Nascent
Crypto investment and research firm across protocols, markets, and on-chain infrastructure.
ABAB Structured Brief
Nascent is indexed in ABAB Crypto Map under Crypto VC. This page keeps the official site, category, tags, and related ABAB coverage together as a searchable crypto project profile. Official domain: nascent.xyz.
Related News & Analysis
VeVe & David Yu: From Physical Collectibles Entrepreneur to a Global Digital Collectibles Ecosystem — Rise, Business Empire, and Controversies
1、VeVe was not founded by David Yu alone. The two core co-founders are David Yu — legally identified in ECOMI disclosures as David Shu-Han Yu — and Daniel “Dan” Crothers. Over VeVe’s history, David has generally functioned as the founder-CEO, collector, strategic public face and key figure around the company’s direction and licensing relationships, while Crothers has been the other founding operator. ECOMI’s 2025 MiCA disclosure identified David as Founder/Co-CEO and Daniel Crothers as COO/Co-Founder. After Ben Rose’s departure, however, VeVe explicitly returned to a founder-led model, and by 2026 EY identified David simply as “Co-founder and CEO of VeVe.” For that reason, David is the appropriate primary subject when discussing “the founder” of VeVe, but Dan Crothers is indispensable to any accurate account of the company’s creation. 2、David Yu’s background is unusually different from that of the stereotypical Web3 founder: his starting point was collecting, gaming, retail and licensed merchandise, not blockchain. The New Zealand Herald described Yu as a “collector maniac,” reported that he had spent roughly 25 years in the gaming-retail business and owned two Auckland Vagabond Games & Collectables stores. The article also described his extensive personal collection, including New Zealand collectibles such as Crown Lynn pieces. That history helps explain why VeVe has consistently emphasized “collecting” rather than merely crypto-asset trading. David’s path was effectively the reverse of many early NFT projects: rather than starting with a token and searching for a use case, he already understood why collectors care about editions, scarcity, first appearances, complete sets, provenance and emotional attachment to IP, and then looked for a digital infrastructure capable of reproducing those behaviors. EY likewise emphasizes that he had approximately 25 years of experience in games and collectibles before building VeVe. 3、His entrepreneurial career began extremely early, although public sources differ slightly on the precise age. When David won EY Entrepreneur Of The Year 2023 New Zealand, judging chair Cecilia Robinson noted that he had been running businesses since age 16. A 2026 Noteworthy profile, drawing on New Zealand business reporting, gives a more specific account: at around 17 he founded Games R Us on Auckland’s Karangahape Road, financing the venture by selling stamps and phone cards. The safest conclusion is therefore that Yu was already an entrepreneur by roughly age 16–17. The available story also does not point to a large family enterprise or institutional venture-capital platform as the origin of his career. Instead, the recurring narrative is one of small-scale specialty retail, hobby goods and reinvesting operating experience. That does not, however, establish his family’s socioeconomic status. 4、Reliable public English-language material on his family, birth date, birthplace and parents is extremely limited. His full legal name, David Shu-Han Yu, can be confirmed from ECOMI’s MiCA disclosure, and his business career is firmly based in Auckland, New Zealand. High-quality public sources do not establish his birth date, parental occupations, childhood household wealth or detailed family history, so those points should not be inferred. This unusually low level of personal disclosure is consistent with Yu’s public image. His identity has remained centered on being a collector and entrepreneur rather than a celebrity founder. EY judging commentary describing him as a “silent achiever” fits that pattern. 5、Formal education is similarly peripheral to the public David Yu narrative. Reliable public material does not establish a university, degree or academic specialization for David. What can be verified is a long operating progression through Games R Us, specialty collecting and gaming retail, distribution and supply chain operations, Vagabond Games & Collectables, and eventually ECOMI and VeVe. His development therefore looks more like an industry apprenticeship than an academic-founder trajectory: procurement, inventory, fandom, collector psychology, licensing, distribution and commercial relationships appear far more prominently than computer science or finance credentials in the published record. EY explicitly connects his later digital-collectibles venture to his prior 25 years in games and collectibles. Public LinkedIn search information for Dan Crothers lists Auckland’s Rangitoto College in his education history, although the currently available material does not justify extrapolating a university degree from that. 6、VeVe was not David’s first venture; it is better understood as the digital culmination of decades spent around physical collectibles. The 2026 Noteworthy profile says that after Games R Us, Yu built Retail Management Group, a distribution and supply-chain business serving publicly listed retailers across Australasia. He subsequently remained deeply involved in gaming and collectibles retail. The NZ Herald independently confirms his ownership of Vagabond Games & Collectables and approximately 25 years in gaming retail. The continuity is therefore: physical collecting → specialty retail → distribution and supply chain → licensing/IP relationships → digital collecting → blockchain-based scarcity → mobile marketplace. That continuity is one of the most important ways to understand why VeVe developed as it did. 7、The conceptual origin of VeVe dates to roughly 2017–2018, well before the 2021 NFT boom. EY’s profile says David entered the nascent digital-collectibles field in 2017, when there was no established market and little evidence of demand for what he envisioned. ECOMI’s current site identifies 2018 as its founding year, while its MiCA filing records 2 May 2018 as the registration date of ECOMI Technology Pte. Ltd. The NZ Herald similarly reported that Yu and Dan Crothers began thinking about virtual collecting years before NFTs became a mainstream speculative phenomenon, co-founding Orbis Blockchain Technologies and developing what became VeVe. The fundamental early thesis was therefore not “chase the NFT boom.” It was: the psychology of physical collecting will eventually migrate into digital space. From Physical Collecting to VeVe: Timeline, Product and Business Architecture 8、2018 was the key organizational year, but VeVe’s “founding” or “launch” date depends on what exactly is being measured. Public sources use 2018, 2020 and 2021 for different stages. 2018 corresponds to organizational formation: ECOMI says it was founded in 2018, and VeVe’s current LinkedIn company page also lists 2018 as its founding year. ECOMI’s current site is more precise about operations, saying it “has powered digital collecting on VeVe since 2020,” and it labels OMI as launched in 2020. 2021, meanwhile, was the genuine global commercial breakout, when VeVe gained major IP and entered the center of the NFT market. EY’s later company narratives often frame this period as the beginning of VeVe’s large-scale consumer expansion. A more accurate sequence is therefore: 2017 concept → 2018 company formation → 2020 operating infrastructure → 2021 mass-market breakout. 