Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the FTX problems are clearly related to crypto being such a new unregulated area, and I was wrong to try to downplay that causal link.
I donât think anonymized donations would help mitigate conflicts of interest. In fact I think it would encourage COIs, since donors could directly buy influence without anyone knowing they were doing so. Currently one of our only tools for identifying otherwise-undisclosed COIs is looking at flows of money. If billionaire A donates to org B, we have a norm that org B shouldnât do stuff that directly helps billionaire A. If that donation was anonymous, we wouldnât know that that was a situation in which the norm applied.
There are some benefits of some level of anonymity in donations. For example, I dislike the practice of universities putting a donorâs name on a building in exchange for a large donation. Seems like an impressive level of hubris. I have more respect for donors who donât aggressively publicize their name in this way. However, I do think that these donations should still be available in public records. Donation anonymousness ranges from âput my name on the buildingâ at one extreme to âactively obscure the source of the donationâ at the other.
I have more thoughts on donor transparency but Iâll leave it there for now.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the FTX problems are clearly related to crypto being such a new unregulated area, and I was wrong to try to downplay that causal link.
I donât think anonymized donations would help mitigate conflicts of interest. In fact I think it would encourage COIs, since donors could directly buy influence without anyone knowing they were doing so. Currently one of our only tools for identifying otherwise-undisclosed COIs is looking at flows of money. If billionaire A donates to org B, we have a norm that org B shouldnât do stuff that directly helps billionaire A. If that donation was anonymous, we wouldnât know that that was a situation in which the norm applied.
There are some benefits of some level of anonymity in donations. For example, I dislike the practice of universities putting a donorâs name on a building in exchange for a large donation. Seems like an impressive level of hubris. I have more respect for donors who donât aggressively publicize their name in this way. However, I do think that these donations should still be available in public records. Donation anonymousness ranges from âput my name on the buildingâ at one extreme to âactively obscure the source of the donationâ at the other.
I have more thoughts on donor transparency but Iâll leave it there for now.