I want you to write a better post arguing for the same overall point if you agreed with the title, hopefully with more context than mine.
Not feeling up to it right now and not sure it needs a whole top-level post. My current take is something like (very roughly/quickly written):
New information is currently coming in very rapidly.
We should at least wait until the information comes in a bit slower before thinking seriously in-depth about proposed mitigations so we have a better picture of what went wrong. But “babbling” about possible mitigations seems mostly fine.
An investigation similar to the one proposed here should be started fairly quickly, with the goal of producing an initial version of a report within ~2 months so we can start thinking pretty seriously about what mitigations/changes are needed, even if a finalized report would take longer.
My main thought is that I don’t know why he committed fraud. Was it actually to utility maximize, or because he was just seeking status, or got too prideful or what?
I think either way most of the articles you point to do more good than harm. Being more silent on the matter would be worse.
I’d agree with this if I thought EA right now had a cool head. Maybe I should have said we should wait until EA has a cooler head before launching investigations.
I’d hope that the investigation would be conducted mostly by an independent, reputable entity even if commissioned by EA organizations. Also, “EA” isn’t a fully homogeneous entity and I’d hope that the people commissioning the investigation might be more cool-headed than the average Forum poster.
Just for some perspective here, the DOJ could be pursuing SBF for wire fraud, which comes with a maximum sentence of twenty years. FTX’s bankruptcy couldn’t be construed as a mistake past the first day or so of last week, and this is still very generous. I find that this forum has consistently underestimated how grievous the actions taken by SBF, Alameda and FTX have been compared to the individuals I know who work in finance or crypto.
Sorry for the confusion, I was adding on to your comment. I agree with you obviously. It was more a statement on the forum over the past five-six days.
As far as I was concerned, by 24-36 hours(D+1-D+1.5) after the liquidity crisis turned fraud, I already raised the hypothesis of outright stealing and fraud to serious attention, and 48-72 hours after the crisis first broke (D+2-D+3) I assumed fraud and stealing was happening there. I also was right to distrust crypto several months before, because it’s very structure lends it to fraud, with no other legal use.
Appreciate the quick, cooperative response.
Not feeling up to it right now and not sure it needs a whole top-level post. My current take is something like (very roughly/quickly written):
New information is currently coming in very rapidly.
We should at least wait until the information comes in a bit slower before thinking seriously in-depth about proposed mitigations so we have a better picture of what went wrong. But “babbling” about possible mitigations seems mostly fine.
An investigation similar to the one proposed here should be started fairly quickly, with the goal of producing an initial version of a report within ~2 months so we can start thinking pretty seriously about what mitigations/changes are needed, even if a finalized report would take longer.
I think either way most of the articles you point to do more good than harm. Being more silent on the matter would be worse.
I’d hope that the investigation would be conducted mostly by an independent, reputable entity even if commissioned by EA organizations. Also, “EA” isn’t a fully homogeneous entity and I’d hope that the people commissioning the investigation might be more cool-headed than the average Forum poster.
Just for some perspective here, the DOJ could be pursuing SBF for wire fraud, which comes with a maximum sentence of twenty years. FTX’s bankruptcy couldn’t be construed as a mistake past the first day or so of last week, and this is still very generous. I find that this forum has consistently underestimated how grievous the actions taken by SBF, Alameda and FTX have been compared to the individuals I know who work in finance or crypto.
https://fortune.com/crypto/2022/11/13/could-sam-bankman-fried-go-to-prison-for-the-ftx-disaster/
That’s a max of 20 years per count, by the way. If there was massive fraud, hard to accomplish that in only a single count of wire fraud...
Which part of my comment did you find as underestimating how grievous SBF/Alameda/FTX’s actions were? (I’m genuinely unsure)
Sorry for the confusion, I was adding on to your comment. I agree with you obviously. It was more a statement on the forum over the past five-six days.
As far as I was concerned, by 24-36 hours(D+1-D+1.5) after the liquidity crisis turned fraud, I already raised the hypothesis of outright stealing and fraud to serious attention, and 48-72 hours after the crisis first broke (D+2-D+3) I assumed fraud and stealing was happening there. I also was right to distrust crypto several months before, because it’s very structure lends it to fraud, with no other legal use.
Links here:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/05/why-this-computer-scientist-says-all-cryptocurrency-should-die-in-a-fire
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/04/why-cryptocurrency-is-a-giant-fraud