Madoff was way worse than SBF, but for other reasons IMHO. Madoff was a pure scam, it was a complete lie from the start.
In the case of SBF, it was indeed fraud: he was lying to his clients about what he did with their money. But there was another level to this, because he was also, I think, lying to himself and thinking he would make them whole in the end.
Therefore the intent is different. Culpability is not just about scale or harm to victims, it's always about intent.
I reply to my own comment because I can't edit it anymore, just to say that in fact there are many more similarities between Madoff and SBF than I first thought.
Madoff also had a legitimate business, the Ponzi was on the side; he was very generous to his employees, donated a lot to charities, gave/lent lots of money to his children; he liked to commute on private planes (at a time when this was quite uncommon); he was at the forefront of technology innovation and the software his legitimate firm developed, helped build NASDAQ; he was a prominent member of his community, testified to Congress, was a proponent of regulation", and an important political donor.
But in the end, he pleaded guilty and confessed, contrary to SBF.
So I don't think anymore that Madoff was "way worse" than SBF; in fact I think it's the opposite.
In the case of SBF, it was indeed fraud: he was lying to his clients about what he did with their money. But there was another level to this, because he was also, I think, lying to himself and thinking he would make them whole in the end.
Therefore the intent is different. Culpability is not just about scale or harm to victims, it's always about intent.