I had previously assumed that Open Philanthropy had responsibility for overseeing much of the SBF-EA connection and promotion.
Why did you assume this? Serious question. I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that Open Phil doesn’t consider itself responsible for overseeing the EA community.
To me some of the actors who seem like they should have had relevant responsibility here are CEA, 80K, and senior staff at the FTX Future Fund before they joined it.
SBF was a board member, previous employee/friend, and I believe a major funder, of CEA. 80k was sponsored by CEA and really doesn’t seem well placed to be making calls like this.
Also, generally, more of the “very senior and trusted EAs” seem to be at Open Philanthropy.
Open Philanthropy has been in charge of funding (including groups like CEA), so they generally seem like the most high-up and ultimately responsible org. The relationship with FTX was about as large a project as we had in EA, so I assumed the institution with the most power and authority was handling or overseeing it to some extent.
I wrote about the future fund in my other comment.
80K promoted SBF uncritically to a large audience and highlighted him as a positive example for years (while also being well placed to know about the 2018 Alameda blowup) so I think it’s fair to say that they have some non-zero level of responsibility in the EA-SBF connection and promotion.
Also, generally, more of the “very senior and trusted EAs” seem to be at Open Philanthropy.
Open Philanthropy has been in charge of funding (including groups like CEA), so they generally seem like the most high-up and ultimately responsible org. The relationship with FTX was about as large a project as we had in EA, so I assumed the institution with the most power and authority was handling or overseeing it to some extent.
I see. Thanks for sharing. I think it’s good to find out what expectations people had of different actors.
My expectations were that Open Phil is a family foundation with very large overlaps with the EA community and its interests including funding some parts of it, but it’s not fundamentally an actor with responsibility over the EA community’s decision making, especially nebulous and complex things like EA’s connections with a different billionaire. A lot of people the EA community considers leaders are at Open Phil, but I consider that pretty different from Open Philanthropy as an organization having responsibility for EA decision making. I’m not sure what, if anything, it should have done differently in this case.
After considering this comment and the relationship between Open Philanthropy and the rest of the EA ecosystem more, I’m reconsidering my position about Open Phil’s responsibility for EA’s relationships with FTX to one of much greater uncertainty.
CEA and 80k are both part of Effective Ventures. As far as I can tell, that means they’re legally the same entities (split into UK and USA operations) and largely funded by Open Philanthropy. Several board members are shared between Effective Ventures and the FTX Future Fund.
Aside: while fact-checking this comment, I found the 80,0000 donors page which I think is a commendable amount of transparency. Other EA organisations should consider replicating.
Why did you assume this? Serious question. I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that Open Phil doesn’t consider itself responsible for overseeing the EA community.
To me some of the actors who seem like they should have had relevant responsibility here are CEA, 80K, and senior staff at the FTX Future Fund before they joined it.
SBF was a board member, previous employee/friend, and I believe a major funder, of CEA. 80k was sponsored by CEA and really doesn’t seem well placed to be making calls like this.
Also, generally, more of the “very senior and trusted EAs” seem to be at Open Philanthropy.
Open Philanthropy has been in charge of funding (including groups like CEA), so they generally seem like the most high-up and ultimately responsible org. The relationship with FTX was about as large a project as we had in EA, so I assumed the institution with the most power and authority was handling or overseeing it to some extent.
I wrote about the future fund in my other comment.
80K promoted SBF uncritically to a large audience and highlighted him as a positive example for years (while also being well placed to know about the 2018 Alameda blowup) so I think it’s fair to say that they have some non-zero level of responsibility in the EA-SBF connection and promotion.
I see. Thanks for sharing. I think it’s good to find out what expectations people had of different actors.
My expectations were that Open Phil is a family foundation with very large overlaps with the EA community and its interests including funding some parts of it, but it’s not fundamentally an actor with responsibility over the EA community’s decision making, especially nebulous and complex things like EA’s connections with a different billionaire. A lot of people the EA community considers leaders are at Open Phil, but I consider that pretty different from Open Philanthropy as an organization having responsibility for EA decision making. I’m not sure what, if anything, it should have done differently in this case.
After considering this comment and the relationship between Open Philanthropy and the rest of the EA ecosystem more, I’m reconsidering my position about Open Phil’s responsibility for EA’s relationships with FTX to one of much greater uncertainty.
CEA and 80k are both part of Effective Ventures. As far as I can tell, that means they’re legally the same entities (split into UK and USA operations) and largely funded by Open Philanthropy. Several board members are shared between Effective Ventures and the FTX Future Fund.
Aside: while fact-checking this comment, I found the 80,0000 donors page which I think is a commendable amount of transparency. Other EA organisations should consider replicating.