In the comment, a) I refer to an allegation that has been made about the FTX team, and b) make the extremely obvious point that if such an allegation were true and known, people would have been much more reluctant to place their trust in FTX.
What baffles me is that comments making an essentially identical point did not receive negative votes, and in some cases received strong positive votes.
I’m guessing it got downvoted because it was interpreted as an attack on polyamory, or relationships between EAs in general, coming from someone new to/outside the community, and didn’t spell out—when it should be obvious(!) -- that the reason that it’s a problem is conflict of interest (I spelled it out elsewhere in the thread and got upvoted. Shame that there is this fairly widespread blindspot in EA when it comes to conflicts of interest).
Yes, that sounds plausible. Perhaps I should have been clearer that it wasn’t an attack on polyamory, but a red flag indicating a high possibility of conflict of interest regardless of whether Ellison was in a romantic or sexual relationship with any of the other residents. The fact that you needed to spell it out in your comment (which was one of the comments I was referring to) is concerning, but I’ll take more care in the future to spell out any points I’,m trying to make.
All 10 are, or used to be, paired up in romantic relationships with each other. That includes Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, whose firm played a central role in the company’s collapse – and who, at times, has dated Bankman-Fried, according to people familiar with the matter.
This doesn’t read to me like a suggestion that Caroline was “in some form of relationship with other residents of the apartment”—in fact, the decision to specify “paired up” reads like a clarification that it’s not a polycule—so people may have downvoted you for what they see as starting rumours.
I don’t know what the situation was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some people here do know, and are disagree-voting on your suggestion that Caroline “may have been in some form of relationship with other residents of the apartment” accordingly.
Thanks for the reply. It’s not starting rumors to refer to information that is in the public domain, especially if that reference is heavily qualified as “an unverified suggestion” and the following point is clearly preceded by “If true”. Per Greg_Colbourn’s reply to me, however, I recognise that there is sensitivity about polyamory on this board.
I deliberately didn’t refer to polyamory because it wasn’t relevant to my point, which is that any kind of relationship between Ellison as CEO of Alameda and any senior staff member of FTX—and to be honest, even simply co-habitation—should be a huge red flag to anybody entrusting their money. Other comments have communicated that better than mine!
As a new user I am baffled (and slightly amused) by the fact that this comment is at −1/-9:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/WdeiPrwgqW2wHAxgT/a-personal-statement-on-ftx?commentId=p7FawdywRDuwAxoRx
In the comment, a) I refer to an allegation that has been made about the FTX team, and b) make the extremely obvious point that if such an allegation were true and known, people would have been much more reluctant to place their trust in FTX.
What baffles me is that comments making an essentially identical point did not receive negative votes, and in some cases received strong positive votes.
I’m guessing it got downvoted because it was interpreted as an attack on polyamory, or relationships between EAs in general, coming from someone new to/outside the community, and didn’t spell out—when it should be obvious(!) -- that the reason that it’s a problem is conflict of interest (I spelled it out elsewhere in the thread and got upvoted. Shame that there is this fairly widespread blindspot in EA when it comes to conflicts of interest).
Yes, that sounds plausible. Perhaps I should have been clearer that it wasn’t an attack on polyamory, but a red flag indicating a high possibility of conflict of interest regardless of whether Ellison was in a romantic or sexual relationship with any of the other residents. The fact that you needed to spell it out in your comment (which was one of the comments I was referring to) is concerning, but I’ll take more care in the future to spell out any points I’,m trying to make.
In said comment, you say:
Are you referring to this article?
This doesn’t read to me like a suggestion that Caroline was “in some form of relationship with other residents of the apartment”—in fact, the decision to specify “paired up” reads like a clarification that it’s not a polycule—so people may have downvoted you for what they see as starting rumours.
I don’t know what the situation was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some people here do know, and are disagree-voting on your suggestion that Caroline “may have been in some form of relationship with other residents of the apartment” accordingly.
Thanks for the reply. It’s not starting rumors to refer to information that is in the public domain, especially if that reference is heavily qualified as “an unverified suggestion” and the following point is clearly preceded by “If true”. Per Greg_Colbourn’s reply to me, however, I recognise that there is sensitivity about polyamory on this board.
I deliberately didn’t refer to polyamory because it wasn’t relevant to my point, which is that any kind of relationship between Ellison as CEO of Alameda and any senior staff member of FTX—and to be honest, even simply co-habitation—should be a huge red flag to anybody entrusting their money. Other comments have communicated that better than mine!