Aleks_K

278Joined Aug 2021

Comments
39

Seems quite implausible to me that this would have happened and unclear if it would have been good. (Assuming "larger EA community" implies more than private conversations between a few people. )

Are you talking about the board of the FTX Future Fund or about the team working there? Because the board solely consisted of FTX/Almeda people

The EA community as a whole doesn't have any rights as it's not a legal person.  Grant receivers don't have legal rights to get any information on grant providers, but it is common to do some kind of due diligence, the only thing they can do is not accept grants if they don't get information (and this happens sometimes). The same is true for investors in private companies, by the way, there is no obligation to provide information, but they of course they just won't invest if they don't get the information they need.

If you are talking about moral rights instead of legal rights this is of course a very different thing and highly debatable.

Thanks for this take. This is one of the best takes on the issue I've read on here. I particularly agree with the point that 'investing' into FTX has significantly more risk for the EA community than for the institutional investors that did invest. One small thing to add on this point is that - while there were a group of investors that did invest in FTX - there were likely also various potential investors that decided not to invest after some due diligence, we just don't know of them.

Okay, I think that's fair. I would have preferred, though, if they would have been more transparent about this to the people the FTX Foundation had been supporting.

The assets of the Good Ventures Foundation (who Open Phil is recommending their grants to) are a matter of public record (albeit delayed). They had more than $3bn in June 2020.

I mean the short answer to this is very simple: Because the people funding the foundation didn't want to (or couldn't) put their money into the foundation.

The more interesting question is why the FTX Foundation team were happy with this setup. It would be interesting to hear from them on this.

I agree this would be very useful information. In theory, the FTX Future Fund team should know this information but they probably are not allowed to share it.

Of course, someone could try to collect this information by contacting all named FTX Future Fund grantees and it might be worth the effort to try to do this. (Though it's unclear who might be best suited to do that, given that they'd have to be trusted enough by all grantees for them to share their individual details with them.) Maybe the largest recipients (I think these are CEA and Longview) could start by stating how much they received. 

I think this (the fact that there is no endowment) was (or at least should have been) pretty well-known in the EA community from the point in time that the FTX Future Fund started to pay grants, as these came from all kinds of sources, but not from an endowed foundation.  And it obviously would have been known to the people working for FTX Foundation from when they started working there.

(And I would guess one reason that it didn't raise more alarm bells for lots of people in the EA community that learned about this, is probably that they put high trust in the people working for FTX Foundation.)

Were they? I had the impression that there was an (at least technically) independent organisation, FTX Foundation or FTX Philanthropy, that employed the FTX Future Found team. But of course this might very well be wrong. At least Will MacAskill, though, wasn't an employee of FTX, he described his position as 'unpaid advisor' and his formal roles include being a Professor at Oxford University, trustee of CEA and Director of the Forethought Foundation.

Load More