Didn't know how to say it originally, but yes, I did not want to reveal/out sources. It does make it so that the argument holds less punch (and you should be rightly skeptical) but on net I thought it would be enough without.
Yeah. I agree. Pointing to this problem can make the problem worse. It's a little bit of an info-hazard in that respect? But yeah, I'll agree it was slightly clumsy. I wanted to tell everyone that this was a thing that was happening, without creating a backlash that would destroy the genuinely valuable parts of doing what were doing. Furthermore, it is genuinely really valuable to have such a high trust community and I don't want that to change. I guess whether or not I succeeded on walking this tightrope is for others to decide.
Agree strongly. Eroding the high trust EA community would be really sad. Don't have much to add, except a strong upvote.
My bad. Any good ideas for what the title should change to? Also, I'd just like to note that this is not yet very common at all. My evidence is just hearsay, anecdotes, and people that I've talked to. So if it was overly alarmist I'm sorry. That was not my attention. Once again, I'm more noting the change in tone on how some people are treating the grants then anything. Instead of being excited about cause area X and then using the grants as a way to achieve their goals, people are instead excited about cause area X because they can get easy funding. Once again, I don't think we should be alarmist about this, as funding less great/risky people would be a failure mode. I just wanted it to be common knowledge that this is happening (and probably?) going to get worse over time.