this was not above normal levels for the CEO of a rapidly growing business
It was, and we explicitly said that it was at the time. Many of those of us who left have a ton of experience in startups, and the persistent idea that this was a typical “founder squabble” is wrong, and to be honest, getting really tiresome to hear. This was not a normal startup, and these were not normal startup problems.
(Appreciate the words of support for my honesty, thank you!)
You may indeed believe that and have said that, but the question for us is: Was it reasonable for EA leaders to think this degree of bad behaviour was particularly out of the ordinary for the early days of a startup?
To take Nathan Young’s four examples, looking at some of what major news outlets said prior to 2018 about these companies’ early days...it doesn’t seem that unusual? (Assuming we now know all the key accusations that were made—there may of course have been more.)
Facebook
“The company and its employees have also been subject to litigation cases over the years...with its most prominent case concerning allegations that CEO Mark Zuckerberg broke an oral contract with Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra to build the then-named “HarvardConnection” social network in 2004, instead allegedly opting to steal the idea and code to launch Facebook months before HarvardConnection began… The original lawsuit was eventually settled in 2009, with Facebook paying approximately $20 million in cash and 1.25 million shares.” (Wikipedia, referencing articles from 2007 to 2011)
“Facebook co-founder, Eduardo Saverin, no longer works at Facebook. He hasn’t since 2005, when CEO Mark Zuckerberg diluted Saverin’s stake in Facebook and then booted him from the company.” (Business Insider, 2012)
“we also uncovered two additional anecdotes about Mark’s behavior in Facebook’s early days that are more troubling...— an apparent hacking into the email accounts of Harvard Crimson editors using data obtained from Facebook logins, as well as a later hacking into ConnectU” (Business Insider, 2010)
Google
“Asked about his approach to running the company, Page once told a Googler his method for solving complex problems was by reducing them to binaries, and then simply choosing the best option,” Carlson writes. “Whatever the downside he viewed as collateral damage he could live with.” That collateral damage sometimes consisted of people. In 2001, frustrated with the layer of managers overseeing engineers, Page decided to fire all of them, and publicly explained that he didn’t think the managers were useful or doing any good.” (Quartz, 2014)
“Page encouraged his senior executives to fight the way he and Brin went at it. In meetings with new hires, one of the two co-founders would often provoke an argument over a business or product decision. Then they would both sit back, watching quietly as their lieutenants verbally cut each other down.” (Business Insider, 2014)
Gates
“Allen portrays the Microsoft mogul as a sarcastic bully who tried to force his founding partner out of the firm and to cut his share in the company as he was recovering from cancer.” (Guardian, 2011)
″...he recalls the harsher side of Gates’s character, anecdotes from the early days...Allen stopped playing chess with Gates after only a few games because Gates was such a bad loser he would sweep the pieces to the floor in anger; or how Gates would prowl the company car park at weekends to check on who had come in to work; or the way he would browbeat Allen and other senior colleagues, launching tirades at them and putting them down with the classic denigrating comment: “That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard!” (Guardian, 2011)
“They met in 1987, four months into her job at Microsoft...meeting her in the Microsoft car park, he asked her out” (Independent, 2008)
Bezos
Obviously his treatment of workers is no secret (and it seems natural for people to think he’s probably always been this way)
It’s not surprising to me if EA leaders thought most startups were like this—we just only hear stories about the ones that make it big.
I’ve only worked for one startup myself and I wasn’t privy to what went on between executives, but: one of them said to a (Black, incidentally) colleague upon firing him “You’ll never work again,” another was an older married man who was grinding up against young female colleagues at an office party (I actually suggested he go home and he said, “No—I’m having fun” and laughed and went back to it), and another made a verbal agreement with some of us to pay us overtime if we worked 12-hour days for several weeks and then simply denied it and never did. [edit: I should clarify this was not an EA org]
Thanks for giving honest quotes on a serious crime. On balance I’m in favour of your giving quotes here and that can’t have been easy (though I feel the article is inaccurate in tone).
I’m sad to hear that this is tiring, though I still am gonna say things I think. Feel free to DM me if you think I’m wrong but don’t want to engage publicly.
My error, By normal I don’t mean good, I mean “not usual”.
I sense there were this level of concern externally about facebook, that google did some pretty shifty shit, that Gates and Bezos were similarly cutthroat.
Yes, I disagree. My understanding of what happened at each of those four companies in the early days is qualitatively, categorically different from what happened at Alameda.
It really must feel awful to report serious misconduct and have it not be taken seriously. I’ve had a similar experience and it crushed me mentally.
