> he's an entertainer

That is a gross cynical misrepresentation.

He appears to me to be a financial geek, interested in the mechanics of finance for its own sake, and who finds comedy (often dark comedy) in the mechanics of our financial systems.

Philosophically, we can’t be 100% sure of his motivations to publish his insights, but everything of his that I have read points to the reason primarily being that he finds it fascinating, a nearly purposeless academic joy.

There's nothing wrong with being an entertainer, it's just something to keep in mind.

In other words, don't make major financial decisions based on Levine not saying it is a good or bad idea.

> In other words, don't make major financial decisions based on Levine not saying it is a good or bad idea.

He puts such disclaimers on basically everything he says.

What should I base my major financial decisions on?

he's a former M&A advisor at Goldman Sachs, so he has a lot of background and knowledge in everything he writes about.

The point about being an entertainer is a good one. Nonetheless, after reading that I came out with more respect for Levine. With FTX in shambles, it would've been easy to go with the flow and lean into how he predicted the whole thing with his Ponzi question, but Levine instead honestly comes out and says that he actually liked SBF more after that interview.