I see. So it would be the equivalent MacAskill signing people up for a Giving What We Can pledge for as part of High Impact Careers (which became 80,000 Hours).
That in itself isn’t controversial, but I’d be interested in knowing more about exactly how it works. The Sequoia article says that MacAskill himself suggested Jane Street. (I’ll note that the 80,000 Hours website mentions Jane Street but not MacAskill’s involvement).
What does that actually mean? Did he have a hand in helping SBF secure an interview or the gig? Did SBF pledge to donate to one of the organizations MacAskill was associated with?
It feels similar to a headhunting firm. I’m sure there are not finders fees for placing these positions, but I’d be interested in knowing if there’s any kind of arrangement, even if it’s mostly implicit—i.e. “We found you a good candidate, so please donate to our organization.”
And then the other big question: what is the pledge-pitching actually like? And does the person making the pledge get different treatment depending on what their pledge looks like. The amount? The organization? If someone pledges to one of MacAskill’s affiliated organizations, is that more likely to result in a placement?
The phrase crops up in the “Funding target” section, and mentions that if they’re going to raise £1.7m, they’ll need to seek “the easiest, scalable way to get more high-value plan changes.” So it’s clear that they’re counting on some sort of money flowing in from either the job-seeker or the company in which they’re placed, or both.
Now...
None of that is wrong, and it seems like an inventive (if slightly hidden?) system.
With that in mind, I do still think it would be good to know more about that original meeting and what happened after. How much of SBF’s Jane Street income was going to MacAskill’s organization, if any? I know that after he left, he went straight to the Centre for Effective Altruism and that’s where he was for the successful arbitrage. (although in some articles this fact is elided, and it’s described more as SBF bumming around trying to think of some good idea). Then he used the proceeds to found Alameda with Tara Mac Aulay, who was with CEA at the time and later deeply involved in the Celsius fiasco.
I see. So it would be the equivalent MacAskill signing people up for a Giving What We Can pledge for as part of High Impact Careers (which became 80,000 Hours).
That in itself isn’t controversial, but I’d be interested in knowing more about exactly how it works. The Sequoia article says that MacAskill himself suggested Jane Street. (I’ll note that the 80,000 Hours website mentions Jane Street but not MacAskill’s involvement).
What does that actually mean? Did he have a hand in helping SBF secure an interview or the gig? Did SBF pledge to donate to one of the organizations MacAskill was associated with?
It feels similar to a headhunting firm. I’m sure there are not finders fees for placing these positions, but I’d be interested in knowing if there’s any kind of arrangement, even if it’s mostly implicit—i.e. “We found you a good candidate, so please donate to our organization.”
And then the other big question: what is the pledge-pitching actually like? And does the person making the pledge get different treatment depending on what their pledge looks like. The amount? The organization? If someone pledges to one of MacAskill’s affiliated organizations, is that more likely to result in a placement?
80000hours.org dances around all of this a bit. They certainly don’t mention getting anything in return. But on a page where they list their “mistakes” there’s an entry saying that they didn’t focus enough on “high-value plan changes.” https://80000hours.org/about/credibility/evaluations/mistakes/?int_source=job-board#growth-of-high-value-plan-changes-slower-than-medium-value
Okay, well, what is that? It seems to be a phrase used internally, and barely shows up on the rest of the site. The closest we get to a definition is a post from 2016: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WKkF36bJsH8FmYZkw/why-donate-to-80-000-hours
The phrase crops up in the “Funding target” section, and mentions that if they’re going to raise £1.7m, they’ll need to seek “the easiest, scalable way to get more high-value plan changes.” So it’s clear that they’re counting on some sort of money flowing in from either the job-seeker or the company in which they’re placed, or both.
Now...
None of that is wrong, and it seems like an inventive (if slightly hidden?) system.
With that in mind, I do still think it would be good to know more about that original meeting and what happened after. How much of SBF’s Jane Street income was going to MacAskill’s organization, if any? I know that after he left, he went straight to the Centre for Effective Altruism and that’s where he was for the successful arbitrage. (although in some articles this fact is elided, and it’s described more as SBF bumming around trying to think of some good idea). Then he used the proceeds to found Alameda with Tara Mac Aulay, who was with CEA at the time and later deeply involved in the Celsius fiasco.