Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. Watch the video for a better view of graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes the presenter might be referring to in context.

Intro to SESAMm

Thank you very much, Greg. Thank you, everyone, for listening to this presentation. I’m Sylvain. I’m CEO and co-founder of SESAMm. SESAMm is an AI company. We extract billions of articles and messages from the web in order to identify critical insights related to financial institutions and corporates. We’re a team of close to a hundred people. And what we aim to show you today is our new product that helps financial institutions and corporates identify ESG controversies in the form of alerts on all of their investments, on all of their clients, and all of their suppliers.

So there are more than 23 million companies in the world right now. These companies are your investments, your suppliers, your clients, and no one is actually tracking them. Most of these companies are never tracked day to day. SESAMm’s solution aims at automatically identifying controversies on these companies and finding the critical information that you’re missing.

See a dashboard example

So let’s take a quick example first. Here we have dashboards where we analyze a company called Wirecard. Wirecard is a fintech company—German—that went bankrupt a few years ago due to a two billion fraud scandal. That company was heavily embedded into the financial sector, working with a lot of banks, a lot of corporates worldwide.

On our dashboards, we can immediately identify all of the key controversies and all of the key risks on the companies. And we have a score called a virality score that helps assess the severity of each ESG event so as to understand whether that company should be excluded from your list of suppliers, for example, or even discussed as a client.

SESAMm solution benefits

There are key benefits to providing this information and to the way that this product is brought to the market. First, SESAMm covers more companies than anyone else. We cover close to five million firms, whereas most ESG providers have coverage limited to 50,000 firms in total. In addition to that, we’re able to detect controversies in real time and generate daily alerts where normally a bank, for example, would have to go through that process manually and update it just a few times a year instead of receiving that live information.

In addition to that, as you can see on the demo here, we have information for more than 14 years of data. So anytime you onboard a new supplier, anytime you check for information—ESG information, on a new client, or on an investment—you’ll automatically be able to go back in history and understand whether that company was exposed to issues in the past.

Trusted by major financial institutions

SESAMm solutions are already adopted by major banks such as Raiffeisen or Nomura, for example, in this industry, major private equity firms such as Carlyle. And what’s interesting in this solution is that we’re seeing specific interests from commercial banks that are missing the solution in order to track ESG risk on their suppliers and their clients. And it makes sense. Most of these suppliers and clients are small firms, local firms that no one else is going to track. And AI is enabling us to automate the process of monitoring these firms and making sense of that data in real time.

SESAMm's solution in action

So now, let’s go to the second part of the demo. We want to take an actual life example. So let’s take a company like Twilio, for example. So you may know Twilio communications, API, messaging services, phone services, and the like. This company is a typical provider of banks or of financial institutions or any other corporates in the world.

So you see on the left, we immediately identify all of the information related to Twilio. And we can rank this based on negative sentiment so as to understand what are the key critical topics that I should care about and that I should evaluate before actually working with Twilio or in the context of already working with Twilio. We go through that process by handling more than 20 billion articles and messages from more than four million sources worldwide. So that’s an insanely large amount of information.

And on Twilio—say Twilio is one of your suppliers or one of your clients—we immediately identify a large controversy related to a data breach and cybersecurity issue, and we identified both in news but also in some of the specialized cybersecurity websites. In addition to that, we can go in even more granularity and look transparently at the content themselves, read the contents from the platform, and not just rely on a numeric rate saying that “Hey! This company is problematic.” We can actually read the underlying content and understand how the controversy emerged.

SESAMm solution benefits

So the key benefits and the real advantages of that solution is getting information immediately. You don’t have to wait for a due diligence for someone to check for someone to send a questionnaire to the company. You just type in the name, get the information in a few seconds wherever the company is, and however local that company is. It could be the most obscure company. And as you can see our system also covers many different languages, including Asian languages that are monitored automatically.

The second part is that we have access to millions of sources, including very industry-specific sources. I was mentioning cyberthreats. We also have access to NGO websites that identify these types of ESG issues in real time.

