3) Critics (eg @CarlaZoeC@LukaKemp) warned that EA should decentralize funding so it doesn’t become a closed validation loop where the people in SBF’s inner circle get millions to promote his & their vision for EA while others don’t. But EA funding remained overcentralized
I think the FTX regranting program was the single biggest push to decentralize funding EA has ever seen, and it’s crazy to me that anyone could look at what FTX Foundation was doing and say that the key problem is that the funding decisions were getting more, rather than less, centralized. (I would be interested in hearing from those who had some insight into the program whether this seems incorrect or overstated.)
That said, first, I was a regrantor, so I am biased, and even aside from the tremendous damage caused by the foundation needing to back out and the possibility of clawbacks, the fact that at least some of the money which was being regranted was stolen makes the whole thing completely unacceptable. However, it was unacceptable in ways that have nothing to do with being overly centralized.
This seems right within longtermism, but, AFAIK, the vast majority of FTX’s grantmaking was longtermist. This decision to focus on longtermism seemed very centralized and might otherwise have shaped the direction and composition of EA disproportionately towards longtermism.
If FTX’s decentralised model had been proven successful for long-termism, I suspect it would have influenced the way funding was handled for other cause areas as well.
In case my wording was confusing, I meant that a community shift towards longtermism seems to have been decided by a small number of individuals (FTX founders). I’m not talking about centralization within causes, but centralization in deciding prioritization between causes.
Also, I’m skeptical that global health and poverty or animal welfare would shift towards very decentralized regranting without a massive increase in available funding first, because
some of the large cost-effective charities that get funded are still funding-constrained, and so the bars to beat seem better defined, and
there already are similar experiments on a smaller scale through the EA Funds.
Yeah, I got that, I was just mentioning an effect that might have partially offset it.
I agree that a small number of individuals decided that the funds should focus on long-terminal, although this is partially offset by how the EA movement was shifting that direction anyway.
I think the FTX regranting program was the single biggest push to decentralize funding EA has ever seen, and it’s crazy to me that anyone could look at what FTX Foundation was doing and say that the key problem is that the funding decisions were getting more, rather than less, centralized. (I would be interested in hearing from those who had some insight into the program whether this seems incorrect or overstated.)
That said, first, I was a regrantor, so I am biased, and even aside from the tremendous damage caused by the foundation needing to back out and the possibility of clawbacks, the fact that at least some of the money which was being regranted was stolen makes the whole thing completely unacceptable. However, it was unacceptable in ways that have nothing to do with being overly centralized.
This seems right within longtermism, but, AFAIK, the vast majority of FTX’s grantmaking was longtermist. This decision to focus on longtermism seemed very centralized and might otherwise have shaped the direction and composition of EA disproportionately towards longtermism.
If FTX’s decentralised model had been proven successful for long-termism, I suspect it would have influenced the way funding was handled for other cause areas as well.
In case my wording was confusing, I meant that a community shift towards longtermism seems to have been decided by a small number of individuals (FTX founders). I’m not talking about centralization within causes, but centralization in deciding prioritization between causes.
Also, I’m skeptical that global health and poverty or animal welfare would shift towards very decentralized regranting without a massive increase in available funding first, because
some of the large cost-effective charities that get funded are still funding-constrained, and so the bars to beat seem better defined, and
there already are similar experiments on a smaller scale through the EA Funds.
Yeah, I got that, I was just mentioning an effect that might have partially offset it.
I agree that a small number of individuals decided that the funds should focus on long-terminal, although this is partially offset by how the EA movement was shifting that direction anyway.
Yes, that seems correct.