Executive summary: The author reflects on what to do with $6,000 of unspent FTX grant money, arguing that since it was funded by theft they cannot keep or “earn” it retroactively, and concludes that returning it to victims (via the estate) or donating it elsewhere is the most principled path, while urging others with similar leftover funds to consider doing likewise.
Key points:
FTX distributed large philanthropic grants with stolen funds; the author received $33,000, spent most on legitimate work, but still has ~20% unspent.
Legal obligations to return the money expired in 2024, but the author judged keeping it as morally indefensible, particularly given the principle of protecting high-trust economic norms (the “golden goose”).
They tried to return the money to the FTX estate but received no response; in their absence, they plan to donate it to Feeding America, a cause outside FTX’s focus and with little risk of self-enrichment.
The “golden goose” framing emphasizes that allowing theft—even for altruistic reasons—undermines the trust and prosperity enabling large-scale philanthropy in the first place.
The author distinguishes between already “earned/spent” funds (e.g. salaries, taxes, moving costs) and genuinely unspent money; only the latter should be given away.
They argue that people who can give up leftover FTX funds without great hardship have a strong obligation to do so, while those facing severe personal costs should instead focus on making future ethical choices easier.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author reflects on what to do with $6,000 of unspent FTX grant money, arguing that since it was funded by theft they cannot keep or “earn” it retroactively, and concludes that returning it to victims (via the estate) or donating it elsewhere is the most principled path, while urging others with similar leftover funds to consider doing likewise.
Key points:
FTX distributed large philanthropic grants with stolen funds; the author received $33,000, spent most on legitimate work, but still has ~20% unspent.
Legal obligations to return the money expired in 2024, but the author judged keeping it as morally indefensible, particularly given the principle of protecting high-trust economic norms (the “golden goose”).
They tried to return the money to the FTX estate but received no response; in their absence, they plan to donate it to Feeding America, a cause outside FTX’s focus and with little risk of self-enrichment.
The “golden goose” framing emphasizes that allowing theft—even for altruistic reasons—undermines the trust and prosperity enabling large-scale philanthropy in the first place.
The author distinguishes between already “earned/spent” funds (e.g. salaries, taxes, moving costs) and genuinely unspent money; only the latter should be given away.
They argue that people who can give up leftover FTX funds without great hardship have a strong obligation to do so, while those facing severe personal costs should instead focus on making future ethical choices easier.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.