I’ve been thinking about this situation a lot. I don’t know many details, but I’m trying to sort through what I think EA leadership should have done differently.
My main thought is, maybe in light of these concerns, they should have kept taking his money, but not tied themselves to him as much. But I don’t know many details about how they tied themselves to him. Its just, handling misconduct cases gets complicated when the misconduct is against one of the 100 richest people in the world. And while it’s clear Sam treated people poorly, broke many important rules and lied frequently, it was not clear he was stealing money from customers. And so it just leaves me confused. But thank God I am not in charge of handling these sorts of things.
I know it’s also not your responsibility to know what to do in situations like this, but I’d be curious to hear what you wished EA leadership/infrastructure had done differently. I think that might help give shape to my thoughts around this situation.
I don’t known if communicating super clearly here. So want to clarify. This is not meant as a critical comment at all! I hope it doesn’t read as downplaying your experience, because I do feel super alarmed about everything and get the sense EA fucked up big here. I feel fully on support of you here, but I’m worried my confusion makes that harder to read.
Retracting because on reflection I’m like, no one knew he was stealing funds, but I think leadership knew enough of the ingredients to not be surprised by this. It’s not just Sam treating employees poorly, but leadership heard that he would lie to people (including investors), mix funds, play fast and loose with the rules. They may not have known the disastrous ways these would combine. Even so, it seems super bad and while I’m still confused as to how the ideal way to handle it would be. It does seem clear to me it was egriously mishandled.
One important thing to note is that when we first warned everyone, he was not yet in the richest 100 people in the world. If they had taken our warnings seriously at the start, he may never have become that rich in the first place.
Agree. And also worth noting it seems like he may have never actually been that rich, but just, you know, lied and did fraud.
The general thing I’m hearing is, with a lot of people who do misconduct, you/CEA will hear about this misconduct relatively early on, and they should take action before things get too large to correct. That, early & decisive action is important. Leadership should be taking a lot more initiative in responding to misconduct.
This tracks with my experience too. I’ve reported professional misconduct, have it not be taken seriously, and have that person continue to gain power. The whole experience was maddening. So, yeah, +1 to early intervention following credible misconduct reports.
Lol not you. I deleted most detail I included in that comment because I feel like it’s distracting from SBF discussion (like, this convo should not be used as a soapbox for me), the case has recently been reopen (which means probably best if I don’t talk about it and also there might be a good outcome). And I also just worry about pissing people off.
It’s also like, what are people supposed to do with an anonymous comment with a very vague allegation.
Well I’d still like to know. My general stance is that information about misdeeds should more often be public. I wish that I’d known what many knew about SBF.
Hm maybe, I’m not sure. I like to have a professional atmosphere, and public sharing of misdeeds can lead to a culture of like gossip. But, I think it is appropriate to speak publicly about it if the situation was mishandled (in my case, unclear as it’s been reopened) or if the person should be blacklisted (I do not think this is the case here).
I think the main problem being faced again and again is that internal reporting lacks teeth.
I think public reporting is an inadequate alternative. It’s a big demand to ask people to become public whistleblowers, especially since most things worth reporting aren’t always black and white. It’s hard to publicly speak out about things if you’re not certain about them (eg because of self-doubt, wondering if it’s even worth bothering, creating a reputation for yourself, etc).
Additionally, the subsequent discourse seems to put additional burden on those speaking out. If I spoke up about something just to see a bunch of people doubt what I’ve said is true (or, like in previous cases, have to engage with the wrongdoer and proofread their account of events) I’d probably regret my choice.
I think that the wiki could solve this. Having public records that someone hard nosed (like me) could write on others behalf.
I know that my messing with prediction markets around this hasn’t always gone well (sorry) but I think there is something good in that space too. I think Sam’s “chance of fraud” would have been higher than anyone else’s.
I don’t think gossip ought to be that public or legible.
Firstly, I don’t think it would work for achieving your goals; I would still hesitate about having my opinions uploaded without feeling very confident in them (rumours are powerful weapons and I wouldn’t want to start one if I was uncertain).
Secondly, I don’t think it’s worth the costs of destroying trust. A whole bunch more people will distance themselves from EA if they know their public reputation is on the line with every interaction. (I also agree with Lawrence on the Slack leaks, FWIW).
I see why you might want public info (akin to scandal markets) when people are more high-profile, but I don’t think Sam Bankman-Fried would have passed that bar in 2018.
It was, and we explicitly said that it was at the time. Many of those of us who left have a ton of experience in startups, and the persistent idea that this was a typical “founder squabble” is wrong, and to be honest, getting really tiresome to hear. This was not a normal startup, and these were not normal startup problems.