9、ECOMI and VeVe must be separated conceptually; otherwise the capital structure and economics are easily misunderstood. ECOMI currently describes itself as the token, utility and rewards layer powering the VeVe digital-collectibles ecosystem. VeVe is the consumer-facing collectibles, comics and marketplace product. ECOMI says it has powered on-chain digital collecting on VeVe since 2020, while VeVe describes itself as a mobile-first licensed digital-collectibles platform. The legal structure is more specific. ECOMI’s MiCA filing identifies ECOMI Technology Pte. Ltd. as a Singapore company, registration number 201814792N, with David Shu-Han Yu as beneficial owner and sole director. It separately identifies Orbis Blockchain Technologies Limited, New Zealand company number 6545833, in connection with “VeVe.” The ecosystem is therefore better represented as: VeVe consumer platform → operating/licensing infrastructure → ECOMI token layer → OMI → blockchain and marketplace partners such as Immutable and StackR. It is inaccurate to reduce the whole structure to “VeVe is the OMI token company.” 10、The clearest early capital event was not a traditional VC round but ECOMI’s private ICO. The MiCA filing states that in 2019 ECOMI raised US$4.49 million through a private ICO at a US$44 million project valuation, with the offering unavailable to U.S. residents. The document separately describes ECOMI Technology Pte. Ltd., the OMI issuer, as privately held and pre-revenue. A critical distinction follows: The US$44 million figure was a token-project valuation in the context of the 2019 ICO; it should not be treated as a later VeVe equity valuation. Likewise, describing the token issuer as pre-revenue does not mean the VeVe commercial platform has generated no sales. ECOMI’s 2026 website simultaneously displays a self-reported ecosystem counter of “Platform revenue $1.4B+.” These figures refer to different layers and should not be merged. 11、One of David and Dan’s most consequential product choices was not to require mainstream consumers to behave like crypto natives. VeVe placed blockchain largely behind the user interface and presented users with a mobile app, catalogs, drops, blind boxes, AR display, a marketplace and Gems. The MiCA filing states that users can acquire Gems with credit cards on the web or through Apple and Google in-app payment systems, and that OMI is not required to use VeVe. That was particularly important in 2021. Many NFT platforms required users to understand wallets, gas, chains and cryptocurrencies. VeVe’s model allowed a Disney, Marvel or comic collector to buy a collectible first and encounter the blockchain layer only indirectly. In effect, it digitized a lesson from physical retail: remove purchase friction before explaining the technology. EY accordingly describes VeVe as combining blockchain and AR to deliver licensed collectibles globally, rather than as a cryptocurrency exchange. 12、VeVe’s strongest moat was never the blockchain itself; it was elite IP licensing. ECOMI’s 2026 site lists a VeVe ecosystem containing Disney, Marvel, Star Wars, DC, Ultraman, Funko, Coca-Cola, Jurassic Park, Ghostbusters, DreamWorks, 20th Century, Cartoon Network, TMNT, Street Fighter, Assassin’s Creed, BLACKPINK, Ubisoft, Lamborghini, Maserati, Star Trek and USPS, among others. It currently claims 200+ officially licensed brands and characters. Early NZ Herald reporting already described Yu and Crothers securing digital rights relating to characters and properties associated with Disney, Marvel, Sony, MGM, Warner Bros. and other global rights holders. Disney, Marvel and DC themselves remain the IP owners; VeVe does not own those characters. VeVe’s value is its contractual ability to commercialize licensed digital content and aggregate many powerful licensors into a single collector marketplace. The real moat is therefore closer to license aggregation + collector distribution than smart-contract code. 13、2021 produced VeVe’s legitimacy breakthrough: major IP arrived in rapid succession and transformed it from a niche startup into a global licensed-NFT channel. Key 2021 milestones included Givenchy, Marvel, Star Trek, USPS and Disney Golden Moments. In August, Marvel used VeVe for officially licensed Spider-Man digital collectibles marketed as the first official Spider-Man NFT; Disney Golden Moments later brought Disney, Pixar and Star Wars-related fandom into the ecosystem. Around the Marvel announcement, Stuff reported that VeVe had already passed US$40 million in sales in six months. That suggests Marvel arrived after the platform had already demonstrated unusually strong monetization rather than serving as its first evidence of demand. The deeper accomplishment was credibility transfer: decades of collecting, retail and licensing knowledge helped a New Zealand startup persuade global rights owners to entrust it with highly sensitive “first digital collectible” and “first NFT” moments. 14、The core VeVe product deliberately reproduces familiar physical-collecting mechanics: editions, serial numbers, rarity, First Appearance designations, blind boxes and secondary trading. Official VeVe drop materials show classic collectible architecture. A DreamWorks Trollhunters drop, for example, used Common, Uncommon, Rare, Ultra Rare and Secret Rare tiers with different edition counts, sold via blind box. Individual assets carry edition and First Appearance metadata. VeVe has also disclosed that portions of some editions are withheld for licensors, promotion, team and complimentary distribution. VeVe therefore did not try to reinvent collecting psychology. It ported the scarcity architecture of physical toys, trading cards and comics into software. That is exactly where Yu’s industry experience matters: collectors often care not just about an image, but whether it is the first edition, which mint number it carries, how many exist and whether a complete set can be assembled. 15、AR became a second major differentiator from flat-image NFT marketplaces. VeVe allows users to position 3D collectibles in real environments through mobile AR, photograph them, interact with them and display them in virtual environments. The company consistently describes blockchain plus augmented reality as a core technological combination. The value proposition is therefore not simply “I control an on-chain token,” but “I possess a digital object that can be displayed like a figure.” VeVeVerse extends that logic. VeVe’s official help material describes the 2025 product as a digital playground in which collectors can showcase, interact with and customize their VeVe digital collectibles and comics. 16、The underlying blockchain stack also evolved substantially: from GoChain toward Ethereum/Immutable X and later Base. The MiCA filing states that OMI originated on GoChain and began migrating to Ethereum ERC-20 in January 2022. VeVe’s NFT infrastructure uses Immutable X, an Ethereum Layer 2 designed to provide low-friction NFT transactions, and OMI later expanded onto Base beginning in 2024. VeVe company materials say Immutable X provides rapid confirmation, scalability, zero gas fees for users and a sharply reduced environmental footprint compared with older Ethereum NFT workflows. The strategic consistency is clear: the less the collector has to think about the blockchain, the better the product is supposed to work. 17、VeVe’s subsequent expansion has followed the same collecting logic across additional media rather than abandoning the original thesis. In 2024, VeVe expanded VeVe Comics, combining mobile comic reading and digital collectibility; company materials highlight same-day releases with print and guided panel-by-panel reading. The company also developed the VeVeVibes music direction, including BLACKPINK-related initiatives, and pursued physical-plus-digital or “phygital” collaborations involving brands such as Funko, Marvel, Christian Louboutin