I like conspiracy theories, but an economic one is more probable than a political governmental affair. I think Coinbase and Binance may did something in the no-law-only-code world of crypto, but the target was FTX, a very visible competitor; the funds for EA activities were just collateral damage. To mitigate risks like that, EA aligned organizations should not rely on single source for funding.
I like conspiracy theories, but an economic one is more probable than a political governmental affair.
This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s basic risk management for any large organization that has its own ideas about various nation-state level status quos such as biosecurity.
I stated that it was probably economic, and probably not governmental. This is basic risk management. A 94/6% risk split clearly merits further investigation, given that 6% chance is covert activity targeting EA.
That’s notable, but it doesn’t change the conclusion. Either cuts come out of that 10% or they don’t, and if they do then the rationale is still very strong for lowering salaries instead of exclusively cutting staff.
I like conspiracy theories, but an economic one is more probable than a political governmental affair. I think Coinbase and Binance may did something in the no-law-only-code world of crypto, but the target was FTX, a very visible competitor; the funds for EA activities were just collateral damage. To mitigate risks like that, EA aligned organizations should not rely on single source for funding.
This is not a conspiracy theory, it’s basic risk management for any large organization that has its own ideas about various nation-state level status quos such as biosecurity.
I stated that it was probably economic, and probably not governmental. This is basic risk management. A 94/6% risk split clearly merits further investigation, given that 6% chance is covert activity targeting EA.
I think you’re overestimating how high EA-org-salary spending is compared to (remaining) total EA funding per year (in the neighborhood of 10%?)
That’s notable, but it doesn’t change the conclusion. Either cuts come out of that 10% or they don’t, and if they do then the rationale is still very strong for lowering salaries instead of exclusively cutting staff.