Vincent van der Holst

318Amsterdam, NetherlandsJoined Mar 2022


We're building a non-profit sustainable marketplace (read: a sustainable Amazon that gives away all profits to EA charities), it's called BOAS and it's live on

We're trying to raise funds from the EA community and we're still looking for founders and interns, mostly in software dev/marketing/sales and overall hustling. If you have thoughts on any of those, please email me!

Thanks, Vin


Thanks Tristan! I've added the full meaning in the text to avoid confusion and also added BOAS means good. 

I think this is a good question to think about. I agree it would continue to be great to endorse the principles rather than the movement. I personally have wondered to what extent I personally and our company should endorse EA, because some of its associations are good, and others maybe not so much. I ended up sometimes talking about EA, but mostly talking about the principles and not actively saying the company or I are EA's. I see a lot of EA aligned companies taking the same approach. This seems like it might be good for both the company, and perhaps also EA, especially if there's bad news around the company, like with FTX right now. 

It might be good for the EA movement for this company to show commitment, but it might be bad for this particular company if it leads to bad PR and negative brand associations. It could be net positive to take a hit on your brand if you continue to help people discover EA, but it's also a difficult decision to make when you run a company, and it's hard to find out which weighs heavier: the performance of this company or the influence it has in EA.  

Just a note from someone who is an FTX customer. 

I moved some of my crypto holding to FTX because I trusted them and Sam and wanted the profits from my crypto holdings to go to EA/FTX Future Fund. FTX have always told me my funds would be secured, I did not trade leveraged funds, so I'm the only rightful owner of that crypto and FTX has likely been using it to make money on leveraged instruments. This seems like fraud, and the optics of this for the EA community, and the already difficult optics of lontermism, seem to me like they will be very bad. 

I'm priviliged, my holdings in FTX were 2% of my net worth (I enjoy following crypto) so I'll be fine, but many will not. 

At this point FTX turning into a PFG would be very bad optics for the movement and maybe a net negative. 

I turned to FTX because I knew what SBF would do with the profits, but many don't know that, and I think they could have done better if they advertised that fact to consumers. FTX has loads of external for-profit capital so that makes it very hard for them to turn to the PFG model in practice though. 

Very valid point and the recent news suggest that there might have been fraudulent business practices. If that's the case, or even perceived as being the case (as it is now), Dustin should perhaps not do it. 

I've just updated with recent news!

Thanks, I want to clarify that Dustin buying FTX would not be the same as Meta buying FTX. 

I didn't know about CZ wanting to donate his wealth, that's insightful. Perhaps EA can try and talk with him about his charitable giving. 

The counterfactual is a good reason against the takeover, thanks for als bringing that up. Even if the EV of the takeover is high, but the probability of success low, a failed acquisition might mean EA loses most of its money. 

Even if that has extremely low odds of working that seems like it could be worth a try. Ego's have caused many catastrophe's before. 

Can you give a source or calculation for the 5bn? If it's that much Dustin won't be able to cover it alone and you have a valid point.

I'm not sure if it's a fair comparison to Full Tilt Poker. There are certainly more incentives than your A and B. An investor with enough money can cover the withdrawals and get FTX for pennies on the dollar. Most money can be made when there's blood in the streets and Binance knows that (and possibly even caused it with the CEO selling and tweeting FTX into catastrophe). I think you saying "they surely aren't true for anyone else" is false. Again, anyone with money to save FTX could see this as an incredible business opportunity for the right price. 

Having a buyer will also help FTX possibly become stable again. I hold crypto on FTX and knowing that there is possibly a buyer can persuade me and others not to withdraw. 

Having Dustin saying he is considering buying FTX could imo also be high EV, because it increases the leverage FTX has over Binance if there's another buyer. 

It seems likely SBF rang Moskovitz if he also rang the founder of Coinbase. 

@Lorenzo I agree with John there is some value in debating this, this question is not meant as speculation. We know FTX wants to be bought and we are merely debating whether Dustin could be a buyer. Having someone EA related buy out/help another EA related company or person could be high EV, especially if you consider this a hostile takeover from Binance. 

Load More