and FiGPiN. FiGPiN explicitly described its VeVe partnership as pairing limited physical pins with digital collectible counterparts. In June 2026, VeVe formally introduced VeVe Stickerverse, a new collecting experience distributed through Telegram. The product lineage can therefore be read as: 3D collectibles → comics → music → phygital → metaverse/display → social stickers. The persistent logic is licensed IP, scarcity, collectibility, display and exchange. Assets, Capital, Partner Network and Business Model 18、It is important to separate VeVe’s true operating assets from its influence assets. Operating assets include the VeVe brand and software, account infrastructure, marketplace, collectible databases, AR/display products, blockchain integrations, operating entities and contractual licensing relationships. Disney, Marvel, DC, Star Wars and Lamborghini IP are not VeVe-owned assets. Those brands belong to licensors and partners. VeVe’s value comes from obtaining the rights to commercialize licensed digital content and assembling multiple premier licensors inside a single collector ecosystem. Its most important influence assets may therefore be: licensor trust + collector community + historical “firsts” + distribution ability + the VeVeFam community. These are relationship assets that are much harder to replicate than software code. 19、ECOMI/OMI is the most important economic layer adjacent to VeVe, but OMI is not VeVe stock. ECOMI describes OMI in consumer-facing language as the utility and rewards token for the VeVe ecosystem. In the more precise legal terminology of MiCA, however, its filing states that OMI is not a “utility token” under the narrow MiCAR definition, because its function is not solely to provide access to a good or service supplied by the issuer. It falls into the broader Title II crypto-asset category. Even more importantly, the filing explicitly states that OMI holders receive no equity, profit participation, claim on ECOMI or VeVe assets, or claim on intellectual property. It also discloses no corporate governance voting rights for OMI. Buying OMI should therefore never be equated with buying equity in VeVe. 20、OMI has gradually evolved from a token narrative toward more concrete ecosystem utility. Historically, OMI centered on ecosystem utility, Master Collector Program incentives and planned future features. Over time, those functions became more explicit: eligible OMI holdings can influence MCP rewards; later integrations connected OMI, StackR and Gems; and ECOMI has now launched OMI Unlimited staking. ECOMI currently says that certain StackR marketplace activity and USDC-to-Gem purchases remove OMI from circulating supply. Its 2026 site displays a self-reported figure of 440B+ OMI burned. OMI Unlimited Season 1, launched on 1 October 2026, lets holders lock OMI, accumulate XP and become eligible for VeVe collectibles and Gems based on seasonal ranking; it is not presented as OMI interest yield. ECOMI reported that within the first 24 hours, 578 stakers had locked 13.85B OMI, about US$4.18 million in total value locked, helping lift the Season 1 Gem reward pool to 120,000 Gems. By 2026, ECOMI is therefore making a much more explicit attempt to close the loop between token holders and VeVe collectors. 21、The publicly disclosed capital structure does not resemble the classic Silicon Valley venture-capital story. ECOMI’s MiCA filing says ECOMI Technology Pte. Ltd. has no parent company and identifies David Shu-Han Yu as beneficial owner and sole director. At the time of disclosure, the token issuer reported no external debt and said operations were principally supported by a Business Development Fund. As of October 2025 that fund contained about 16.3B OMI, then valued at roughly US$5 million, for purposes including exchange listings, liquidity, marketing and partnerships. Its clearest disclosed early outside-capital event remains the US$4.49 million 2019 private ICO rather than a conventional large institutional VC round. Again, however, those disclosures describe ECOMI Technology Pte. Ltd. and the OMI issuer, not a complete VeVe operating-company capitalization table. 22、Much of VeVe’s effective capital is relationship capital rather than purely financial capital. David’s scarcest resources appear to be decades of collectibles expertise, licensing credibility, brand negotiation, distribution capability, collector demand and community trust. Relationships with Marvel, Disney, DC, Star Wars, USPS, Lamborghini, Funko, BLACKPINK, Ubisoft and many others collectively form a powerful licensing network. ECOMI now quantifies the ecosystem as encompassing 200+ licensed brands and characters. The technical and service network is also substantial. The MiCA disclosure names providers and partners including Immutable, Amazon Web Services, Salesforce, Checkout.com, GetStream, Cavrnus and StackR. ECOMI also began working with CoolBitX in 2018 on its Secure Wallet, demonstrating that the original ECOMI vision extended beyond collectibles into broader digital-asset security and hardware. 23、The first layer of VeVe’s business model is licensed digital-goods issuance. VeVe works with IP owners to turn characters, comics, artwork and branded properties into limited digital collectibles, typically structured around fixed edition counts, rarity and blind-box or timed-drop mechanics. Official drop pages disclose list prices, edition sizes, rarity and release schedules. Economically, VeVe therefore combines characteristics of a: digital toy producer, licensed-merchandise company, publisher and primary marketplace. The precise revenue share and royalty terms with each licensor are contractual and are not publicly standardized, so a single percentage should not be invented. The Chaosium example at least demonstrates that some agreements can include creator participation: Chaosium said artists involved in its original VeVe collectibles shared in sale proceeds. That arrangement cannot automatically be generalized to Disney, Marvel or other licenses. 24、The second economic layer is the secondary marketplace and continuing turnover, not merely the initial drop. VeVe allows collectors to buy and resell assets inside its marketplace. This extends the traditional licensed-merchandise model: a physical toy company usually monetizes the initial product sale, whereas a digital-collectibles platform can place primary issuance and ongoing collector-to-collector circulation within one ecosystem. VeVe’s own positioning consistently combines buying, collecting, selling/trading and displaying. Strategically, VeVe is therefore attempting to own not just distribution but the collector-liquidity layer. That makes activity, market confidence, fair allocation and bot control much more strategically important than they would be for an ordinary digital-content store. 25、The third layer is Gems, which abstract crypto complexity away from mainstream consumers. Users do not need to acquire OMI before buying VeVe collectibles. The MiCA filing says Gems can be acquired by card and through Apple/Google in-app payments, while OMI is not a prerequisite for using the platform. Beginning in the later evolution of the ecosystem, VeVe and ECOMI used StackR to reconnect OMI with the Gem economy. The architecture can therefore be summarized as: early VeVe: “hide the crypto”; later VeVe: “make crypto an optional loyalty/economic layer rather than an entry requirement.” That is one of the deepest product differences between VeVe and a crypto-native NFT marketplace. 