The casual assumption that people make that obviously the only reason Caroline could have become CEO was because she was sleeping with SBF is annoying when I see it on Twitter or some toxic subreddit. Here I expect better. Plenty of people at FTX and Alameda were equally young and equally inexperienced. The CTO (a similarly important role at a tech company) of FTX, Gary Wang, was 29. Sam Trabucco, the previous Alameda co-CEO, seems to be about the same. I have seen no reason to think that Caroline was particularly unusual in her age or experience relative to others at FTX and Alameda.
Thank you for responding. I read “Some of these men control funding for projects and enjoy high status in EA communities and that means there are real downsides to refusing their sexual advances and pressure to say yes, especially if your career is in an EA cause area or is funded by them. There are also upsides, as reported by CoinDesk on Caroline Ellison.” I have seen a number of people pass around https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/10/bankman-frieds-cabal-of-roommates-in-the-bahamas-ran-his-crypto-empire-and-dated-other-employees-have-lots-of-questions/. I have seen a number of assertions that Caroline received the job because of a sexual/romantic relationship with SBF. I haven’t seen anyone assert any other “upsides” that make sense in specific relation to Caroline Ellison. Would you mind clarifying what upsides you were referring to if not the CEO position?
[2022-11-13: Edit to include more of the context of the quote]
Whether the fact Caroline slept with SBF was instrumental to her becoming CEO of Alameda is not really the point—this kind of nepotistic, incestuous work environment is not healthy. It also doesn’t detract from the long list of very serious problems the OP mentioned? Why take such a confrontational attitude to someone who is reaching out for support?
Honestly, I think you are just making a category error. This isn’t a philosophy article, it’s someone sharing their personal experiences of sexual harassment. I just don’t think it’s helpful or to the point to act like this, and frankly, I don’t understand it on a human level.
Did Caroline sleep with SBF? Yes. From what I understand—which isn’t a whole lot—she did so both before and during her time at Alameda. Might that have benefitted her? Very probably, though no, we’ll never know for certain because we don’t have a counterfactual timeline.
I’ll note in passing that you are not representing the OP’s original statement accurately, which for someone who is such a stickler for exact, verifiable truth claims, is surprising.
>”Having loyal and pliable lieutenants is common for powerful, ambitious people”
And therefore it’s okay for those powerful, ambitious people to curry sexual favour in the workplace, create an environment where women feel pressured to have sex to protect or further their career, and where sexual intrigue, pursuit and—potentially—abuse becomes normal?
Because when male authority figures sleep with female colleagues, it introduces all of those dynamics into the workplace, regardless of whether it did or didn’t advance the careers of the women they slept with.
I’m saying that it’s unclear how the collapse of FTX, the role of the poly relationships, predatory male sexual behavior, or the culpability of EA culture are linked, despite being welded together into one set of claims in this post. Also, it seems like Caroline E probably had a lot of agency and power (but I’m happy to learn otherwise).
The underlying issue that is motivating this is that there’s many issues and throwing this into this high temperature environment will burn them.
I have a lot of anecdotes that could be useful. To the degree it’s actually true (and writing here is useful; and completely ignoring the values/interests of EA) I’m with you and the OP in stopping this abuse, some aspects of which seems plausible and real to me.
I won’t participate if it turns into a very low quality overreaction or leads to something that consumes a lot of time in EA and doesn’t help women.
Well, FTX was filled with EA staff, and FTX’s inner circle was nepotistic and incestous. Nepotistic and incestuous workplaces are bad, and the OP is saying that she has experienced much the same in dealing with EA. I don’t really see what’s complicated about that?
How is this your priority in responding to this long list of personal experiences, which have no doubt distressed the OP, and pose enormous questions for the movement?
This community’s lack of basic decency and kindness—sacrificed to a sterile and callous ideal of rationality—is one of the many reasons why I disassociated from it a long time ago.
The casual assumption that people make that obviously the only reason Caroline could have become CEO was because she was sleeping with SBF is annoying when I see it on Twitter or some toxic subreddit. Here I expect better. Plenty of people at FTX and Alameda were equally young and equally inexperienced. The CTO (a similarly important role at a tech company) of FTX, Gary Wang, was 29. Sam Trabucco, the previous Alameda co-CEO, seems to be about the same. I have seen no reason to think that Caroline was particularly unusual in her age or experience relative to others at FTX and Alameda.
