Put very vaguely: If it turned out that the money BERI received was made through means which I consider to be immoral, then I think I would return the money, even if that meant cancelling the projects it funded.
But of course I donât know how where my bar for âimmoralâ is in this case. Also itâs probably not the case that all of FTXâs profits were immoral. So how do I determine (even in theory) if the money BERI received was part of the âgood profitsâ or the âbad profitsâ?
I also would think, how would returning of that money change the situation that FTX is in and those that have experienced losses from this? It would take a significant amount of money, and without more knowledge on how the situation is it could be that (a) FTX finds better solutions, (b) FTXFF accepts the return of that money, but because it is a separate entity from FTX, it is not returned to those who faced losses from FTX in the first place but into the wallets of the donor.
Just adding more questions/â food for thought, as I guess the things I am saying are more practical than moral but may affect whether there are any moral obligations.
Not sure if b) is correct. If FTXFF is in fact separate from FTX, giving the money back (to FTXFF) would not mean giving it back to the donor (FTX) but rather to the foundation managers /â bank accounts. What this would then mean remains a big question, as the whole leadership resigned.
But still, yes, the money will most likely not end up in the wallets of traders.
Yeah this seems super relevant, great point! To be honest Iâm skeptical of how separate âFTX Foundation, Inc.â is/âwas from the rest of the FTX conglomerate. Would be useful to see the Foundationâs finances after this all shakes out.
Itâs likely temporal. Once FTX turned to deeply unethical business practices and depositors suffered real losses (even without knowing it), then any âprofitsâ were morally owed to reimburse the depositors. If there were fraud against non-depositors as well, that would complicate things.
In any event, I think you could ethically keep any money that would otherwise go to equity holders, although it is unlikely this exists. Equity holders accept the risk of their agents (corporate management) going haywire in a way no other stakeholder does.
Put very vaguely: If it turned out that the money BERI received was made through means which I consider to be immoral, then I think I would return the money, even if that meant cancelling the projects it funded.
But of course I donât know how where my bar for âimmoralâ is in this case. Also itâs probably not the case that all of FTXâs profits were immoral. So how do I determine (even in theory) if the money BERI received was part of the âgood profitsâ or the âbad profitsâ?
I also would think, how would returning of that money change the situation that FTX is in and those that have experienced losses from this? It would take a significant amount of money, and without more knowledge on how the situation is it could be that (a) FTX finds better solutions, (b) FTXFF accepts the return of that money, but because it is a separate entity from FTX, it is not returned to those who faced losses from FTX in the first place but into the wallets of the donor.
Just adding more questions/â food for thought, as I guess the things I am saying are more practical than moral but may affect whether there are any moral obligations.
Not sure if b) is correct. If FTXFF is in fact separate from FTX, giving the money back (to FTXFF) would not mean giving it back to the donor (FTX) but rather to the foundation managers /â bank accounts. What this would then mean remains a big question, as the whole leadership resigned.
But still, yes, the money will most likely not end up in the wallets of traders.
Yeah this seems super relevant, great point! To be honest Iâm skeptical of how separate âFTX Foundation, Inc.â is/âwas from the rest of the FTX conglomerate. Would be useful to see the Foundationâs finances after this all shakes out.
Itâs likely temporal. Once FTX turned to deeply unethical business practices and depositors suffered real losses (even without knowing it), then any âprofitsâ were morally owed to reimburse the depositors. If there were fraud against non-depositors as well, that would complicate things.
In any event, I think you could ethically keep any money that would otherwise go to equity holders, although it is unlikely this exists. Equity holders accept the risk of their agents (corporate management) going haywire in a way no other stakeholder does.