26、The fourth layer is retention: MCP, VeVeVerse, staking and scarcity create reasons to remain inside the ecosystem. The Master Collector Program translates collecting and eligible OMI-related behavior into ranks or points; VeVeVerse creates additional places to display assets; OMI Unlimited now connects token locking to VeVe rewards. Economically, all of these features address the same question: Why should a collector return after the initial NFT sale is over? VeVe’s answer increasingly resembles a live-service game: collections, ranks, events, points, social interaction, display environments, new drops, trading and seasonal rewards form an ongoing retention loop. 27、The fifth layer is horizontal content expansion: Comics, music, phygital products and Stickerverse allow the same licensing relationships to generate multiple product formats. Marvel can be more than a supplier of a 3D Spider-Man collectible; it can also participate through digital comics. FiGPiN links physical pins and VeVe digital counterparts. VeVeVibes brings music fandom into the collecting model. Stickerverse uses Telegram to reduce distribution friction and expose collection behavior to a broader social environment. This suggests that VeVe is attempting to evolve from a single NFT application into digital fandom infrastructure. If that transition works, its long-term value becomes less dependent on whether “NFT” remains a fashionable label and more dependent on whether consumers continue paying for scarce, licensed digital fandom products. Outcomes, Controversies, Turning Points and Current Position 28、David Yu’s greatest achievement is not inventing NFTs; it is persuading the world’s leading IP owners to entrust major official digital “firsts” to a New Zealand startup. Blockchain and NFTs were not invented by VeVe, nor was augmented reality. VeVe’s innovation was combining licensed merchandise, mobile payments, blockchain-based scarcity, 3D/AR presentation and secondary-market behavior, then using globally recognizable IP such as Disney, Marvel, DC and Star Wars to lower the comprehension barrier for mainstream collectors. The first official Spider-Man NFT and Disney Golden Moments created additional historical provenance within digital collecting. Yu’s most meaningful industry impact is therefore better described as changing the distribution model for licensed collectibles rather than changing blockchain protocol design. 29、A second major achievement was turning an Auckland-rooted business into a genuinely global product. EY’s 2024 World Entrepreneur Of The Year profile said VeVe had sold more than eight million NFTs and had a highly international customer base, with approximately 35% in the United States and 40% in the UK and Europe at the time. VeVe’s current LinkedIn page says more than ten million NFTs have been sold and lists 51–200 employees with headquarters in Auckland. ECOMI’s 2026 site now shows 12M+ collectibles minted and 200+ licensed brands/characters. These metrics use different dates and definitions, so they should not be mechanically combined. But the direction is unmistakable: VeVe has grown far beyond its founders’ original physical-collectibles retail base. 30、Mainstream recognition of David’s entrepreneurial status rose sharply from 2023 onward. David won EY Entrepreneur Of The Year 2023 New Zealand. Judging chair Cecilia Robinson characterized him as a “silent achiever,” emphasizing his very early entrepreneurial activity, adaptability and willingness to enter a completely new industry. In 2024, he represented New Zealand in the EY World Entrepreneur Of The Year ecosystem. EY’s official profile highlighted the unusual risk involved in entering a digital-collectibles market before clear demand existed. VeVe also ranked at the top end of New Zealand’s 2023 Deloitte Fast 50; a 2026 Noteworthy profile citing Deloitte reports 1,239% revenue growth over three years. By 2026, Yu had moved from EY award recipient to an EY New Zealand Entrepreneur Of The Year judge, while retaining the official title of VeVe co-founder and CEO. That places him well beyond the status of a niche NFT founder and inside New Zealand’s mainstream entrepreneurial establishment. 31、The 2024 appointment of Ben Rose represented an important experiment in moving from a founder-driven startup toward more professionalized management. Former Binance New Zealand general manager Ben Rose joined VeVe as Co-CEO alongside David and publicly stated that he was also becoming a shareholder. His remit clearly involved growth, strategy, communications and scaling, while David remained actively engaged. This is a classic scale-up transition: a founder may remain strongest in product, IP relationships and vision while an experienced operator is brought in to professionalize execution. Rose later cited a refreshed business plan, greater community engagement, faster VeVeVerse development, additional VeVe Comics publishers and the Affiliates Program among initiatives launched during his tenure. 32、The Co-CEO structure was subsequently reversed and VeVe returned explicitly to a founder-led model. Rose later announced that he was finishing as VeVe Co-CEO and said the company was shifting to a founder-led approach, with the Co-CEO structure being phased out. By 2026, EY again identified David directly as CEO rather than Co-CEO. This is best understood as a meaningful organizational experiment followed by a strategic reversal. It does not automatically mean Rose’s tenure failed—several of the initiatives he highlighted remain part of the business—but it does show that VeVe ultimately decided its next stage should again be directed primarily by its founders. 33、One of VeVe’s earliest concrete operating controversies involved bots, scripts, auto-clickers and fairness around highly sought-after drops. In February 2022, VeVe/ECOMI published a dedicated anti-bot explanation. It said the app had reached 1.9 million monthly active users and acknowledged that bots, auto-clickers, scripts and emulators were targeting high-demand digital sales, forcing the company to impose account restrictions and defend its detection systems against concerns about false positives. This controversy was, in a sense, a by-product of VeVe’s own success: limited supply + elite IP + synchronized drops + expectations of secondary-market appreciation = strong economic incentives for automation. It resembles the bot problems seen in sneakers, concert tickets and limited physical collectibles, translated into a digital marketplace. 34、A second category of controversy concerns the NFT concept itself rather than a personal scandal involving David Yu. The clearest example is Chaosium / Call of Cthulhu. Chaosium began discussions with VeVe in 2019 and released Call of Cthulhu digital collectibles in 2021. As hostility toward NFTs intensified among tabletop-gaming fans, Chaosium suspended future NFT plans in February 2022. Importantly, Chaosium did not accuse VeVe of fraud. It said it had conducted several rounds of due diligence, described VeVe as an ethical company and credited the Immutable X architecture with materially reducing environmental impact. Its decision to pause was driven by concerns and opposition from its own community. The case reveals a structural VeVe risk: a platform can operate legitimately and still encounter deep cultural resistance when an IP’s core fans reject NFT commercialization itself. 