Pursuing financial independence first assumes that the world and financial markets remain stable for long enough for you to achieve it. What basis do you have for that assumption though? Or for your assumption that most x-risks are ten years out? It's possible that climate change, for example, is accelerating and may lead to civilisational breakdown before then. The possibility of nuclear war has also increased recently. These are only two of a whole host of x-risks we face. A better option, therefore, might be to adopt what Taleb calls a barbell strategy: to devote part of your time to achieving financial independence and the rest to working directly on existential risk mitigation. Putting all your eggs into the one basket of 'achieving financial independence' does not seem rational to me in view of our current complex and interconnected risk landscape.
All EA funds need to return donations from SBF. I myself am in the process of drafting an application to the Longterm Future Fund but cannot with a good conscience submit it until I know I will not be receiving money that should really be returned to FTX investors who have lost their savings and been really hurt by SBF's wrongdoing. I do not want to be complicit in what John Ray, who is now steering FTX through bankruptcy proceedings, called plain old-fashioned embezzlement in his testimony to the House. EA needs to act decisively and speedily here in order to provide clarity to potential applicants.
Senate hearing livestream:
SBF has now been charged:
Haydn, please delete this gif ftom your comment. It's very distracting and unnerving - creepy even. I also think that some forum users with neurological conditions like epilepsy might find it triggers an attack (as e.g. strobe lights can do).
Full text of statement SBF planned to give to US House hearing (which the representative who submitted it for the record found completely disrespectful in tone):
Link to live hearing, US