SBF's Prison Verdict Overturned: Is the Sinner Returning, or Was There Really a Cover-Up in This Trial? With Binance and CZ facing attacks in the English-speaking world due to the epic liquidation of 1011, the sentiment in both domestic and international communities has become quite surreal. Many are beginning to reminisce about SBF and FTX. Frankly, SBF's misappropriation of user funds is truly disgusting; there's no denying it. But if you look at it objectively, he was undeniably a ruthless figure in terms of investment acumen and driving the expansion of the crypto industry. Just look at the projects he invested in back then: Claude, SpaceX, Circle, Cursor, Replit… These assets, if they existed today, would all be top-tier assets. In contrast, CZ's approach was more of an exchange mentality: copying trends, controlling traffic, and using ecosystem advantages to crush original creators. Commercially sound, but his contributions to industry innovation are on a completely different level. Therefore, when news of "SBF's prison verdict overturned" emerged, market sentiment was complex. You'll find a bizarre phenomenon: the very person who dragged down the market back then is now being hoped to make a comeback. What does this tell us? It shows that the crypto world in 2026 will be more realistic than in 2022. 1️⃣ He's not crying foul; he's questioning the entire trial. SBF has submitted a 35-page motion for a Rule 33 retrial. The key point isn't "I didn't commit a crime." It's: The trial proceedings had serious problems. The core criteria of Rule 33 are simple: "Newly discovered evidence" "Evidence that couldn't be obtained during the original trial" "Sufficient enough to affect the verdict" In other words, he's not overturning the facts, but the procedures. If the procedures have fatal flaws, the conviction itself could be overturned. This path is narrow, but if successful, the impact will be enormous. 2️⃣ Witness Issues: Were any witnesses silenced? The most sensitive part of the motion is the witnesses. Ryan Salame did not appear in court. SBF claims that prosecutors threatened to prosecute his partner, Michelle Bond, to prevent him from testifying. If true, this is a serious procedural issue. But the real questions are: Is there a recording? Is there a written record of the threats? Currently, there is no publicly available hard evidence. In the federal court system, without solid evidence, it is very difficult to overturn a conviction. Another key witness, Nishad Singh. The motion claims that the prosecutor lost control of his emotions during the pre-trial interview, pressured the witness, and caused changes in his testimony. If a complete record exists, this would be very serious. But if it is only a one-sided statement, the court usually assumes that the prosecution's procedures were compliant. 3️⃣ Was the "huge deficit" selectively presented? Back then, the prosecution used the negative balance of the fiat@ftx.com account as irrefutable evidence. Now, the former head of data science has sworn that: The prosecution only showed the negative portion to the jury, without fully presenting the corresponding assets. In short: Liabilities were magnified while assets were downplayed. If fully accounted for, Alameda likely maintained a positive balance for most of 2022. This sounds shocking. But the legal logic is clear: Even if repayment is eventually made, unauthorized use of client funds constitutes a crime. Solvency does not offset unauthorized use. 4️⃣ Bankruptcy Team Named SBF also pointed the finger at Sullivan & Cromwell. They argued that the initial bankruptcy proceedings underestimated $8.4 billion in venture capital assets, including Anthropic, reinforcing the narrative of insolvency. Later, client payout ratios reached 119%–143%, seemingly confirming that "the money wasn't lost." This will certainly make some people rethink. But legal judgments consider whether the actions were legal at the time, not whether assets appreciated later. 5️⃣ Political Factors and Judicial Bias SBF also implied that it was a political victim. He was once a major donor to the Democratic Party, but after his downfall, he was quickly sidelined and sentenced to 25 years in prison to quell public anger. He even requested the presiding judge's recusal. However, the success rate of federal judges recusing themselves due to "bias" is extremely low, unless there is a clear conflict of interest. Otherwise, such applications are difficult to succeed. 6️⃣ The Realistic Probability of Overturning the Case Rule 33 has an extremely high threshold. So-called "new evidence" must prove that: it was not reasonably obtainable during the trial it was not a choice made by the defense it was sufficient to change the verdict Salame and the data director were known figures at the time. The court will likely determine that this is not new evidence, but rather a choice made by the defense at the time. From a legal perspective, the success rate of overturning the case is not high. 7️⃣ So why is there a "nostalgia" in the market? Because in recent years, the industry has not become more ideal. Regulation has become stronger, but has the market become freer? Not necessarily. Exchanges remain centralized. Clearances remain bloody. PVP logic still dominates. So, some began to miss the madman who at least dared to bet heavily on the future. This isn't whitewashing. It's dissatisfaction with reality. The End SBF didn't accept his fate. He chose to continue the fight from prison. This might be a desperate struggle, or it might just be a procedural one. But one thing is certain: This story isn't over yet. In the crypto world, the line between hero and villain is never fixed. And SBF is still at the table, just in a different way.