Thanks for the post. I suppose you'd agree that there's a good chance that, once Uncle Sam gets unstable, many other countries will follow suit.

I'm not sure the problem is "EA neglects this" instead of something more like "SBF funded political campaigns and considered bribing Trump to avoid his re-election and this resulted in terrible optics..." Maybe EAs and politics don't mix well?

Thanks a lot for this answer

From the report:

The experts we spoke to favored unilateral advocacy (targeting individual countries) over advocacy in multilateral organizations such as the UN. This was on the basis that domestic policy and priorities usually take precedence over international agreements, especially in a catastrophe.

I tend to agree, because there are many low-hanging fruits in in-country advocacy. However,  I wonder if some food security policies could face obstacles from WTO's Agreement on Agriculture, so that amending it could be highly effective.

I call dibs on writing an April Fool's post to propose calling this pledge "effective tithe"

Before you comment in response to this post, I would urge you to assume that lawyers for the FTX Group will see your comments.

In that case, I suggest they consider taking a look at the Earning to Give part of 80000 hours website

I have a slightly less rosy picture of this report. Let me illustrate it with some excerpts:

1. The second SIR [Serious Incident Report]

Following the opening of the inquiry, the trustees filed a second SIR on 12 February 2023 as they became aware of a historic safeguarding incident involving one of the former trustees prior to that individual’s appointment as a trustee of the charity.

From the Findings:

The trustees then reviewed and updated their safeguarding policies and procedures and whilst these revised policies and procedures were generally in accordance with the Commission’s guidance, there was scope for further revision to provide more robust safeguarding. The Commission provided the trustees with regulatory guidance and advice in accordance with s.15(2) of the Act about this. The individual named in the SIR resigned from their position at the charity.

Is this about OCB?

2. On conflicts of interest

[…] The inquiry noted that whilst the charity had provisions within its governing document which explained how to manage conflicts of interest there was no formal training or guidance provided to trustees or employees as to what would constitute a conflict of interest, how to raise it or how it should be managed and resolved.

The inquiry found that the trustees were not required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when joining the trustee board, and such a requirement was only introduced in October 2022.

[…]

The inquiry found that the charity had financial policies and procedures but that these were not adhered to or reviewed regularly as the charity’s income grew. It was only in  2022 did the charity have a dedicated finance team to monitor and control the charity’s finances. This lack of control highlights a weak point which the inquiry notes has now been remedied by the charity.

I am glad that the Inquiry found no evidence of malfeasance. But I also think that, for a movement partly based on a critique of the lack of effectiveness of the philanthropy sector, finding out that one of its core organizations lacked some basic controls is a bit frustrating.

you're already a record-breaker in my heart

Time to cancel my Asterisk subscription?

So Asterisk dedicates a whole self-aggrandizing issue to California, leaves EV for Obelus (what is Obelus?), starts charging readers, and, worst of all, celebrates low prices for eggs and milk?

Anyone else consders  the case of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (application no. 53600/20) of the European Court of Human Rights a possibly useful for GCR litigation?