35、Environmental concerns have been another recurring source of controversy. VeVe has consistently promoted a carbon-neutral strategy. Its company materials say it committed to 100% carbon-neutral NFTs in 2021 and that its Immutable X infrastructure dramatically reduced environmental impact relative to older Ethereum NFT approaches. Chaosium likewise cited reduced environmental impact as an important factor in its decision to work with VeVe. That did not eliminate criticism. When Sesame Street-related Cookie Monster NFTs appeared on VeVe in 2023, some fans objected to linking a children’s cultural property to NFTs, environmental concerns and speculative digital assets; the backlash was reported by NBC News and other outlets. Two separate questions therefore need to be distinguished: whether VeVe’s blockchain stack is substantially less energy-intensive than early proof-of-work NFT systems, and whether consumers are philosophically comfortable with turning beloved cultural or children’s IP into NFTs. 36、OMI is another area in which misunderstanding can easily become controversy. ECOMI’s consumer-facing site calls OMI a utility and rewards token, but its MiCA white paper explicitly warns that the asset may lose some or all of its value, may not always be transferable or liquid, and is not covered by bank-deposit or investor-compensation schemes. The same document states that OMI represents no VeVe or ECOMI equity or profit right. Strong VeVe operating performance therefore does not automatically translate into corporate economic participation for OMI holders. Conversely, OMI market-price volatility should not be treated as a direct valuation of VeVe’s operating business. That is one of the most important conceptual distinctions in any serious analysis of the company. 37、User figures also require careful interpretation because historical and current metrics use different definitions. In early 2022 VeVe itself claimed 1.9 million monthly active users. ECOMI’s 2026 site currently displays 700K+ ecosystem users, alongside 12M+ collectibles minted, 200+ licensed brands/characters and $1.4B+ platform revenue. It would be methodologically wrong to infer directly that “users fell from 1.9 million to 700,000,” because the first metric is explicitly monthly active users while the current “ecosystem users” counter is not defined sufficiently to establish comparability. The defensible conclusion is narrower: VeVe experienced extraordinary user growth during the 2021–2022 NFT peak and remains a scaled ecosystem in 2026, but its published user metrics across periods do not share a clearly comparable methodology. 38、The most important strategic evolution from 2023 through 2026 is VeVe’s effort to reduce dependence on the singular “NFT bull market” narrative. Its product portfolio increasingly diversified: Lamborghini, Stan Lee and phygital initiatives in 2023; VeVe Comics, music and physical-digital projects in 2024; accelerated VeVeVerse, StackR and publisher expansion in 2025; Stickerverse and OMI Unlimited in 2026. The strategic inference is that VeVe wants to redefine itself from an: “NFT marketplace” into a: “licensed digital collecting ecosystem / fandom platform.” That repositioning matters because “NFT” experienced a major reputational and market-cycle reversal after 2021, whereas Disney collecting, comics, fandom and scarce licensed merchandise are much older consumer behaviors. This is an inference from the product roadmap rather than a quoted company statement. 39、As of October 2026, David Yu remains structurally central rather than functioning as a retired financial founder. EY’s 2026 material identifies him as VeVe Co-founder and CEO, and he now sits within the EY New Zealand Entrepreneur Of The Year judging ecosystem. ECOMI’s legal disclosure simultaneously identifies him as beneficial owner and sole director of ECOMI Technology Pte. Ltd., meaning he remains deeply connected to the token and infrastructure layer surrounding VeVe. VeVe was still launching new products such as Stickerverse in 2026, while ECOMI launched OMI Unlimited in October 2026. David is therefore not merely “the man who founded VeVe.” He remains at the intersection of: corporate governance + product direction + collecting culture + the ECOMI/OMI economic layer + IP relationships. 40、In one sentence, David Yu is better understood as a licensed-collectibles entrepreneur for the digital age than as a conventional blockchain founder. His capability chain is not primarily: write protocol → issue token → build community. It is closer to: collector → retailer → distributor → licensing-relationship operator → digital-collectibles founder → global fandom-marketplace CEO. His scarce capability is the ability to understand three constituencies simultaneously: IP owners need brand protection; collectors want scarcity, authenticity and emotional value; mainstream consumers do not want to master complex crypto tools. VeVe’s architecture is, in many ways, an attempt to reconcile those three interests. 41、VeVe’s greatest moat is also the source of its greatest risks. The moat consists of premier licenses, the accumulated digital-collectible catalog, historical “firsts,” community, marketplace behavior and David’s long-standing relationships in the collecting business. A catalog spanning 200+ licensed brands and characters and more than 12 million minted collectibles cannot be reproduced quickly. The risks arise from the same structure: dependence on third-party IP licenses; cyclicality in digital-collectible prices and trading; reputational resistance to NFTs; regulatory and tokenomic complexity around OMI; and the persistent need to control bots and maintain confidence in scarce-drop allocation. VeVe’s long-term outcome therefore depends less on whether NFTs experience another speculative boom than on whether it can prove a more durable proposition: that consumers will continue collecting, displaying, exchanging and paying for licensed digital Disney, Marvel, comics, music, cars and designer objects even when they no longer care about the word “NFT.” 42、The entire 2017–2026 trajectory can be compressed into one timeline. 2017: David begins pursuing digital collectibles before demand is established. 2018: the ECOMI/VeVe corporate ecosystem takes shape; ECOMI is registered and early technology relationships such as CoolBitX are established. 2019: ECOMI raises US$4.49 million through its private ICO; early licensing discussions are underway with IP owners including Chaosium. 2020: ECOMI’s current account says it begins powering digital collecting on VeVe, with OMI entering the ecosystem. 2021: VeVe breaks out globally as Marvel, Spider-Man, Disney Golden Moments, Star Trek, USPS and other major properties arrive; sales and user adoption accelerate rapidly. 2022: operating-scale problems such as bots become prominent; OMI migrates from GoChain toward Ethereum, Immutable X becomes central infrastructure and cultural opposition to NFTs grows. 2023: Lamborghini, Stan Lee and phygital initiatives broaden the catalog; David wins EY Entrepreneur Of The Year New Zealand and VeVe reaches the top tier of Deloitte’s Fast 50. 2024: VeVe Comics, VeVeVibes/BLACKPINK and additional phygital initiatives expand the product; Ben Rose joins as Co-CEO and shareholder in an attempt to professionalize management. 2025: VeVeVerse accelerates; StackR deepens the OMI/Gem connection; Ben Rose exits and the company explicitly returns to a founder-led structure. 2026: David is again clearly identified as CEO; VeVe launches Stickerverse; ECOMI launches OMI Unlimited. ECOMI’s current self-reported ecosystem counters show 200+ brands/characters, 12M+ collectibles minted, 700K+ ecosystem users, $1.4B+ platform revenue and 440B+ OMI burned. The most important long-term interpretation is therefore not simply “an NFT company that rode a boom and survived a bust.” It is the story of a physical-collectibles entrepreneur spending nearly a decade trying to rebuild scarcity, trading, display, fandom, licensing and collector identity on digital infrastructure.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman: A Year Without a Job Sowed Seeds for Later Success
...s of textbooks to catch up on nuclear engineering, the then-nascent artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, and investment, not knowing in advance how this knowledge would converge. His approach was to engage w...
