview?