Just to clarify, it seems that "The rest of the management team was horrified and quit in a huff, loudly telling the investors that Bankman-Fried was dishonest and reckless" is from Matt Levine, not from Michael Lewis.

I'm quickly skimming the relevant parts of Going Infinite, and it seems to me that Lewis highlights other issues as even more relevant than the missing $4M

Is a 10-15% annual risk of failure for a two-year-old startup alarming? I thought base rates were higher, which makes me think I'm misunderstanding your comment.

You also mention that the 10% was without loss of costumer funds, but the Metaculus 1.3% was about loss of costumer funds, which seems very different.

10% chance of yearly failure without loss of customer funds seems more than reasonable, even after Sequoia invested, in such a high-variance environment, and not necessarily a red flag.

As a data point, I remember reading that Twitter thread and thinking it didn't make a lot of technical sense (I remember also being worried about the lack of forward secrecy since he wanted to store DMs encrypted on the blockchain).

But the goal was to make a lot of money, not to make a better product, and seeing that DogeCoin and NFTs (which also don't make any technical sense) reached a market cap of tens of billions, it didn't seem completely absurd that shoehorning a blockchain in Twitter made business sense.

My understanding was that crypto should often be thought of as a social technology that enables people to be excited about things that have been possible since the early 2000s. At least that's how I explain to myself how I missed out on BTC and NFTs.

In any case, at the time I thought his main goal must have been to increase the value of FTX (or of Solana), which didn't raise any extra red flags in the reference class of crypto.

Re:

that the EA community may have hard a hard time seeing through tech hype

I think it's important to keep in mind that people could have made at least tens of millions by predicting FTX's collapse, this failure of prediction was really not unique to the EA community, and many in the EA community mentioned plenty of times that the value of FTX could go to 0.

Is this a use case for Reproducible Builds?

It seems the forum team already did it for at least one post , and I agree it's worth considering for all posts next year

Thanks for raising this! For now we (mods) have marked this year's posts as "personal blog", so they shouldn't be on the frontpage anymore for most users.

I think, for next year, editing the titles after a day or having a separate section could be good ideas

It was marked community by the author, we can remove the tag if he wants us to. I agree it's more a request for funding than something about the EA community.

AFAIK users can't remove the community tag from posts because of worries of misuse

It could be useful to have some sort of "sequence of sequences", similar to a basic version of https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/handbook

For the intro program, I used to link people to https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/ea-italy and tell them to scroll down and start from "1. La mentalità dell'efficacia" but many people got confused and started from the latest posts. (So I moved to sending the first sequence directly for the first week)

Edit: I've been told they don't use this anymore and switched to Google Docs

Apparently its name is bulby: https://github.com/ForumMagnum/ForumMagnum/pull/9053/files 

https://res.cloudinary.com/cea/image/upload/v1582740871/bulby.png

https://res.cloudinary.com/cea/image/upload/v1582740871/sadbulby.png

I was saddened to learn a few days ago that the mantis shrimp thing is actually a myth :( https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2015/12/mantis-shrimp-myth-about-vision-debunked/