The Rise and Fall of Sam Bankman-Fried and the FTX Empire: A Deep Structural, Capital Network, and Judicial Analysis
1. Family Background, Upbringing, and Social Capital Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried (commonly known as SBF) was born on March 5, 1992, in Stanford, California, and was raised in a highly affluent, Jewish upper-class family endowed with prominent academic and legal resources. His family environment not only provided an incredibly privileged upbringing but also deeply shaped his utilitarian calculative mindset toward systemic rules. His father, Joseph Bankman, is a renowned tax law professor and psychologist at Stanford Law School, while his mother, Barbara Fried, is a professor emerita of legal ethics at the same institution. The academic power couple famously declined to formally marry, viewing the legal institution of marriage as discriminatory against same-sex couples, a stance that subtly influenced SBF’s skepticism toward traditional legal structures. The Bankman-Fried family maintained an extensive web of connections across American academia and public health. His aunt, Linda P. Fried, is the Dean of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, and his maternal grandmother, Adrienne Fried Block, was a noted musicologist, while his younger brother, Gabe Bankman-Fried, acted as the primary orchestrator of his subsequent political donation and lobbying empire. This elite family network provided SBF with a highly elevated starting point and a veneer of compliance legitimacy for his subsequent political lobbying and corporate expansion. SBF demonstrated exceptional mathematical and logical aptitude from a young age, earning a spot at the Canada/USA Mathcamp, an elite summer program for mathematically talented high school students. He completed his high school education at the elite private day school Crystal Springs Uplands School in Hillsborough, California, where tuition exceeded $56,000 at the time, helping him build his first network of elite peers. 2. Educational Background, MIT Training, and the Perversion of Effective Altruism In 2010, SBF entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), graduating in 2014 with a Bachelor of Science in Physics and a minor in Mathematics. During his undergraduate years, he lived in Epsilon Theta, a coeducational, alcohol-free group house focused on intellectual pursuits, where he solidified a highly quantitative thinking model that reduced the world to physical equations and probabilistic expected values. In 2013, as an MIT undergraduate, SBF attended a lecture and shared lunch with Will MacAskill, a young Oxford philosopher and co-founder of the Effective Altruism (EA) movement. This encounter fundamentally altered his life trajectory, as MacAskill successfully converted him to the utilitarian philosophy of "Earn to Give". Effective Altruism advocates using reason and evidence to find the most effective ways to benefit others. Its core derivative concept, "Earn to Give," argues that rather than pursuing direct, low-impact charity work, individuals should enter high-paying industries like Wall Street to amass "infinity dollars" and subsequently distribute those funds to highly cost-effective projects to save the maximum number of lives. This extreme utilitarian moral philosophy had a volatile and dangerous impact on SBF. He internalized it as a survival creed of "expected value maximization," believing that as long as the ultimate altruistic expected value was high enough, any regulatory risks, or even systemic fraud encountered along the path, were mathematically acceptable and fully hedgeable costs. This intellectual framing laid the groundwork for his subsequent diversion of billions in customer assets to cover high-leverage trading losses. SBF remained highly integrated within the Effective Altruism community after graduation, serving on the board of the Center for Effective Altruism until 2019. The network he cultivated within this movement not only secured the initial hundreds of millions in seed funding for his early trading firm but was later weaponized as a strategic public relations tool to morally validate FTX and secure political trust in Washington. 3. Early Career and the Quantitative Crucible at Jane Street In the summer of 2013, SBF interned at Jane Street Capital, a premier proprietary quantitative trading firm, joining full-time upon graduation in 2014 and working there for approximately three and a half years. At Jane Street, he was deployed on the international ETF desk, where he focused on the quantitative hedging and arbitrage of international Exchange-Traded Funds. Through the rigorous training at Jane Street, SBF developed an extreme sensitivity to micro-pricing discrepancies in financial markets. He mastered how to execute high-speed programmatic and algorithmic trades to capture risk-free or low-risk arbitrage premiums across highly fragmented and illiquid global markets. Jane Street’s emphasis on mathematical rationality, probability calculation, and clinical detachment from market sentiment led SBF to view trading as a pure game of mathematical expectation. He learned how to mobilize massive quantities of capital within seconds and quickly noticed the nascent, unregulated, and highly inefficient pricing structures within the emerging cryptocurrency markets. In mid-2017, SBF resigned from Jane Street to apply his quantitative arbitrage strategies to the cryptocurrency space. Following a brief stint at the Center for Effective Altruism, he pivoted his full operational focus to industrializing cryptocurrency arbitrage. 4. Entrepreneurial Path, the Rise of Alameda Research, and the Early Leadership Split In November 2017, SBF co-founded Alameda Research, a quantitative cryptocurrency trading and market-making firm, alongside Australian mathematician and fellow EA believer Tara Mac Aulay. SBF deliberately incorporated the word "Research" into the entity's name to obfuscate its highly speculative cryptocurrency arbitrage operations when applying for commercial bank accounts, thereby circumventing strict compliance checks by financial institutions. In its early phase, SBF focused Alameda's attention on the famous "Kimchi Premium" in the cryptocurrency market. Due to South Korea’s stringent capital controls, Bitcoin traded at premiums of up to 50% on Korean exchanges relative to the United States. Recognizing that converting Korean Won back to US Dollars was practically impossible, SBF identified a secondary premium (around 15%) in the Japanese market, where Japanese Yen could be seamlessly converted back to USD. Alameda Research established highly complex corporate structures, shell payment channels, and local banking networks in Japan, utilizing local intermediaries to physicalize and convert Yen to USD. At its peak, Alameda moved up to $25 million daily through this Japanese arbitrage loop, generating substantial cash flows and allowing SBF to accumulate tens of millions in seed capital in a matter of months. Leveraging the unprecedented success of the Japanese arbitrage trade, SBF gained a mythic reputation among Wall Street elites and the Effective Altruism community, with some comparing his performance to George Soros's raid on the Bank of England or John Paulson’s subprime mortgage short. This reputation enabled him to rapidly raise over $170 million in trading capital from wealthy EA proponents. However, Alameda’s rapid scaling was accompanied by highly chaotic financial accounting and a near-total absence of internal controls. In early 2018, Alameda's proprietary trading system suffered a sudden $14 million paper loss due to automated bugs and unhedged algorithmic trades, which the staff was unable to even accurately calculate, while an additional $4 million in XRP tokens vanished from the trading database without explanation. In April 2018, co-founder Tara Mac Aulay and the entire senior management team, including Ben West, collectively