So this is really the information that is aimed at helping you monitor controversies and ESG events in just one place on any number of companies, public and private, whether they are your suppliers, your clients, or your investments. You can make sense of that data in real time using AI.

Presentation summary

I’ll finish this presentation a bit early, and we’ll actually bring the point to three calls to action. The first one is, first, please come to our booth. We’re actually on the left of the exhibit hall right when you come in. The second one is, please visit our website. It’s spelled SESAMm, sesamm.com, and you can get a free trial from the website. And finally, come talk to our amazing team with Dave and the rest of our team at our booth. And please ask us for a free POC—whether you’re a bank, an asset manager, or a fintech company—and help us help you track all of the ESG controversies on millions of companies.

Thank you very much.

Reach out to SESAMm

TextReveal’s web data analysis of over five million public and private companies is essential for keeping tabs on ESG investment risks. For example, ESG Alerts provides a better way to research and monitor your investment portfolio. To learn more about how you can analyze web data or to request a demo, reach out to one of our representatives.

November 11, 2022, FTX, a $32 billion cryptocurrency exchange company that many believed would “change the world,” filed for bankruptcy. This news shook the crypto and financial communities, compelling many to debate the future of the crypto market and its platforms.

How did FTX collapse?

You could say that FTX’s collapse began before the news broke, but here’s a summary of events as The New York Times and ABC News details:

Breaking news

In early November, CoinDesk, a crypto publication, broke the news on a leaked document from FTX. The balance sheet showed that the hedge fund run by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), Alameda Research, held a substantial amount of FTT tokens. In short, SBF had set up Alameda (his trading firm) and FTX (his exchange firm) in such a way that if one unit experienced trouble, such as dropping cryptocurrency prices, the other experienced it, too.

First domino falls

By the way, FTT is used for various functions, including traders’ payment of operation fees. Also, by the way, Changpeng Zhao, Binance’s Chief Executive, sold his stake in FTX to SBF in 2021, partially with FTT. So, “due to recent revelations,” Binance (Zhao) announced on November 6, 2022, that it would sell its FTT tokens.

Other dominos follow

Traders responded; they hurried to pull funds out of FTX out of fear, and FTT’s price fell. Meanwhile, FTX processed withdrawal requests over three days, amounting to an estimated $6 billion. The liquidity crunch was upon it.

Then, on November 8, Binance said it would bail out FTX. But on November 9, Binance backtracked and announced in a Tweet that it would not “as a result of corporate due diligence,” while also citing regulatory investigations and reports of mishandled funds.

Things get worse

The next day, November 10, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas froze FTX’s assets, citing the public statement about potentially “mishandled” and “mismanaged” customer funds. On November 11, FTX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protections, and SBF resigned as CEO. John J. Ray III—famously known as the CEO who headed the infamously known energy company, Enron, through its collapse in the 2000s—replaced SBF on November 17.

Fallout

Today, FTX faces federal investigation for securities laws violations based on a report by The Wall Street Journal regarding FTX lending customer deposits to Alameda Research for liabilities, of which the company’s top executives were aware. Investors have suffered loss, traders have suffered loss, and the greater crypto community and regulators are asking questions.

FTX and SBF web data analysis

News about FTX’s collapse generated tons of web data for us to scour. With this data, here’s what we aimed to find out:

• How did the public web react to FTX’s collapse?
• Could we have seen red flags before the news broke?
• What was FTX’s collapse’s effect on the cryptocurrency market’s sentiment?
• Is it possible to evaluate cryptocurrency exchange companies’ ESG risks and opportunities?
• Was FTX’s collapse unprecedented? If not, what does web data tell us about that?

FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried mentions analysis

Web public sentiment for FTX and SBF was consistently positive until Q1 of 2022. As mentions volume increased, their sentiment polarity decreased (Figure 1). The mentions spike for both in November when CoinDesk broke the news. Likewise, polarity dips into the negative range for both.

Definition: Polarity represents the aggregate of positive and negative sentiments (opinions or reviews) on a company. A 0 score means there is as much positive as negative sentiment expressed. The dotted and dashed lines represent sentiment in the following charts.

