The idea that that EA needs to be more aware of potential major risks relating to its most pivotal funder is a valid one. However, there are a range of donor-related risks, and potential fraud is rather low on the threat list here. It is just more salient given recent events. Better to focus on contingency planning that would cover any number of much more likely reasons Moskovitz’s money could largely or entirely dry up—massive stock market crash, he decides that his foundation should spend its money on other causes, whatever.
To the extent that discovering Moskovitz is SBF 0.5 would be survivable, I think the plan would be largely the same as for other scenarios in which his money is no longer available.
The idea that that EA needs to be more aware of potential major risks relating to its most pivotal funder is a valid one. However, there are a range of donor-related risks, and potential fraud is rather low on the threat list here. It is just more salient given recent events. Better to focus on contingency planning that would cover any number of much more likely reasons Moskovitz’s money could largely or entirely dry up—massive stock market crash, he decides that his foundation should spend its money on other causes, whatever.
To the extent that discovering Moskovitz is SBF 0.5 would be survivable, I think the plan would be largely the same as for other scenarios in which his money is no longer available.