All of anonymoose's Comments + Replies
About two years have now passed since the post. Main updates:
- Leverage Research appears to be just four people. They have announced new plans, and released a short introduction to their interests in early stage science, but not any other work. Their history of Leverage Research appears to have stalled at the fourth chapter.
- Reserve seems to be ten people, about seven of whom were involved with Leverage Research. Reserve Rights is up by about 160% since being floated two years ago.
- Paradigm Research is now branding as a self-help organisation.
after I read this comment I left thinking that Reserve performed exceptionally poorly but..
Your initial impression was correct. Reserve has entered a terrible market and managed to perform substantially worse than its terrible competitors. Since May 24, when Reserve Rights was priced:
- the S&P gained 14%,
- cryptocurrency at large lost 17%,
- cryptocurrencies excluding Bitcoin lost 33%,
- while Reserve Rights managed to lose 52.3%.
So, after I read this comment I left thinking that Reserve performed exceptionally poorly, but it seems that almost all cryptocurrencies have gone down about the same amount since June 19th (the time of Reserve's launch, from what I can tell). Here are some random currencies that I clicked on, on the coinmarketcap website that you linked. This is a comprehensive list, so I report the price change since June 19th for every currency that I looked at:
- Bitcoin Cash:
- June 19th price: $416
- Price now: $244
- Change: -41.3%
- XRP:
- June 19th price: $0.448
- Price now: $
Thanks Larissa - the offer to write up posts from Leverage Research is a generous offer. Might it not be a more efficient use of your time, though, to instead answer questions about Leverage the public domain, many of which are fairly straightforward?
For example, you mention that Leverage is welcoming to new staff. This sounds positive - at the same time, the way Leverage treated incoming staff is one of the main kinds of fact discussed in the top-level post. Is it still true that: (i) staff still discuss recruitees on individual slack channels, (ii) mind...
Hi Anonymoose,
I’d like to do two things with my reply here.
- First, to try and answer your questions as best I can.
- But then second, start to work out how to make future conversations with you about Leverage more productive
1. ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS
I’d recommend first reading my recent reply to Greg because this will give you a lot of relevant context and answers some of your questions.
Questions a, b and d: outputs, resources and future impact
Your Questions:
“(a) are Leverage's outputs truly as they appear?”
“(b) Is its consumption of financial resourc...
- Leverage Research spent a further $388k in 2017.
- At least 11 of 13 Paradigm Academy staff listed on Linkedin are known to have worked for Leverage Research or allied organizations.
- The coin made by Reserve (one of the successor companies to Leverage Research) has returned -32.7% since its float at the time of writing. In the same time period, bitcoin returned 24%.
An analysis of personnel is an incomplete and non-definitive answer but ought to be a useful starting point.
Paradigm Academy does not list its team on its website. However, a quick search on Linkedin yields 16 results (13 with public profiles) for people at Paradigm Academy. Of these 13 profiles, 7 include experience at Leverage Research or allied organizations, and a further 4 are well-known to have worked for Leverage Research. Edit: at the request of Julia Wise, I've encoded the names in rot13, so that this comment doesn't broadcast their association to...
For some reason, it's listed in archived conversations. But my question is:
Hi! Just drawing this question to your notice: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KyMkDs3SBNpo85qvz/leverage-research-shutting-down
Would be great if you can share your thoughts.
Is Leverage core rebranding to Paradigm Academy? Are the other branches Reserve and Bismarck Analysis?
Just saw this. The complaint was apparently that people were listed as having worked for orgs (other than LR) where they only contracted or consulted. But as I recall it, I transcribed these associations directly from Linkedin. So I've reverted the comment, and changed "worked at" to "had experience at" to more precisely match the language of LinkedIn.