The Secret Story of FTX’s Rise and Ruin Part 2 ⁠74%

By Reveal⁠74%

7/18/2026, 12:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.4% saturation with 60 hits. Analysis detected 357 faulty-reasoning hits from 256 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,749 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.70% of the article peer group.

When the cryptocurrency exchange FTX imploded, customers around the world lost access to their money. 
Founder Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud and sent to prison. 
But the story didn’t stop there. 
For the past three and a half years, FTX has been in bankruptcy, a legal process that determines who will be paid back and how much they’ll receive. 
From the start, some customers and FTX insiders have criticized the bankruptcy. 
Legal experts and a bipartisan group of senators objected to the law firm tapped to run it, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest. 
But the bankruptcy court and an independent examiner signed off on the firm’s appointment as lead counsel. 
Customers are now receiving compensation for their losses, but many say they’re being shortchanged. 
Instead of being paid in cryptocurrency, they’re receiving cash, with their claims pegged to the value of crypto when the market was at an all-time low. 
“Under this plan, my contractual rights and my ownership rights have been trampled; my property rights have been disregarded,” says Lidia Favario, an Italian artist who argued in court that customers should be repaid in crypto, not cash. 
This week on Reveal , in the second part of our series on FTX, we examine the decisions that shaped what’s become one of the most expensive bankruptcies in US history. 
Read the FTX bankruptcy estate’s on-the-record statement to Reveal . 
This is an update of a show that originally aired in October 2025 . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.3%Reveal: 0.8%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.1%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Reveal: 5.1%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic16.8%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.5%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.4%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Reveal: 14.3%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect6.6%This article: 10.2%Reveal: 2.3%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion10.2%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.2%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 4.7%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.4%Reveal: 14.9%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias23.4%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.9%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.6%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 2.4%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.6%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 2.2%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.3%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.4%Reveal: 2.3%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority9.4%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.9%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.9%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%Reveal: 6.5%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.8%Reveal: 11.9%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion14.8%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.6%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Reveal: 3.4%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 1.6%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.8%Reveal: 3.2%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote14.8%This article: 14.8%Reveal: 2.0%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection14.8%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 9.2%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 4.7%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 4.8%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reveal: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Reveal: 9.6%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.0%

256 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech218writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageLidia Favario • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lidia Favario

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words100% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lidia Favario: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lidia Favario: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -18.8 ptsWriter: 18.8%Lidia Favario: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.