I believe there is a real opportunity to come out stronger if EA demonstrates it has learned a prioritization lesson by doing its part to make the financial fraud victims whole before returning to its regular program. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the EA community returns to victims an amount totaling twice the amount they received from FTX, would that be a historical first?
(And I don’t expect unconditional return of FTX grant money when it’s not legally required. Search your own heart; if you are not guilty of contempt for the greater fools that FTX thought it was profiting off of, I see no moral obligation.)
Do you mean that FTX grantees should attempt to make the victims whole by paying the amount they received from FTX back to the estate, or that “EA” at large—so organizations and people with no relation to FTX, but who consider themselves “EA”—should do so?
I believe there is a real opportunity to come out stronger if EA demonstrates it has learned a prioritization lesson by doing its part to make the financial fraud victims whole before returning to its regular program. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the EA community returns to victims an amount totaling twice the amount they received from FTX, would that be a historical first?
(And I don’t expect unconditional return of FTX grant money when it’s not legally required. Search your own heart; if you are not guilty of contempt for the greater fools that FTX thought it was profiting off of, I see no moral obligation.)
As for reasoning, I’d like to call attention to the first paragraph of https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BZ6XaCwN4QGgH9CxF/the-kelly-criterion?commentId=3JEaWCYG2B5ocBJg7 , especially the last sentence.
Do you mean that FTX grantees should attempt to make the victims whole by paying the amount they received from FTX back to the estate, or that “EA” at large—so organizations and people with no relation to FTX, but who consider themselves “EA”—should do so?