This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Sam Bankman-Fried’s image as a man indifferent to authority helped him ascend. Now, on trial for fraud, the onetime enfant terrible of finance is colliding with an arena of American life where decorum counts.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

Trump reportedly divulges nuclear secrets. Comedians only care about comedy. The standard advice for concussions is wrong.

The Rules Apply

Sam Bankman-Fried’s parents looked on, stony-faced, as a former employee and friend of their son testified against him in federal court on Wednesday. Asked to identify the defendant, the witness described Bankman-Fried as the man wearing a suit and a purple tie. A year ago, Bankman-Fried was the golden boy of the tech world; observers had no indication that he would wind up in court facing federal fraud charges. That he would appear in a suit and tie, having traded his shaggy curls for close-cropped hair, seemed likewise improbable. The onetime maverick of Silicon Valley looked, from where I was sitting a few rows back in the courtroom, like any other defendant.

The rules, for a time, didn’t apply to Sam Bankman-Fried. Throughout his rise as a crypto leader, Bankman-Fried eschewed formality, consciously cultivating a messy, zany persona. He met with dignitaries in cargo shorts. His hair, constantly unkempt, became a sort of synecdoche for his unbothered attitude (when FTX was gaining renown, he reportedly told a colleague that it was important that his hair stay long so that he would look “crazy”). Now he is confronting a corner of American life reliant on decorum and fact. After FTX’s implosion last year, Bankman-Fried faces seven charges of financial crimes including wire fraud (he has pleaded not guilty to all charges). If convicted, he could face decades in prison. The law, though often unevenly enforced, can at its best serve as an equalizer, where even the powerful must face consequences if they cross lines.

In court this week, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, a federal-court stalwart who presided over E. Jean Carroll’s case against Donald Trump and other high-profile trials, seemed to epitomize the dignified institution Bankman-Fried is facing. Kaplan did not seem inclined to throw his weight around on behalf of the defendant. On Wednesday afternoon, after the jury filed out, Mark Cohen, one of Bankman-Fried’s defense lawyers, beseeched the judge to help get his client his full prescribed dosage of Adderall. “My problem, of course, is that the last I know, I don’t have a medical license,” the judge snipped, advising that the lawyers contact the Bureau of Prisons about the matter. Bankman-Fried has exasperated this judge in the past: In August, Kaplan ordered the defendant to jail after various infractions (among other things, Bankman-Fried leaked the diary entries of his ex-girlfriend, former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, to The New York Times).

Bankman-Fried ascended in part based on the idea that he was different from everyone else—smarter, more trustworthy, uniquely able to make sense of the byzantine complexities of cryptocurrency markets. His pedigreed past—he’s an MIT graduate with Stanford Law–professor parents—added to his persona as a disruptive whiz kid. Now the crux of the government’s case against him is that he isn’t so different after all: Bankman-Fried, prosecutors charge, committed good old-fashioned theft.

Using frank language stripped of euphemism, a prosecutor explained to the jury on Wednesday the state’s case of how Bankman-Fried committed fraud on a mass scale. In his opening statement, the government lawyer used, by my count, a version of the word lied 26 times, stole 12 times, took 23 times, and fraud 13 times. Bankman-Fried, the lawyer explained to jurors, stole billions of dollars of customer deposits in order to furnish a lavish lifestyle, make political and charitable donations, and facilitate the purchase of luxury real estate, such as a penthouse in the Bahamas. (A spokesperson for Bankman-Fried did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) That the case revolves around such a complex financial mechanism as crypto is almost incidental; to the prosecution, this was simple fraud, fueled by deception.

Then, in language peppered with metaphors and strained wordplay, Cohen argued in his opening statement that his client acted in good faith trying to run FTX. “There was no theft,” Cohen insisted. Running a start-up, Cohen said, relying on a well-worn tech truism, is like flying a plane as you’re building it. That metaphor was key to the defense’s attempt to explain why Bankman-Fried and his team made such stunning management errors as failing to hire a chief risk officer.

