This all seems very counterfactual and vibes based.
To be clear about this conversation, someone claims that Levine "called SBF out on running a Ponzi scheme." I provide a clear quote from Levine disavowing that. You come in and say that well, maybe FTX was unsound in a way that is actually different from what actually went wrong with FTX/Alameda.
Is there any content to your contribution here? Or is it all just vibes?
I'm not disputing that Mr Levine's take was that SBF and co were "in the Ponzi (trading) business" rather than running a Ponzi themselves.
I am just just pointing out that while this is not as rapidly or completely unstable as running one of the traded Ponzis, it is also not fundamentally stable and sustainable. IDK what "vibes" have to do with that, if anything. These are fundamentals that eventually bring down temporarily bubbles. If that's what you mean by "vibes", it's the opposite.
