we haven’t changed the community’s incentive structures in a way that will prevent those same sorts of mistakes going forward

I'm curious what your model is of the "community" - how would it significantly change on this issue?

My model is that the "community" doesn't really have much power directly, at this point. OP has power, and to the extent that they fund certain groups (at this point, when funding is so centralized), CEA and a few other groups have power.

I could see these specific organizations doing reforms, if/when they want to. I could also see some future where the "EA community" bands together to fund their own, independent, work. I'm not sure what other options there are.

Right now, my impression is that OP and these other top EA groups feel like they just have a lot going on, and aren't well positioned to do other significant reforms/changes. 

I've been contemplating writing a post about my side of the issue. I wasn't particularly close, but did get a chance to talk to some of the people involved.

Here's my rough take, at this point:
1. I don't think any EA group outside of FTX would take responsibility for having done a lot ($60k+ worth) of due-diligence and investigation of FTX. My impression is that OP considered this as not their job, and CEA was not at all in a position to do this (to biased, was getting funded by FTX). In general, I think that our community doesn't have strong measures in place to investigate funders. For example, I doubt that EA orgs have allocated $60k+ to investigate Dustin Moskovitz (and I imagine he might complain if others did!).
My overall impression was that this was just a large gap that the EA bureaucracy failed at. I similarly think that the "EA bureaucracy" is much weaker / less powerful than I think many imagine it being, and expect that there are several gaps like this. Note that OP/CEA/80k/etc are fairly limited organizations with specific agendas and areas of ownership. 

2. I think there were some orange/red flags around, but that it would have taken some real investigation to figure out how dangerous FTX was. I have uncertainty in how difficult it would have been to notice that fraud or similar were happening (I previously assumed this would be near impossible, but am less sure now, after discussions with one EA in finance). I think that the evidence / flags around then were probably not enough to easily justify dramatically different actions at the time, without investigation - other than the potential action of doing a lengthy investigation - but again, that doing one would have been really tough, given the actors involved.

Note that actually pulling off a significant investigation, and then taking corresponding actions, against an actor as powerful as SBF, would be very tough and require a great deal of financial independence.

3. My impression is that being a board member at CEA was incredibly stressful/intense, in the following months after the FTX collapse. My quick guess is that most of the fallout from the board would have been things like, "I just don't want to have to deal with this anymore" rather than particular disagreements with the organizations. I didn't get the impression that Rebecca's viewpoints/criticisms were very common for other board members/execs, though I'd be curious to get their takes.

4. I think that OP / CEA board members haven't particularly focused on / cared about being open and transparent with the EA community. Some of the immediate reason here was that I assume lawyers recommended against speaking up then - but even without that, it's kind of telling how little discussion there has been in the last year or so.

I suggest reading Dustin Moskovitz's comments for some specific examples. Basically, I think that many people in authority (though to be honest, basically anyone who's not a major EA poster/commenter) find "posting to the EA forum and responding to comments" to be pretty taxing/intense, and don't do it much.

Remember that OP staff members are mainly accountable to their managers, not the EA community or others. CEA is mostly funded by OP, so is basically similarly accountable to high-level OP people. (accountable means, "being employed/paid by" here)

5. In terms of power, I think there's a pretty huge power gap between the funders and the rest of the EA community. I don't think that OP really regards themselves as responsible for or accountable to the EA community. My impression is that they fund EA efforts opportunistically, in situations where it seems to help both parties, but don't want to be seen as having any long-term obligations or such. We don't really have strong non-OP funding sources to fund things like "serious investigations into what happened." Personally, I find this situation highly frustrating, and think it gets under-appreciated.
 

6. My rough impression is that from the standpoint of OP / CEA leaders, there's not a great mystery around the FTX situation, and they also don't see it happening again. So I think there's not that much interest here into a deep investigation.
 

So, in summary, my take is less, "there was some conspiracy where a few organizations did malicious things," and more, "the EA bureaucracy has some significant weaknesses that were highlighted here." 

Note: Some of my thinking on this comes from my time at the reform group. We spent some time coming up with a list of potential reform projects, including having better investigative abilities. My impression is that there generally hasn't been much concern/interest in this space.
 

Wait - is this written by Claude or ChatGPT? I'm not sure if you intended it as such, but it has a writing style that seems almost exactly what I'd expect from LLMs. 

Could be! 

I assume the space is big enough, it could another absorb 20-60 people plus.

I've also heard of some other high network projects coming from Charity Entrepreneurship, but I haven't investigated. 

I've been thinking about this issue recently too. I think it's pretty clear in the case of Warren Buffet and other ultra-wealthy.

Generally, I think EAs sort of live and breath this stuff, and billionaires/major donors are typically in a completely different world, and they generally barely care about it.

I've been asking around about efforts to get more rich donors. I think Longview is often heralded as the biggest bet now, though of course it's limited in size. My guess is that there should be much more work done here - though at the same time - I think that this sort of work is quite difficult, thankless, risky (very likely to deliver no results), is often a big culture clash, etc.

Like, we need to allocate promising people to spend huge amounts of time with a lot of mostly-apathetic and highly selfish (vs. what we are used to around EA) people, with a high likelihood of seeing no results after 5-30 years. 

My quick guess is that the answer is pretty simple and boring. Like, "things were just a mess on the future fund level, and they were expecting things to get better over time." I'd expect that there are like 5 people who really know the answer, and speculation by the rest of us won't help much.