The second option is also a non-starter because of … ¿The First Amendment?
Disagree on two counts. Firstly, EA is a trademark belonging to CEA. Secondly, the association with SBF was bilateral—EA lauded SBF, not just vice versa.
We can take billionaires’ money without palling up.
I didn’t know that EA was a trademark. And if I (who am involved in EA) didn’t know, then the public certainly doesn’t know.
What we need is not a trademark but a “certification” or “seal of quality” to certify NGO’s that actually fulfill EA principles, and in order to be able to disown future frauds.
Disagree on two counts. Firstly, EA is a trademark belonging to CEA. Secondly, the association with SBF was bilateral—EA lauded SBF, not just vice versa.
We can take billionaires’ money without palling up.
I didn’t know that EA was a trademark. And if I (who am involved in EA) didn’t know, then the public certainly doesn’t know.
What we need is not a trademark but a “certification” or “seal of quality” to certify NGO’s that actually fulfill EA principles, and in order to be able to disown future frauds.