Hi keller_scholl, I am not making this claim
or this
Hope that helps resolve your confusion. I have no special information beyond what CoinDesk / Business Insider is reporting.
Thank you for responding. I read “Some of these men control funding for projects and enjoy high status in EA communities and that means there are real downsides to refusing their sexual advances and pressure to say yes, especially if your career is in an EA cause area or is funded by them. There are also upsides, as reported by CoinDesk on Caroline Ellison.” I have seen a number of people pass around https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/11/10/bankman-frieds-cabal-of-roommates-in-the-bahamas-ran-his-crypto-empire-and-dated-other-employees-have-lots-of-questions/. I have seen a number of assertions that Caroline received the job because of a sexual/romantic relationship with SBF. I haven’t seen anyone assert any other “upsides” that make sense in specific relation to Caroline Ellison. Would you mind clarifying what upsides you were referring to if not the CEO position?
[2022-11-13: Edit to include more of the context of the quote]
Whether the fact Caroline slept with SBF was instrumental to her becoming CEO of Alameda is not really the point—this kind of nepotistic, incestuous work environment is not healthy. It also doesn’t detract from the long list of very serious problems the OP mentioned? Why take such a confrontational attitude to someone who is reaching out for support?
I think it’s bad to confidently assert, without real evidence, that a woman slept her way to the top of a company. Do you think it’s fine?
Honestly, I think you are just making a category error. This isn’t a philosophy article, it’s someone sharing their personal experiences of sexual harassment. I just don’t think it’s helpful or to the point to act like this, and frankly, I don’t understand it on a human level.
Did Caroline sleep with SBF? Yes. From what I understand—which isn’t a whole lot—she did so both before and during her time at Alameda. Might that have benefitted her? Very probably, though no, we’ll never know for certain because we don’t have a counterfactual timeline.
I’ll note in passing that you are not representing the OP’s original statement accurately, which for someone who is such a stickler for exact, verifiable truth claims, is surprising.
The claims in the OP are odious, but having loyal and pliable lieutenants is common for powerful, ambitious people, because it’s useful.
They don’t have to be women and it’s not clear why being in a sexual relationship would be useful for this purpose (it’s probably the opposite).
What exactly are you trying to say?
>”Having loyal and pliable lieutenants is common for powerful, ambitious people”
And therefore it’s okay for those powerful, ambitious people to curry sexual favour in the workplace, create an environment where women feel pressured to have sex to protect or further their career, and where sexual intrigue, pursuit and—potentially—abuse becomes normal?
Because when male authority figures sleep with female colleagues, it introduces all of those dynamics into the workplace, regardless of whether it did or didn’t advance the careers of the women they slept with.
I’m saying that it’s unclear how the collapse of FTX, the role of the poly relationships, predatory male sexual behavior, or the culpability of EA culture are linked, despite being welded together into one set of claims in this post. Also, it seems like Caroline E probably had a lot of agency and power (but I’m happy to learn otherwise).
The underlying issue that is motivating this is that there’s many issues and throwing this into this high temperature environment will burn them.
I have a lot of anecdotes that could be useful. To the degree it’s actually true (and writing here is useful; and completely ignoring the values/interests of EA) I’m with you and the OP in stopping this abuse, some aspects of which seems plausible and real to me.
I won’t participate if it turns into a very low quality overreaction or leads to something that consumes a lot of time in EA and doesn’t help women.
Well, FTX was filled with EA staff, and FTX’s inner circle was nepotistic and incestous. Nepotistic and incestuous workplaces are bad, and the OP is saying that she has experienced much the same in dealing with EA. I don’t really see what’s complicated about that?
How is this your priority in responding to this long list of personal experiences, which have no doubt distressed the OP, and pose enormous questions for the movement?
This community’s lack of basic decency and kindness—sacrificed to a sterile and callous ideal of rationality—is one of the many reasons why I disassociated from it a long time ago.
I don’t think you will be successful like this, I’m sorry.