Looking closer at Q1 (Figure 2), we find that mentions affecting sentiment increased for FTX and SBF during this period. What are the mentions about, and why did they affect polarity negatively?

It turns out that SBF is linked to other keywords—we call these co-mentions—and between January 2022 and November 2022, SBF/withdrawal co-mentions (Figure 3) spiked in July when SBF defended Terra Luna’s founder, who was accused of peddling a Ponzi scheme.

If withdrawal co-mentions brought up possible reasons why SBF and FTX experienced dips in sentiment, what other co-mentions could give us more insight? How about donations, SEC, and U.S. elections?

Bankman-Fried has exhibited patterns of making political statements, attempting to influence crypto regulations, and donating funds before elections. It should be no surprise that SBF’s co-mentions with C-level unethical practices yield additional data.

Note: To see the co-mentions with unethical practices chart, contact a SESAMm representative today.

Sam Bankman-Fried ESG risk analysis

Corporate governance stands out when evaluating SBF’s ESG risks, but his social risks are nothing to ignore either.

Two areas of governance risks to note are money laundering and board of directors (Figure 5). Money laundering as a co-mention has been an issue as early as February 2022, but it became a bigger issue in October. These risks may be popping up due to allegations of manipulating the price of the APT token and a securities violations probe.

Note: To see the social risks over time chart, contact a SESAMm representative today.

FTX and crypto market web data analysis

If you’ve read this far, you by now get an impression of FTX and SBF, from mention volume to sentiment analysis and ESG risk. But how did FTX’s collapse affect the overall cryptocurrency market? Let’s find out.

In comparing the sentiment polarities for FTX and the crypto market from January 2021 through November 2022 (Figure 6), the sentiment for crypto remains relatively steady despite FTX’s sentiment taking a hit.

When comparing other cryptocurrency exchanges to FTX (Figure 7), sentiment polarity for them is hardly affected, except Binance, because of its connection with FTX. Oddly enough, eToro experienced a boost in sentiment, possibly because of its core values around openness and transparency, the fact that they’ve been around since 2007, its early compliance with regulations (i.e., AMF, FCA, ASIC, BaFin, and ACPR), and that it also proposes investing in stocks and ETFs, a contrast to most other crypto market exchanges. Bitfinex has its own issues, so its dip in sentiment might not be correlated.

At this time, FTX’s ESG risks based on the mention volume are only surpassed by Bitfinex (Figure 8), which its risks are based on many other reasons we won’t get into in this article.

Note: To see a comparison chart of social and governance risks for each exchange, contact a SESAMm representative today.

Centralized vs. decentralized crypto exchange platforms

FTX’s collapse also affected sentiment around the centralized vs. decentralized debate. Since October 2022, sentiment for centralized exchange platforms, such as FTX and its competitors, has fallen (Figure 9).

Likewise, the mention volume for self-custody has more than doubled in the last couple of months (Figure 10). Although centralized platforms offer quicker and easier access to crypto trading, traders are considering complex but more secure options such as crypto wallets and keys because, like banks, centralized exchanges can do what they will with cryptocurrency while it’s in their possession. With self-custody, owners are in control.

Note: To see additional charts, such as competitive data share for crypto wallets, contact a SESAMm representative today.

FTX not the first exchange collapse

Believe it or not, FTX was not the first crypto exchange to collapse. In 2014, Mt. Gox—the biggest crypto exchange at the time—lost half a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin due to a hack. How did Mt. Gox’s collapse affect sentiment for the crypto market then? The short answer is: It didn’t.

Figure 11 shows that while Mt. Gox’s sentiment polarity fluctuated, even reaching negative territories, the sentiment for the crypto market remained relatively stable and positive.

Is FTX’s collapse a warning for investors?

Our analysis is that investors should treat cryptocurrency exchanges like any investment opportunity. Do your due diligence and monitor your portfolio with tools like SESAMm’s TextReveal®.