(Appreciate the words of support for my honesty, thank you!)
You may indeed believe that and have said that, but the question for us is: Was it reasonable for EA leaders to think this degree of bad behaviour was particularly out of the ordinary for the early days of a startup?
To take Nathan Young’s four examples, looking at some of what major news outlets said prior to 2018 about these companies’ early days...it doesn’t seem that unusual? (Assuming we now know all the key accusations that were made—there may of course have been more.)
Facebook
“The company and its employees have also been subject to litigation cases over the years...with its most prominent case concerning allegations that CEO Mark Zuckerberg broke an oral contract with Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra to build the then-named “HarvardConnection” social network in 2004, instead allegedly opting to steal the idea and code to launch Facebook months before HarvardConnection began… The original lawsuit was eventually settled in 2009, with Facebook paying approximately $20 million in cash and 1.25 million shares.” (Wikipedia, referencing articles from 2007 to 2011)
“Facebook co-founder, Eduardo Saverin, no longer works at Facebook. He hasn’t since 2005, when CEO Mark Zuckerberg diluted Saverin’s stake in Facebook and then booted him from the company.” (Business Insider, 2012)
“we also uncovered two additional anecdotes about Mark’s behavior in Facebook’s early days that are more troubling...— an apparent hacking into the email accounts of Harvard Crimson editors using data obtained from Facebook logins, as well as a later hacking into ConnectU” (Business Insider, 2010)
Google
“Asked about his approach to running the company, Page once told a Googler his method for solving complex problems was by reducing them to binaries, and then simply choosing the best option,” Carlson writes. “Whatever the downside he viewed as collateral damage he could live with.” That collateral damage sometimes consisted of people. In 2001, frustrated with the layer of managers overseeing engineers, Page decided to fire all of them, and publicly explained that he didn’t think the managers were useful or doing any good.” (Quartz, 2014)
“Page encouraged his senior executives to fight the way he and Brin went at it. In meetings with new hires, one of the two co-founders would often provoke an argument over a business or product decision. Then they would both sit back, watching quietly as their lieutenants verbally cut each other down.” (Business Insider, 2014)
Gates
“Allen portrays the Microsoft mogul as a sarcastic bully who tried to force his founding partner out of the firm and to cut his share in the company as he was recovering from cancer.” (Guardian, 2011)
″...he recalls the harsher side of Gates’s character, anecdotes from the early days...Allen stopped playing chess with Gates after only a few games because Gates was such a bad loser he would sweep the pieces to the floor in anger; or how Gates would prowl the company car park at weekends to check on who had come in to work; or the way he would browbeat Allen and other senior colleagues, launching tirades at them and putting them down with the classic denigrating comment: “That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard!” (Guardian, 2011)
“They met in 1987, four months into her job at Microsoft...meeting her in the Microsoft car park, he asked her out” (Independent, 2008)
Bezos
Obviously his treatment of workers is no secret (and it seems natural for people to think he’s probably always been this way)
It’s not surprising to me if EA leaders thought most startups were like this—we just only hear stories about the ones that make it big.
I’ve only worked for one startup myself and I wasn’t privy to what went on between executives, but: one of them said to a (Black, incidentally) colleague upon firing him “You’ll never work again,” another was an older married man who was grinding up against young female colleagues at an office party (I actually suggested he go home and he said, “No—I’m having fun” and laughed and went back to it), and another made a verbal agreement with some of us to pay us overtime if we worked 12-hour days for several weeks and then simply denied it and never did. [edit: I should clarify this was not an EA org]
Thanks for giving honest quotes on a serious crime. On balance I’m in favour of your giving quotes here and that can’t have been easy (though I feel the article is inaccurate in tone).
I’m sad to hear that this is tiring, though I still am gonna say things I think. Feel free to DM me if you think I’m wrong but don’t want to engage publicly.
My error, By normal I don’t mean good, I mean “not usual”.
I sense there were this level of concern externally about facebook, that google did some pretty shifty shit, that Gates and Bezos were similarly cutthroat.
Do you disagree.
Yes, I disagree. My understanding of what happened at each of those four companies in the early days is qualitatively, categorically different from what happened at Alameda.
It really must feel awful to report serious misconduct and have it not be taken seriously. I’ve had a similar experience and it crushed me mentally.
I’ve been thinking about this situation a lot. I don’t know many details, but I’m trying to sort through what I think EA leadership should have done differently.
My main thought is, maybe in light of these concerns, they should have kept taking his money, but not tied themselves to him as much. But I don’t know many details about how they tied themselves to him. Its just, handling misconduct cases gets complicated when the misconduct is against one of the 100 richest people in the world. And while it’s clear Sam treated people poorly, broke many important rules and lied frequently, it was not clear he was stealing money from customers. And so it just leaves me confused. But thank God I am not in charge of handling these sorts of things.
