CZ Memoir: SBF Asked for 'Billions Like a Bologna'
1h ago|7 min read1Standard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
CZSBF
Changpeng "CZ" Zhao's new memoir, disclosed in a Coindesk interview dated Apr 8, 2026, casts fresh light on the final months of FTX's collapse and on the interplay between major exchange operators during the crisis. CZ recounts signing a letter of intent with FTX "as a formality," and characterises an internal $22 floor-price proposal by Caroline Ellison as a "fatal mistake" that accelerated liquidity run-off. He also uses a vivid metaphor — that Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) asked for "billions like a bologna sandwich" — to describe repeated, large cash requests in the period preceding FTX's bankruptcy. Those anecdotes sit alongside well-documented events: FTX filed for bankruptcy on Nov 11, 2022, and public filings and reporting estimated a customer shortfall in the order of roughly $8 billion at that time (FTX bankruptcy filings, Nov 11, 2022). For institutional stakeholders, the memoir offers both new color and a reminder of unresolved governance and counterparty risk issues across the crypto sector.
CZ's account is positioned within a broader chronology that began with liquidity stresses in October–November 2022 and culminated in the Nov 11, 2022 bankruptcy filing. The April 8, 2026 Coindesk piece summarises passages from the memoir in which CZ describes signing a letter of intent that he regarded as procedural rather than a binding rescue (Coindesk, Apr 8, 2026). This narrative reinforces earlier perceptions that the interplay between public statements and bilateral negotiations materially affected depositor confidence. For market participants, the timing and tone of those interactions are significant because they influenced the velocity of withdrawals and the public's willingness to accept an orderly restructuring.
The memoir's claim that Caroline Ellison proposed a $22 price floor for FTX Group-related assets adds a new tactical detail to internal decision-making. The Coindesk summary reports CZ calling that $22 proposal a "fatal mistake," suggesting that signalling intended asset-price supports can backfire if markets interpret them as evidence of insolvency risk. That dynamic echoes historical episodes in other markets where attempted price stabilization precipitated counterparty runs rather than calming them. From a governance standpoint, the memoir underscores weaknesses in coordinated crisis communication among counterparties and custodians.
Separately, CZ's depiction of repeated requests for "billions" — the term used in his memoir — frames the crisis as one of inexorable liquidity drains rather than discrete operational failures. While "billions" is a qualitative descriptor, it is consistent with scale estimates from public filings showing multi-billion-dollar shortfalls and obligations when FTX ceased normal operations. Institutional creditors and counterparties will parse such memoir claims for details that could affect recovery expectations in remaining litigation and bankruptcy proceedings.
The memoir provides several specific touchpoints that can be compared against public records. First, Coindesk's Apr 8, 2026 reporting quotes CZ directly on the letter of intent and the $22 price-floor exchange; those are primary textual citations for the memoir's assertions (Coindesk, Apr 8, 2026). Second, the formal bankruptcy filing date of Nov 11, 2022 remains the anchor for quantitative analysis: the filing disclosed billions of dollars in claims and a balance-sheet shortfall widely reported at roughly $8 billion (FTX bankruptcy filings, Nov 11, 2022). Third, the magnitude of "billions" requested from Binance — as described by CZ — should be calibrated against available exchange reserves and third-party liquidity metrics when they are disclosed in regulatory or legal records.
Comparative analysis is instructive. The FTX shortfall of roughly $8 billion on Nov 11, 2022 contrasts with the liquidity positions of regulated retail-oriented rivals; for example, many regulated custodians report segregated client assets that reduce commingling risk, a structural difference that was central to market concerns during the crisis. Year-on-year (YoY) performance metrics for major publicly traded crypto firms also illustrate divergence: COIN (Coinbase Global), for instance, experienced pronounced share price volatility through 2022–2023 that reflected market-wide de-leveraging and trust erosion. Investors evaluating counterparty exposure should therefore consider segregation practices, audited reserve attestations, and the presence (or absence) of formal liquidity backstops when benchmarking exchanges.
Finally, CZ's memoir remarks about the formality of signing a letter of intent raise technical questions for contract lawyers and restructurers about the enforceability of pre-bankruptcy agreements. The difference between a binding acquisition agreement and an LOI can materially affect creditor recoveries; in Chapter 11 proceedings, the characterization of pre-filing deals has historically shifted recovery trajectories. Analysts should cross-reference the memoir's claims with filings from the bankruptcy estate and any released correspondence to reconcile chronology and commitments.
If CZ's characterisation of the negotiations and the $22 proposal withstands scrutiny, the memoir will rekindle debates about transparency, governance, and the permissible scope of market interventions by large private counterparties. For the crypto sector more broadly, this episode reinforces the argument that decentralised asset promises intersect poorly with centralised liquidity dependencies. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions have already used FTX as a case study for proposed rules on asset segregation, capital requirements, and disclosure. Memoir claims that highlight informal, off-ledger negotiations may accelerate policy moves to codify reporting and custody standards.
