pull down to refresh

It is pretty clear that it was foolish to give your money to SBF. But legally speaking(under the laws of the US valid or not) SBF committed fraud.
Defraud: to deprive of something by deception or fraud
SBF to my knowledge did deceive both investors and employees. Now, should they have known better? Yeah for sure. But even in a stateless society there will be fraudsters and we would need to have a system to handle this beyond NYKNYC.
One answer to critics of anarchism is to have private judges and organizations which figure out such things using common law. So I do not believe these answers are "retarded". I'm not saying this should be his sentence either.
"Forced to repay" might involve incarceration of some sort. As you mention above, since he can't afford to repay those he defrauded, he might have to be held in some form of involuntary servitude.
reply
I understand your view on "pay back for the damage", but in this case he didn't make any real damage. People were retarded and gave him their money. Plain and simple. That means, by contract, they gave up their rights and ownership on those money.
So he did no damage, just gambling with his own money.