Sam Bankman-Fried on Friday rejected the common view on FTX’s collapse, saying the exchange was not insolvent when it failed in November 2022.
According to a document published in X on October 31, 2025, his team maintains that the company suffered a sudden run on liquidity rather than a balance sheet deficit.
The filing claims there are approximately $14.6 billion in real estate assets versus about $8 billion in customer claims.
Solvency claims and asset totals
Bankman-Fried’s filing claims that approximately $8 billion in client liabilities never left the exchange’s equity. It says legal and advisory costs have been considerable (about $1 billion) but that large asset recoveries since 2022 mean creditors are in line for healthy payments.
Reports have revealed that 98% of creditors have already been refunded approximately 120% of their claims, and payment submission projects to end customers could fall by between 119% and 143%.
[SBF says:]
This is where the money went. https://t.co/HVRwEw5Z1k https://t.co/5DrA13L5YE pic.twitter.com/O6q77DvmTn
– SBF (@SBF_FTX) October 31, 2025
The document partly blames outside advisers and the emergency management team brought in after the collapse.
It names the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell and interim CEO John J. Ray III as leading the bankruptcy process in ways that the filing contends made a rescue or quick resolution difficult.
The tone is defensive and the figures are presented as proof that the estate can cover the claims.
Critics challenge the account
But not everyone accepts that account. According to reports from chain investigators and others, critics say the figures do not resolve the key question: Was FTX solvent at the time customers attempted to withdraw funds?
On-chain researcher ZachXBT and other analysts note that the value of many recovered assets has increased since November 2022, and that using current prices to declare past solvency can be misleading.
The distinction between holding assets that can eventually pay people and holding liquid cash at the height of a run is at the heart of the disagreement.
Investigators, court records, and previous testimony in criminal proceedings highlighted governance failures and risky ties to Alameda Research.
Those findings remain part of the public record and complicate any simple assertion that the company was simply a victim of timing.
Legal observers also note that bankruptcy The costs and risk of litigation can significantly reduce what is ultimately available to clients.
What this means for customers and the industry
For former customers, the most immediate question is how refunds are calculated. Reports have revealed that some sums will be based on November 2022 valuations rather than current market prices.
That approach can leave users short if asset prices subsequently rise. Even if the estate produces payments in excess of 100% of claims, the timing and basis of those payments are important to actual recoveries.
If Bankman-Fried’s description gains traction, it would reframe parts of the story from a clear insolvency to a debate about timing, liquidity and post-collapse management.
Regulators and creditors are watching closely. The legal and financial consequences of FTX’s failure are still unfolding, and competing narratives about liability and recovery will shape how similar collapses are handled in the future.
Featured image by Tom Williams/Getty Images, chart by TradingView
