On the one hand, publicly calling people out could raise red flags about potential bad actors in the EA community early and in a transparent way. On the other hand, it could lead to witch hunts, false positives, etc. You can also imagine that whatever bad actors are in the community would start retaliating and listing good actors here who are their enemies, so it could cause a lot of confusion and infighting. (Think about the way Donald Trump uses public discourse.)

I don't think these concerns hold up. EAs are highly engaged and can distinguish between legitimate and bullshit claims.

I think private discussions about this with others you trust are probably a good idea, to help guide personal decisions about who else to trust, work for, donate to etc. And this issue might make more decentralization actionable.

This would work if not for the power imbalance that arise between bad actors that are senior members in the community and normal community members.

There may be other systemic ways to manage the risk too without making publicly outing suspected bad actors a regular thing. I'm also still open to the idea that public bad actor callouts might be a good idea, but I think it's a really delicate thing and I'd like to see a convincing argument/plan for how to make the discussion be productive before I would support it

EA considers very seriously the issue of morality and ethics. Is it that much to ask that the leaders of a community that takes matters of morality and ethics so seriously to have its leaders held up to high moral standards? Unless this morality stuff is just for fun and EAs don't actually believe in the moral and ethical systems they claim to believe in. Reminds me of this paper

Avoiding addressing this issue will only lead to further pain down the line. I think it is very strange that SBF had so many inconsistencies between his claimed moral positions and his behavior and nobody noticed it. It suggests that maybe his character didn't seem that strange compared to other senior EA members.