resigned after becoming entirely disillusioned with SBF’s "unethical business practices, complete disregard for risk compliance, chronic dishonesty, and highly manipulative personality". The departing executives offered a $1 million buyout to remove SBF from the firm, which he aggressively rejected. This executive exodus stripped Alameda of its experienced core, causing managed assets to plummet to $30 million in the spring of 2018 as investors withdrew their funds, leaving only a dozen young and inexperienced EA loyalists to run the firm. However, this cleared the way for SBF to secure absolute, unchecked control over the enterprise. Following the departures, SBF successfully recruited Caroline Ellison, a Stanford graduate and former Jane Street colleague, in March 2018. Ellison’s strong quantitative background and devotion to EA quickly elevated her as SBF’s closest confidante. She was appointed co-CEO of Alameda in October 2021 and became the sole CEO in August 2022 after co-CEO Sam Trabucco stepped down. 5. The Establishment of FTX, Ownership Structure, and Asset Ecosystem In May 2019, as Alameda Research established itself as one of the largest market makers in the cryptocurrency space, SBF concluded that transaction fees and liquidity constraints on third-party exchanges were bottlenecking his trading ambitions. He co-founded the cryptocurrency derivatives exchange FTX alongside his MIT classmate and elite programmer Gary Wang. FTX was developed in symbiosis with Alameda Research, which functioned as the exchange's internal market maker and primary capital backstop. FTX raised an initial $8 million in its seed round from early backers, and Binance acquired a 20% equity stake in FTX when the exchange was only six months old, providing crucial early validation. In the top-level corporate structure, SBF maintained absolute authority. He personally held a 60% equity stake in the FTX Group, while Gary Wang held 17%, and Nishad Singh held 5%. On the Alameda Research side, SBF held a 90% majority equity stake, with Gary Wang holding the remaining 10%. SBF embarked on an aggressive campaign of asset acquisition and ecosystem expansion. In 2020, FTX acquired Blockfolio, the world's leading mobile news and portfolio tracking app, for $150 million to capture the retail market and drive consumer traffic to the exchange. SBF also masterminded the development of Serum (SRM), a decentralized exchange built on the Solana blockchain, and heavily accumulated and manipulated several tokens—such as SOL, SRM, and MAPS—collectively known as "Sam Coins". These tokens were maintained at inflated, non-liquid valuations on FTX's order books, serving as Alameda's primary collateral to borrow actual assets from external lenders. 6. Venture Capital Network, Political Lobbying, and "Influence Assets" Driven by the 2021 crypto bull market, FTX wove a venture capital network of the world's most prominent institutional investors. Its Series B round in July 2021 raised $900 million at an $18 billion valuation. By January 2022, FTX’s paper valuation reached $32 billion, cementing its status as a premier global unicorn. This multi-billion-dollar funding run brought in major global investors, including Sequoia Capital (investing ~$150M to $200M), Singapore's sovereign wealth fund Temasek (investing ~$210M to $275M), Paradigm (investing ~$215M), the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (investing ~$75M to $95M), SoftBank Group (investing ~$100M), Tiger Global (investing ~$38M), and BlackRock (investing ~$24M). These institutions later faced massive class-action litigation, such as the lawsuit filed by Connor O'Keefe in Miami, Florida, which accused Temasek, Sequoia, and SoftBank of acting as conspirators aiding and abetting the fraud. Using this institutional credibility, SBF expanded his personal influence in Washington, D.C. He directed over $100 million in political donations from Alameda's bank accounts. SBF personally contributed approximately $40 million to Democratic campaigns, making him the second-largest individual donor to the party, while co-CEO Ryan Salame funneled over $20 million to Republican campaigns, establishing a bipartisan lobbying apparatus to influence upcoming federal crypto legislation. In 2020, SBF and his brother Gabe co-founded Guarding Against Pandemics (GAP), an advocacy group promoting government investment in pandemic prevention. Almost entirely funded by Alameda Research (with contributions exceeding $12 million), GAP spent $150,000 on political ads to support a $30 billion public health funding proposal. It also funded a local ballot initiative in Denver to add a 1.5% tax on marijuana sales to fund virus research, and financed Californians Against Pandemics to successfully gather signatures for a 0.75% tax hike on incomes over $5 million in California. SBF spent heavily on "influence assets" to insulate himself from regulatory scrutiny. In addition to securing the Miami Heat arena naming rights (FTX Arena, valued at $135 million over 19 years) and running a Super Bowl ad starring Larry David, he directed tens of millions of dollars to Michael Kives’s venture firm, K5 Global, hoping to leverage Kives’s Hollywood and political connections to arrange private dinners with Elon Musk, Barack Obama, Rihanna, and Mark Zuckerberg. 7. Business Model, Hidden Backdoors, and Fraud Mechanics FTX's public-facing business model was highly profitable: earning trading fees from its high-volume, low-latency exchange engine. However, its actual operational engine was a hidden credit scheme built on manipulated token valuations, systemic database backdoors, and the direct misappropriation of customer deposits. At the center of this fraud was the complete lack of operational and financial segregation between FTX and Alameda. FTX lacked an independent banking infrastructure, directing customer deposits to be wire-transferred directly into bank accounts owned and controlled by Alameda Research. These funds—exceeding $10 billion—were utilized by Alameda to cover speculative trading losses, fund venture investments, purchase real estate, and issue loans to SBF and other executives. In 2019, SBF directed Gary Wang and Nishad Singh to write an "allow negative" feature into the FTX exchange's core codebase. This technical backdoor enabled Alameda's accounts to maintain negative balances, allowing the trading desk to draw unlimited amounts of customer funds out of the exchange. Alameda's internal credit line was initially set at $1 billion and subsequently raised to an unlimited $65 billion. Concurrently, SBF granted Alameda absolute exemption from FTX's automated margin liquidation engine. While retail and institutional traders faced immediate, automated liquidation of their positions if their collateral fell below maintenance requirements, Alameda was programmed to remain exempt, allowing its massive, unhedged loss positions to persist without liquidation. To secure credit from third-party lending desks, SBF instructed Caroline Ellison to perform automated, programmatic purchases of FTX's native token FTT. This artificial demand inflated the price of FTT, allowing Alameda to use its highly illiquid FTT holdings as "valuable collateral" to borrow billions of dollars in real assets from external lenders. 