If this is the case that MacAskill cannot be forthcoming for valid reasons (opening himself up to legal vulnerability), as a community it would still make sense for us to err on the side of caution and have other leaders for this community as Chris argues for.
So I think there are three plausible paths forward as far as how to read Will’s silence:
One could draw an adverse inference, assuming that the information he has would be bad. One argument in favor of this would be that his prior assertion that he couldn’t talk because of concerns about interfering with the EVF internal investigation comes across as less than forthcoming if he was never really planning on talking after that was done.
One could simply decide on the evidence that is known—which basically means taking the Time article at face value, because it has not been effectively contested and is quoted to named sources.
One could assume that information exists that would exonerate Will, or mitigate things, that he nevertheless isn’t in a position to share for legal reasons.
I’m not anyone’s lawyer, and Will should definitely listen to his lawyers rather than semi-pseudonymous Forum commenters! But as a community member, I am somewhat more inclined to a mix between 1 or 2 for him than I would be for most other actors. The reason is that a potential plaintiff’s attorney already has a good bit of information in the public domain with which to construct a complaint that would make it past a motion to dismiss and into discovery. The Time article exists, and its contents can be pled in a complaint and will be assumed true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Will’s connection to FTXFF is well known.
For someone without that publicly-available information, silence helps them avoid alerting plaintiffs’ attorneys that they are a potential target, and probably makes it much harder for them to assemble enough information for a complaint that they can sign off on that will meet the standards for surviving a motion to dismiss. [Citations to US federal-law sources, because that’s my background.] Competent attorneys do not need Will’s help to figure out that he might be a target, and I’m not convinced they need his help to marshal information for a complaint either. So the tactical disadvantage to speaking out might be limited to potentially making things a little easier for the other side in discovery?[1]
[EDIT to clarify: None of this is to doubt that ~anyone remotely involved in FTX/SBF stuff was given legal advice that “talking isn’t going to help your personal legal situation, and may hurt.” Almost any lawyer would have given that advice; their client is the person, not EA! However, my guesses about the marginal additional legal risk that a person would incur by speaking out are relevant to the credence that I am willing to place on each of the three inferences above. This is particularly true as we are now ~18 months from the FTX explosion.]
I am not opining on—and indeed, have no opinion on—whether anyone has a viable case against Will, and if so whether anything that happened prior to the formation of FTXFF would be relevant to that case. I am merely applying the framework I have used for other leaders, which recognizes that getting sued is disruptive, stressful, and expensive, and thus gives significant weight to a desire not to be sued or a desire to get any case that is filed dismissed prior to discovery.
If this is the case that MacAskill cannot be forthcoming for valid reasons (opening himself up to legal vulnerability), as a community it would still make sense for us to err on the side of caution and have other leaders for this community as Chris argues for.
So I think there are three plausible paths forward as far as how to read Will’s silence:
One could draw an adverse inference, assuming that the information he has would be bad. One argument in favor of this would be that his prior assertion that he couldn’t talk because of concerns about interfering with the EVF internal investigation comes across as less than forthcoming if he was never really planning on talking after that was done.
One could simply decide on the evidence that is known—which basically means taking the Time article at face value, because it has not been effectively contested and is quoted to named sources.
One could assume that information exists that would exonerate Will, or mitigate things, that he nevertheless isn’t in a position to share for legal reasons.
I’m not anyone’s lawyer, and Will should definitely listen to his lawyers rather than semi-pseudonymous Forum commenters! But as a community member, I am somewhat more inclined to a mix between 1 or 2 for him than I would be for most other actors. The reason is that a potential plaintiff’s attorney already has a good bit of information in the public domain with which to construct a complaint that would make it past a motion to dismiss and into discovery. The Time article exists, and its contents can be pled in a complaint and will be assumed true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Will’s connection to FTXFF is well known.
For someone without that publicly-available information, silence helps them avoid alerting plaintiffs’ attorneys that they are a potential target, and probably makes it much harder for them to assemble enough information for a complaint that they can sign off on that will meet the standards for surviving a motion to dismiss. [Citations to US federal-law sources, because that’s my background.] Competent attorneys do not need Will’s help to figure out that he might be a target, and I’m not convinced they need his help to marshal information for a complaint either. So the tactical disadvantage to speaking out might be limited to potentially making things a little easier for the other side in discovery?[1]
[EDIT to clarify: None of this is to doubt that ~anyone remotely involved in FTX/SBF stuff was given legal advice that “talking isn’t going to help your personal legal situation, and may hurt.” Almost any lawyer would have given that advice; their client is the person, not EA! However, my guesses about the marginal additional legal risk that a person would incur by speaking out are relevant to the credence that I am willing to place on each of the three inferences above. This is particularly true as we are now ~18 months from the FTX explosion.]
I am not opining on—and indeed, have no opinion on—whether anyone has a viable case against Will, and if so whether anything that happened prior to the formation of FTXFF would be relevant to that case. I am merely applying the framework I have used for other leaders, which recognizes that getting sued is disruptive, stressful, and expensive, and thus gives significant weight to a desire not to be sued or a desire to get any case that is filed dismissed prior to discovery.