As for the cryptocurrency market, data shows that sentiment for it remains level and positive. We speculate that cryptocurrency and centralized exchanges are here to stay. However, based on historical data and current news, we suspect conversations about crypto regulations to increase.

Reach out to SESAMm

For a deeper analysis of FTX’s collapse and access to all charts and supportive-article links, reach out to a representative today.

The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) is the EU’s framework for governing how sustainability considerations are disclosed in investment products. While designed to improve transparency and reduce greenwashing, SFDR gradually evolved into a de facto labelling system, with Articles 8 and 9 shaping how funds were marketed and perceived.

In late 2025, the European Commission put together an SFDR 2.0 proposal. It’s intended to acknowledge that this approach has created complexity, inconsistency, and confusion for investors. By shifting toward clearer product categories and simpler disclosures, the reform aims to restore credibility and usability. 

A New Category-Based Framework

SFDR 2.0 introduces three product categories: Sustainable, Transition, and ESG Basics. While categorization is voluntary, funds choosing a category must meet mandatory criteria for that classification. Each category is tied to a minimum 70% portfolio alignment with the stated strategy, alongside mandatory exclusions for activities such as those involving controversial weapons, tobacco, hard coal, and severe breaches of international norms. Products outside these categories face tighter limits on ESG-related naming and marketing claims.

Sustainable products are reserved for funds investing primarily in sustainable activities or assets, including taxonomy-aligned strategies and Paris-aligned benchmarks. These products are subject to the strictest fossil fuel exclusions, including a ban on new coal, oil, and gas development.

Transition products are designed to capture strategies financing the shift toward sustainability. They rely on credible transition plans, science-based targets, and structured engagement, with tighter restrictions on fossil fuels than ESG Basics products and a clear focus on forward-looking change.

ESG Basics products integrate ESG approaches in the investment strategy but do not qualify as Sustainable or Transition. While still subject to baseline exclusions and the 70% alignment rule, this category has drawn early criticism for its relatively lenient treatment of fossil fuels.

Less Complexity, Tighter Guardrails

SFDR 2.0 removes entity-level PAI disclosures and simplifies product templates. Rather than relying on the current sustainable investment definition and DNSH mechanics in SFDR 1.0, the proposal operationalizes ‘no harm’ and safeguards through a common exclusion baseline plus product-level disclosure of principal adverse impacts, with DNSH and good governance reflected via category criteria.
Disclosures are significantly shortened, with pre-contractual and periodic reports capped at two pages, and marketing rules tightened to limit sustainability claims to qualifying products.

The intent is clear. SFDR 2.0 shifts from dense, technical disclosures toward clearer categories supported by exclusions and simpler safeguards.

Timeline and Market Impact

The legislative process is expected to conclude in late 2026 or early 2027, followed by an 18-month implementation period. Until then, asset managers must continue complying with SFDR 1.0 while preparing for a full reclassification of their product ranges.

For the market, this likely means a smaller but more clearly defined universe of labelled funds. Many current Article 8 and 9 products are expected to reclassify, while Sustainable products under the new regime may be fewer but broader in scope. Asset managers face near-term transition costs and communication challenges, but also the prospect of greater long-term clarity and reduced compliance complexity.

A Reform Still Under Scrutiny

Initial reactions have been mixed. Industry groups broadly welcome the simplification and stronger fossil fuel exclusions for Sustainable and Transition products. At the same time, concerns persist regarding the scope of the ESG Basics category, the lack of a level playing field for unclassified funds, and the absence of more stringent engagement requirements for transition strategies.
Organizations such as Eurosif and Morningstar have described the proposal as a step forward that still leaves room for improvement, particularly in preventing greenwashing at the lower end of the spectrum. Triodos Investment Management has also voiced similar caution.

What SFDR 2.0 Signals

SFDR 2.0 reflects a broader recalibration in EU sustainable finance policy. After years of expanding disclosure requirements, the focus is shifting toward usability, clarity, and enforceable standards. For asset managers, the message is straightforward: Sustainability claims will be more tightly defined, product positioning will matter more, and the margin for ambiguity is narrowing as SFDR enters its next phase.

‍