I am definitely very interested in a better estimate of how many customers had lending enabled

I am curious as to how this would be decision-relevant at this moment.

It seems to me that there's a lot of information that will surface in the next months and years (random example: context behind the FTX US President stepping down the day before a suspicious (in hindsight) transaction).

To me, the best thing to do seems to be to just wait for the judicial proceedings and for information to surface.
 

The link seems broken, did you mean https://ea-internships.pory.app/board ?

If you don't get a reply via their e-mail, you might want to contact this user: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/calebwithers 

I don’t think we should give too much information value to SBF's interviews, considering his track record and his writing that ethics was mostly a front to build his reputation.

The link is now https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/donor-lottery and it has been announced right after this comment! https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/GnJQaSaXRebZgrmg3/the-2022-giving-what-we-can-donor-lottery-is-now-open 

I would also consider the option of using a donor lottery: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/donor-lottery

And this List of donation opportunities

You might be interested in:

• The recent Cause Exploration Prizes, launched from Open Philanthropy to find ideas for the best ways to use our resources
• The excellent post Big List of Cause Candidates
• Pitching the idea to https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/research (I don't know what the process is, I think you can just mail them and ask), if it's about starting a new org

As I see it, EA is not a single consensus, different individuals reach very different conclusions about resource allocation, as you can see e.g. in the current "Where are you donating this year, and why?" thread. Or by comparing Founders Pledge The Global Health and Development Fund Grants with GiveWell's All Grants Fund.
Also, it seems to me that there are many ideas that people are passionate about, but are often bottlenecked by a lack of implementers (i.e. people willing and able to turn those ideas into concrete projects).
When I see a successful new EA project, it never seems to happen because "EA" reached the conclusion that the project was important and allocated resources to it, but because some individuals developed a theory of change and worked to make it happen.

Is that dashboard supposed to be public?

Some people seem to write somewhat private stuff (e.g. "I'm depressed"), and the timestamp can be cross-referenced with what name appeared on https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/members to deanonymize it

I disagree:

1. If you win you can always decide to ask GWWC to defer to the benefactor for the allocation (if they would be interested in doing so), or to the people or funds that you think would best allocate the winnings.
2. The benefactor chose to participate in the lottery, if they thought it would be worse for the world they wouldn't have, so allocating resources to something other than the lottery because you think their allocation is better than yours is counterintuitive to me.
3. In expectation, you are not "taking money" from the benefactor by playing, since the expected value is the same as donating directly. In expected value, the benefactor gets the same money that they put in.
   To say it in a different way: the amount of money that was allocated by participants instead of the benefactor is the same as the amount of money that was allocated by the benefactor instead of the participants, so who is a better allocator seems independent from whether the lottery is a good idea.

(I don't know who the benefactor is, I assume it's a large fund or an individual large donor for whom $2.6M is not a large amount of money)

Other opportunities from HLI's 2022 Charity Recommendations:

• https://doubleupdrive.org/ (for a bunch of EA charities)
• https://optimus.foundation/en/projects/41/ (only for StrongMinds)