Cofounder @ GoodX


I am working on saving the world via new public goods funding mechanisms.


Topic Contributions

My apologies but I had to strong downvote because this is the sort of content that I want to stay far away from the forum. I would have maybe given a weak downvote or maybe even none if:

  • it was nonpartisan, nonpolarized, and neutral
  • there was a transcript of the video (I watched only a couple minutes, too long)
  • there was a specific theory of change with an expected value calculation for a given amount of resources to improve a specific problem
  • it compared this to other possible uses of those resources within the same or different cause areas

(Here is an example of a post from today that seems somewhat more neutral and specific, though still not as mechanistic as I'd like, but I only skimmed it:

As noted in 'The Precipice' though, while potentially reducing the risk from asteroids, such a capability may pose a larger risk itself if used by malicious actors to target asteroids towards Earth.


I am very confident that dual-use risk of improved asteroid deflection technology in general is much more likely than a random asteroid hitting us, and that therefore  this experiment has likely made the world worse off (with a bit less confidence, because maybe it's still easier to deflect asteroids defensively rather than offensively, and this experiment improved that defensive capability?). This is possibly my favorite example  of a crucial consideration, and also more speculatively, evidence that the sum of all x-risk reduction efforts taken together could be net-harmful (I'd give that a 5-25% chance?).

The post should be updated stating he is deceased.

I don't think you're gonna make a religion by having the agenda set top-down by cool-headed moral vanguarding. You need to be unhinged enough to go into a cave and hear voices. 

2 FTEs doesn't seem that bad to me for something as important as cause exploration and given how big the movement is? This just seems fine to me?

What does forcing yourself look like concretely as an anticipated physical experience? What would working on the other stuff you would rather work on look like concretely as an anticipated physical experience?

Put simply, Bitcoin is widely perceived as the most promising candidate, because it benefits from the network effect. Anyone can invent a cryptocurrency, in the same way that anyone is free to invent their own language or found their own social-media website. The hard part, however, is in getting lots of people to buy in to your new system to the point where it dominates the market – and that’s why Bitcoin’s first-mover advantage is so important. The more people who use Bitcoin over alternative cryptocurrencies (“altcoins”), the more incentive there is for others to use Bitcoin too.


As someone who strongly desires the increased ability to coordinate out of inadequate equilibria, such as via tech like assurance contracts, I am spiritually vehemently against deciding the Schelling Point for decentralized currency (or any other technological equilibrium) based on whatever protocol was first to capture initial network effects independent of whether its properties are ideal. It is a line of argument born of existential pessimism, whether used for Bitcoin, using social media platforms, transportation, or any other status quo.

Relevant domains I own that I'm basically (anti-)squatting until a great use is found by myself or others: 

  • (good for an incubator or a revamp of the previous EA Ventures)

The first two are pretty relevant to my work on impact markets, so I will want to see a case for more relevant usage of the name  before handing them off.

reward the virtue of silence

I would be quite curious to know how this could work!

Load More