I'm sorry but these two points are extremely disconnected. EA really has no bearing on the financial mechanisms that undid SBF. Furthermore, although he was a prime donor to EA, I don't think his involvement with it necessarily discredits them.
back
4 comments
He’s one of EA highest profiles adherents. EA style thinking permeates SBF.
This is the world EAs want - the one they’ve been advocating for a long time.
It’s just in this iteration it failed. If the chance of success was higher than X% vs the risk of failing, it was all worth it. That’s the kind of morally bankrupt philosophy EA pushes.
Doesn’t discredit them but it does bankrupt them. What does discredit them is them claiming “we’re going to go on making charity effective and rational” as if everyone else who works at a nonprofit makes decisions with an Ouija board.
> EA really has no bearing on the financial mechanisms that undid SBF.
It had bearing on the ethical/moral decisions he has been making. EA has allowed him to justify doing blatantly illegal acts.
It’s more likely he tried to cover up massive Alameda losses due to all the usual reasons people turn to illegal acts: shame, myopia, gambling addiction. One core EA principle is integrity. If he was actually “EA”, this wouldn’t have happened the way it did.
That’s no true Scotsman.
There's a Twitter thread where SBF said he's willing to take unlimited risk, far beyond what is theoretically optimal, because it's for the good of humanity.
easy to say when youre taking on that unlimited risk using other people's - err, humanity's - money.
No wonder SBF went hard into the social capital accumulation game almost immediately, buying off politicians and grandiose charitywashing gestures. His window to establish a network of elite string pullers was short and closing fast.