I suspect at least half of this controversy could have been avoided simply by writing “We have now moved onto the due diligence phase and we intend to approve this grant if it passes” instead of “We have approved this grant subject to due diligence”. Unfortunately, headlines count.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to anticipate this exact scenario, nor do I think they should be spending lots of time planning for tail risk PR scenarios like these instead of being actually productive.
I suspect at least half of this controversy could have been avoided simply by writing “We have now moved onto the due diligence phase and we intend to approve this grant if it passes” instead of “We have approved this grant subject to due diligence”. Unfortunately, headlines count.
Here’s the letter: image from Expo.
It doesn’t mention “subject to due diligence”. It says they’re waiting for the foundation to complete registration.
Interesting, well that’s an even worse wording in terms of leaving them vulnerable to PR.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to anticipate this exact scenario, nor do I think they should be spending lots of time planning for tail risk PR scenarios like these instead of being actually productive.