I would VERY much like to get more information on this (though I understand if Naia feels she canât say more.) This sounds, really really bad, but also like a lot turns on exactly how far âbasically threatenedâ is from âthreatenedâ without qualifier.
Based on conversations with people at the time, it seems plausible to me that this is true. However, this is not as serious a concern as you might think: IMHO it was reasonable to consider both SBF and Tara highly untrustworthy at the time. Will trusted SBF too much, but his skepticism of Tara seems justified. Taraâs hedge fund suffered a major loss later, and I heard she showed low integrity in communicating with stakeholders about the loss.
Relevant quote from the article:
âHe was treating it like a âhe said-she said,â even though every other long-time EA involved had left because of the same concerns,â Bouscal adds.
âevery other long-time EA involved had left because of the same concernsâ is significant corroboration though (and a direct quote from an on-the-record source).
Yeah, I think itâs probably fair to say that I worded that a bit too strongly. I do think she fits the reference class significantly less well than many of the other EAs who left (notably, she was only 23 at the time), but I should have been more precise.
Threats are (usually) very bad, even if the person threatened later does something bad. But I still donât actually feel I know âWill did something really bad to Taraâ*, because itâs so vague how far a stretch âbasically threatenrdâ is from âthreatenedâ.
*Iâm already convinced he made a major error of judgment in backing Sam given the existence of thr doc listing his misdeeds mentioned in the Time article.
Based on conversations with people at the time, it seems plausible to me that this is true. However, this is not as serious a concern as you might think: IMHO it was reasonable to consider both SBF and Tara highly untrustworthy at the time. Will trusted SBF too much, but his skepticism of Tara seems justified. Taraâs hedge fund suffered a major loss later, and I heard she showed low integrity in communicating with stakeholders about the loss.
Relevant quote from the article:
âevery other long-time EA involved had left because of the same concernsâ is significant corroboration though (and a direct quote from an on-the-record source).
Isnât Caroline Ellison an obvious exception?
Yeah, I think itâs probably fair to say that I worded that a bit too strongly. I do think she fits the reference class significantly less well than many of the other EAs who left (notably, she was only 23 at the time), but I should have been more precise.
Threats are (usually) very bad, even if the person threatened later does something bad. But I still donât actually feel I know âWill did something really bad to Taraâ*, because itâs so vague how far a stretch âbasically threatenrdâ is from âthreatenedâ.
*Iâm already convinced he made a major error of judgment in backing Sam given the existence of thr doc listing his misdeeds mentioned in the Time article.