8. Critical Turning Points, Collapse, and the Liquidity Run In September 2021, following China's comprehensive ban on cryptocurrency trading, SBF faced severe regulatory risk. He made the decision to relocate FTX's global headquarters from Hong Kong to Nassau, Bahamas, purchasing a $35 million luxury penthouse where his core executive team lived and worked, isolating the leadership from external compliance and mainstream audit oversight. In May 2022, the collapse of the LUNA and UST stablecoin protocols triggered a major credit contraction across the cryptocurrency sector, driving multiple high-profile lending desks into insolvency. As Alameda's lenders demanded the immediate repayment of billions in loans, SBF made the fatal decision to secretly siphon billions in FTX customer assets to plug Alameda’s massive balance sheet deficits. On November 2, 2022, industry media outlet CoinDesk published a leaked copy of Alameda's balance sheet, revealing that the vast majority of its $14.6 billion in assets was comprised of FTT and other non-liquid "Sam Coins". The report exposed that Alameda's actual net assets were largely illiquid, triggering widespread concern over its financial solvency. Following the leak, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao announced on November 6 that his exchange would liquidate its remaining $500 million FTT position for risk management purposes, triggering a massive market sell-off of FTT. This triggered a historic run on FTX. The exchange faced a deluge of customer withdrawal requests, which it was unable to fulfill as its actual holdings of major assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum were less than 1.1% of its customer liabilities. On November 9, Caroline Ellison convened an emergency video call with Alameda employees, admitting that FTX's customer deposits had been diverted to cover Alameda’s liabilities, and that she, SBF, Gary Wang, and Nishad Singh were fully aware of the arrangement. SBF attempted to raise up to $8 billion in emergency capital from institutional investors like Temasek and Sequoia, and negotiated a brief non-binding acquisition agreement with Binance. However, Binance withdrew from the deal within 24 hours, citing that FTX’s financial issues were prior to their control. On November 11, FTX and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and SBF resigned as CEO. 9. Criminal Prosecution, Sentences, and Executive Cooperations On December 12, 2022, SBF was arrested by Bahamian authorities and subsequently extradited to the United States to face federal charges. He was indicted on seven felony counts, including wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities and commodities fraud, and money laundering conspiracy. During his trial in October 2023, SBF’s closest associates testified against him. Caroline Ellison, the star witness, testified that SBF directly ordered her to commit the financial crimes. Gary Wang and Nishad Singh similarly detailed how they modified FTX's codebase to implement the backdoor credit lines. On November 2, 2023, the jury convicted SBF on all seven counts. On March 28, 2024, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan sentenced SBF to 25 years in federal prison and ordered an $11.02 billion forfeiture. The criminal outcomes for his co-conspirators were also determined: Caroline Ellison received a lenient sentence of two years in prison on September 24, 2024, in recognition of her extensive cooperation. After forfeiting her assets, she served 14 months and was released in January 2026. Gary Wang was spared prison time, receiving time served and three years of supervised release on November 20, 2024. The court highlighted his immediate cooperation and his development of a specialized KYC and fraud detection interface currently utilized by the SEC and DOJ. Nishad Singh was also spared prison time, receiving time served on October 30, 2024, due to his late entry into the conspiracy and substantial assistance in recovering assets for victims. Ryan Salame, the only core executive who did not sign a cooperation agreement to testify against SBF, was sentenced to 90 months (7.5 years) in prison on May 28, 2024. He began his sentence at the medium-security FCI Cumberland in Maryland on October 11, 2024, with his release date moved up by over a year in November 2024. 10. Reorganization, Asset Recovery, and the Creditor Dispute Following the collapse of the exchange, the newly appointed CEO John J. Ray III coordinated a successful recovery effort. By mid-2024, the liquidation team recovered between $14.5 billion and $16.3 billion in cash, exceeding the estimated $11.2 billion owed to non-governmental creditors. On October 7, 2024, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge John Dorsey officially approved the FTX reorganization plan. Under the plan, 98% of creditors (those with claims under $50,000) will receive 118% of their allowed bankruptcy claims in cash within 60 days of the plan's effective date, while larger creditors will receive 100% plus up to 9% consensus interest compensation. While the full recovery is an unprecedented outcome in bankruptcy history, the plan has faced severe criticism from creditor groups. The primary dispute centers on the valuation conversion rate. The bankruptcy estate calculated customer claims based on the fiat price of cryptocurrencies in November 2022, when Bitcoin traded at approximately $16,000 and Ethereum at $1,200. As cryptocurrency prices recovered significantly by 2024, creditors argued that the cash payout represents only a fraction of their assets' current market value. Led by Sunil Kavuri, creditors protested that the 118% fiat payout effectively deprived them of their asset appreciation. 11. Parents' Legal Battles and Public Relations Campaigns SBF’s parents, Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried, face civil litigation from the FTX estate seeking the return of siphoned corporate funds, while running a parallel public relations and legal campaign. Barbara Fried retired from Stanford University in late 2022 as FTX collapsed. In February 2026, she filed a motion for a new trial as SBF's attorney-in-fact, attempting to act pro se on his behalf. The filing was quickly dismissed because SBF was already represented by counsel, and Fried was not admitted to the bar of that court. The court warned that filing legal papers without standing could expose her to bar discipline and disbarment. On March 11, 2026, Barbara Fried published a Substack post comparing Judge Kaplan to Irving Kaufman, the judge who sentenced the Rosenbergs to death in the 1950s, accusing Kaplan of taking pleasure in cruelty. On March 21, 2026, both parents appeared on CNN with Michael Smerconish. They argued that SBF was the victim of an out-of-control prosecution, seeking to reshape public sentiment and lobby the Trump administration. SBF and his parents have also targeted the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. They allege the firm engineered the bankruptcy process to extract hundreds of millions in legal fees, taking control of FTX from SBF when the liquidity crunch could have been resolved through alternative restructuring. 12. Current Status, Prison Life, and Lobbying Operations SBF is currently serving his 25-year sentence at the low-security Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California (FCI Lompoc). Due to regular pickleball, he has lost approximately 30 pounds and developed a deep tan. SBF maintains his image as an intellectual leader inside the prison, teaching chess classes and drafting legal filings for other inmates, earning a reputation as an unofficial legal advisor. He relies extensively on the prison's CorrLinks terminal, playing the mobile game Shattered Pixel Dungeon over 6,000 times. He also authored a Vegan Prison Cookbook and is serializing his prison memoir, titled Manfred, via the prison's email system. To secure an early release, SBF’s parents hired Republican lobbyists Bryan Lanza, a former adviser to Trump's 2024 campaign, and Kory Langhofer, a former campaign lawyer, to petition the Trump administration for a presidential pardon. Despite their lobbying efforts, President Trump told the New York Times he has no plans to pardon SBF, and his actual sentence of approximately 18 years (under the provisions of the First Step Act) remains firm. SBF's belief in his financial models remains unchanged. He drafts posts for his father to publish on X on his behalf. SBF has also told fellow inmates that he plans to launch a new cryptocurrency immediately upon his release in 2044 to rebuild his financial empire.