The plane metaphor, which Cohen later repeated, was a bit forced, but it helped to conveniently elide Bankman-Fried’s potential responsibility. The plane was flying into storms while it was being built, his lawyer said; in other words, these were circumstances beyond the defendant’s control. Most of all, Bankman-Fried didn’t intend to steal, Cohen argued. “The defense’s opening statement focused a lot on SBF’s fundamentally good motives and character—as an innovator who made a mistake because the industry and culture are about moving fast and breaking things,” Yesha Yadav, an expert on financial regulation at Vanderbilt Law School, told me over email.

In their opening statements, neither side waded into the complexity of how crypto markets work. The world of crypto is confusing, and, indeed, Bankman-Fried benefited from the perception that he was uniquely qualified to crack it. When it served him, Bankman-Fried relied on his image as a generational genius, a visionary leader who could remake the world of finance. Now his defense is presenting a different narrative: Bankman-Fried might have been “a math nerd,” but he’s also just an overextended businessman who lost track of things as his company ballooned.

Over the next several weeks, the government will need to convince all 12 members of the jury that beyond a reasonable doubt, Bankman-Fried committed fraud. Whether Bankman-Fried will take the stand in his own defense is a big, open question here. In the past, Bankman-Fried has been his own most visible advocate. But in court, where gravity and propriety reign, how his renegade attitude will play—even with his new look—is a wild card.

Related:

Sam Bankman-Fried pushed one boundary too many. The cults of Sam Bankman-Fried

Today’s News

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Narges Mohammadi, an Iranian activist who is currently jailed in Tehran. Republican candidates for House speaker have pulled out from a planned forum on Fox News after calls to keep discussions internal. A glacial lake burst through a major hydroelectric dam in northeast India, killing at least 42 people.

Dispatches

The Books Briefing: Gal Beckerman discusses a new translation of The Iliad, an epic poem that his 10-year-old daughter adores. Up for Debate: Conor Friedersdorf asks readers what America will be like in 2050, and delves into “solarpunk.”

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Pierre Buttinon

What the Longest Study on Human Happiness Found Is the Key to a Good Life

By Robert Waldinger and Marc Schulz

Turn your mind for a moment to a friend or family member you cherish but don’t spend as much time with as you would like. This needn’t be your most significant relationship, just someone who makes you feel energized when you’re with them, and whom you’d like to see more regularly.

How often do you see that person? Every day? Once a month? Once a year? Do the math and project how many hours annually you spend with them. Write this number down and hang on to it …

Thinking about these numbers can help us put our own relationships in perspective. Try figuring out how much time you spend with a good friend or family member. We don’t have to spend every hour with our friends, and some relationships work because they’re exercised sparingly. But nearly all of us have people in our lives whom we’d like to see more.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

The Nobel winner whose writing speaks to everyone A robot’s nightmare is a burrito full of guac. Photos of the week: masked witness, right whale, stormy gorge

Culture Break

Universal

Read. Bottoms Up and the Devil Laughs, by Kerry Howley, is about the “deep state,” but it is so well written that our staff writer Olga Khazan would have read it even if it had been about anything else.

Watch. The Exorcist, William Friedkin’s 1973 film (streaming on Max), is one of the biggest movies ever made. Why are all of the attempts to sequelize it so baffling?

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

FTX was, in some ways, an intensely personal affair: Bankman-Fried lived with several fellow executives, including his sometimes-girlfriend Ellison. His parents, with whom he lived while on house arrest, had ties to the business, and his brother’s pandemic-prevention nonprofit was the recipient of massive donations. As one of its exhibits on Wednesday, the prosecution showed the jury the now-infamous FTX 2022 Super Bowl ad starring Larry David. Apparently, Joseph Bankman, the father of the defendant, appears in the ad as a signer of the Declaration of Independence, shouting “yes!” after David asks whether “even the stupid ones” should be allowed to vote. After the video played in court, the government lawyer asked a witness to explain who Larry David was. At that point, Joseph Bankman cracked a brief smile, and then his face fell again.

— Lora

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.