Market structure implications are also non-trivial. The memoir reiterates that reputational risk and perceived solvency can be endogenous to communication strategies. Exchanges that publicly commit to backstops or price-stabilization mechanisms run the risk of creating moral hazard or amplifying panic if the pledged resources are insufficient or contingent. As such, institutional counterparties and market infra providers are likely to demand clearer contracts and, where possible, independent custody arrangements to insulate clients from counterparty failure.
From a capital markets perspective, residual litigation and asset recovery timelines remain the dominant variables affecting stakeholder outcomes. The scale of claims reported in the Nov 11, 2022 filings and continuing legal actions will determine the ultimate recoveries for creditors and former customers. That process is likely to be protracted, with distributions informed by asset valuations, creditor priorities, and settlement negotiations. The memoir's disclosures could influence those settlement dynamics by altering perceptions of conduct and intent among negotiating parties.
The immediate market-moving risk of CZ's memoir is modest; the principal channel is reputational and legal rather than market liquidity. For listed equities with exposure to crypto-market sentiment — notably COIN — episodic volatility could reappear if the memoir prompts new legal claims or regulatory inquiries. However, the stability of larger regulated financial institutions is unlikely to be directly affected because traditional custodians and banks typically operate under different capital and prudential frameworks.
Operational risk considerations are material for firms that still operate pooled custody models. The memoir reinforces a scenario analysis in which governance gaps produce synchronous runs and rapid asset price dislocations. Firms should therefore revisit contingency plans that assume sudden withdrawal shocks and test those plans versus realistic liquidity horizons. For institutional counterparties, counterparty credit assessments should incorporate both public filings and any credible new documentary evidence that emerges from memoir excerpts and legal discovery.
Legal and settlement risks are perhaps the most consequential. If CZ's narrative provides leads that evidence misleading conduct or material misrepresentations by various actors, it could reshape litigation postures and settlement valuations. That said, memoirs are memoirs: they offer perspective but not adjudicated fact. Analysts and claimants will need corroboration from contemporaneous documents and sworn testimony to alter courtroom outcomes or bankruptcy distributions materially.
In the near term, expect headlines and legal filings to chew over specific memoir claims, particularly the $22 price-floor anecdote and the assertion that CZ's LOI signature was procedural. These narratives will be parsed by plaintiffs' counsel and by the bankruptcy estate as they negotiate claims and attempt asset recoveries. For markets, short-lived volatility in crypto-native equities or tokens is plausible if the memoir supplies new documentary leads; long-term structural changes, however, will depend on regulatory responses and the outcomes of litigation.
Over a 12–24 month horizon, the substantive impact on market architecture will likely stem from policy changes rather than memoir revelations per se. Regulators in the U.S., EU and Asia have already signalled intentions to tighten custody and disclosure rules in the wake of FTX; the memoir's details may serve as anecdotal support for those moves and influence the speed and specificity of rulemaking. Institutional investors should monitor regulatory timelines and the estate's published recovery projections to calibrate exposures.
For practitioners, the memoir is a reminder that market narratives matter as much as balance sheets during episodes of stress. Crisis communications, contract clarity, and demonstrable liquidity reserves are preventatives; the absence of those elements prolongs uncertainty and increases recovery risk. For updated research and frameworks on counterparty risk and custody best practices see our insights and related analysis on exchange governance at topic.
Fazen Capital Perspective
From Fazen Capital's standpoint, CZ's memoir should be treated as a complementary piece of the evidentiary mosaic rather than a standalone truth. The anecdotal nature of memoirs can overemphasise agency and underplay structural failures. A contrarian reading suggests that the most durable lessons from FTX are not solely about individual decisions — such as a $22 price-floor proposal or signing an LOI — but about systemic gaps: limited auditability of off-chain commitments, concentrated counterparty exposures, and incentive structures that rewarded growth over prudential resilience. Institutional investors should therefore prioritise cold-data due diligence — audited reserves, proof-of-custody, and contractual remedies — instead of relying on behavioural narratives. For practical due diligence frameworks and scenario stress tests refer to our research hub at topic.
Q: Does the memoir change recoveries for FTX creditors?
A: The memoir itself does not directly change legal entitlements; recoveries are determined by bankruptcy law, asset liquidation values, and settlements. However, new memoir disclosures can generate leads for discovery or influence negotiations, which might indirectly affect settlement valuations and timing.
Q: Could CZ's account spur regulatory action?
A: Yes. The memoir's emphasis on informal negotiations and signalling could be used by regulators to justify tighter rules on custody, disclosure, and pre-bankruptcy deal reporting. Policymakers already cited FTX when proposing rules; memoir excerpts may accelerate the pace or broaden the scope of reforms.
Q: How should institutional counterparties respond operationally?
A: Practical steps include strengthening contractual segregation, demanding regular independent attestations of client assets, and stress-testing liquidity buffers. While such steps are standard, the memoir reinforces their importance in a market where reputation and off-balance arrangements can precipitate rapid runs.
CZ's Apr 8, 2026 memoir adds texture to the FTX narrative but does not, by itself, resolve the legal and financial questions that determine creditor recoveries or regulatory outcomes. Institutional stakeholders should integrate anecdotal disclosures with publicly filed evidence and continue to prioritise structural risk controls.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.