I know it’s also not your responsibility to know what to do in situations like this, but I’d be curious to hear what you wished EA leadership/infrastructure had done differently. I think that might help give shape to my thoughts around this situation.
I don’t known if communicating super clearly here. So want to clarify. This is not meant as a critical comment at all! I hope it doesn’t read as downplaying your experience, because I do feel super alarmed about everything and get the sense EA fucked up big here. I feel fully on support of you here, but I’m worried my confusion makes that harder to read.
Retracting because on reflection I’m like, no one knew he was stealing funds, but I think leadership knew enough of the ingredients to not be surprised by this. It’s not just Sam treating employees poorly, but leadership heard that he would lie to people (including investors), mix funds, play fast and loose with the rules. They may not have known the disastrous ways these would combine. Even so, it seems super bad and while I’m still confused as to how the ideal way to handle it would be. It does seem clear to me it was egriously mishandled.
One important thing to note is that when we first warned everyone, he was not yet in the richest 100 people in the world. If they had taken our warnings seriously at the start, he may never have become that rich in the first place.
Agree. And also worth noting it seems like he may have never actually been that rich, but just, you know, lied and did fraud.
The general thing I’m hearing is, with a lot of people who do misconduct, you/CEA will hear about this misconduct relatively early on, and they should take action before things get too large to correct. That, early & decisive action is important. Leadership should be taking a lot more initiative in responding to misconduct.
This tracks with my experience too. I’ve reported professional misconduct, have it not be taken seriously, and have that person continue to gain power. The whole experience was maddening. So, yeah, +1 to early intervention following credible misconduct reports.
Feel free to DM me, I’ve complained before, I’ll complain again.
Unless somehow it is me, in which case get someone to make a prediction market and bet it up using a newly created google account.
Lol not you. I deleted most detail I included in that comment because I feel like it’s distracting from SBF discussion (like, this convo should not be used as a soapbox for me), the case has recently been reopen (which means probably best if I don’t talk about it and also there might be a good outcome). And I also just worry about pissing people off.
It’s also like, what are people supposed to do with an anonymous comment with a very vague allegation.
Well I’d still like to know. My general stance is that information about misdeeds should more often be public. I wish that I’d known what many knew about SBF.
Hm maybe, I’m not sure. I like to have a professional atmosphere, and public sharing of misdeeds can lead to a culture of like gossip. But, I think it is appropriate to speak publicly about it if the situation was mishandled (in my case, unclear as it’s been reopened) or if the person should be blacklisted (I do not think this is the case here).
Again, I think I’d like more public sharing on professional misdeeds, on the margin. Many EA orgs have mistakes pages for this reason and that’s good.
I think the main problem being faced again and again is that internal reporting lacks teeth.
I think public reporting is an inadequate alternative. It’s a big demand to ask people to become public whistleblowers, especially since most things worth reporting aren’t always black and white. It’s hard to publicly speak out about things if you’re not certain about them (eg because of self-doubt, wondering if it’s even worth bothering, creating a reputation for yourself, etc).
Additionally, the subsequent discourse seems to put additional burden on those speaking out. If I spoke up about something just to see a bunch of people doubt what I’ve said is true (or, like in previous cases, have to engage with the wrongdoer and proofread their account of events) I’d probably regret my choice.
I think that the wiki could solve this. Having public records that someone hard nosed (like me) could write on others behalf.
I know that my messing with prediction markets around this hasn’t always gone well (sorry) but I think there is something good in that space too. I think Sam’s “chance of fraud” would have been higher than anyone else’s.
I don’t think gossip ought to be that public or legible.
Firstly, I don’t think it would work for achieving your goals; I would still hesitate about having my opinions uploaded without feeling very confident in them (rumours are powerful weapons and I wouldn’t want to start one if I was uncertain).
Secondly, I don’t think it’s worth the costs of destroying trust. A whole bunch more people will distance themselves from EA if they know their public reputation is on the line with every interaction. (I also agree with Lawrence on the Slack leaks, FWIW).
I see why you might want public info (akin to scandal markets) when people are more high-profile, but I don’t think Sam Bankman-Fried would have passed that bar in 2018.
I disagree. I upload 60% opinions all the time. I would about gossip if I thought I could control it.
I think we could build systems to handle this. I think there is something whistleblower marketty
I think he would have as FTX got going. Also he might in 2018.
Fair enough! It could be useful, so I’d be happy to be wrong here.