Robert, I wish to understand. At any time did 80,000 recommend readers or EAs to invest their savings in FTX crypto?
If memory serves right, there was an official 80,000 post composed by Benjamin Todd that recommended asset diversification away from what was regarded as the current EA investment portfolio, which was described as being highly tilted towards Facebook and FTX, and decentralized finance and big U.S. tech companies. In hindsight, it was optimal advice and I hope EAs listened to it.
However, by sheer virtue of associating the EA portfolio with FTX (I’m not sure how that conclusion was reached or what data it was based off of), I posit readers were instead led to mimic the behavior of others and also invest in EA-led FTX. A ‘follow the leader’ kind of behavioral mimicry whereas the intention was ‘Do as I say, not as I do’.
Unfortunately, in the same post financial advice and forecast was provided, “a major driver of the stock of capital will be the investment returns of Facebook, Asana, FTX, and Ethereum”…
What projections was this based off of? On what basis or data was this forecast (expecting positive returns) made? After all, who is to say FTX or Eth will even produce future returns at all (rather than say go to zero)? That’s what I want to know.
Even a passing sentence like this may have influenced others to invest in these entities hoping to see returns they could donate to effective charities.
Those who have invested in these entities have lost much of their savings and capital. And the losses are irreparable. Like yourself I feel terrible for these individuals. A possible (but short term) tech stock crash and crypto was mentioned in the article, but it was nowhere as close or bad as what happened.
It is concerning that parties that championed SBF’s organization (and privately invested in crypto there) will now hastily attempt to dissociate themselves from it for self-preservation / reputation salvaging purposes. It’s only natural and expected to make genuine public statements of apallment, but when the dust settles, it is opportune to take responsibility and identify what went wrong.
Readers would certainly appreciate a thorough compilation of any and all financial advice 80k hours gave its readers with respect to FTX and crypto, if at minimum, to identify errors and avoid suboptimal financial advice in the future… even if it turns out no such financial advice was given.
Edit: Some minor additions were made, like modifying the last sentence of the final paragraph to emphasize this is a question, not a charge. This is an honest inquiry, not an accusation. Don’t make it out to be one.
Edit 2: I did not expect such hostility from posing questions. Unfortunate, and noted.
so hang on, 8k Hours gave some really really good financial advice and you’re trying to critique them because giving the good advice may have subconsciously influenced some people to do the opposite???
I’m not critiquing them. I’m sharing what I know was said and am asking for increased transparency on what other financial advice was provided. That’s it. Do you take fault with that?
I don’t know you are trying to paint me as the ‘bad guy’ here. If you wish to defend the financial advice provided by 80k, you are free to do so. As my initial comment plainly stated, I don’t know how they came to the conclusion as to what the mainstream EA investment portfolio looked like.
I applauded them for promoting diversification, but was skeptical of their forecasts on FB/FTX returns. I don’t know on what basis, evidence, or reasoning they made those forecasts. I’d demand the same from my stockbroker if he made those same statements.
It’s valuable to be strict, even at the risk of being called harsh. My comment and my inquiry is in line with EA consequentialism. There are always consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, for putting out statements and recommendations. It may seem marginal to you, but people’s savings are at stake and 80k has earned a spot as of influencer for their reliable work. But no group is flawless and it is important to identify mistakes.
dude you’ve misunderstood what the 8k Hours piece was saying. It wasn’t saying that the median EA’s individual investment portfolio was overweight FB and FTX. It was saying that EA collectively was hugely overweight FB and FTX, which yeah, duh, it absolutely was because Dustin M and SBF—the two main zillionaire funders—were massively overweight those two things. Obviously if you’re working in EA don’t really want to be massively long the same two things that the people who ultimately pay your salary are long, because if things go south you both lose your job (potentially) AND the value of your personal investment portfolio drops like a rock. So diversifying is both good for you as an individual and good for EA collectively because then collective EA wealth is at least very slightly more diversified.
I understand, but I never said that diversification wasn’t good. Again, I commended the recommendation for diversification.
My error was thinking it was a claim about the median EA portfolio. My apologies.That said, the rest of my post still stands uncorrected. I should not be downvoted nor silenced to inquire if 80k (and others) provided financial advice that later proved catastrophic. 80k provided all sorts of awesome advice but is responsible enough to look back and identify where things were off the mark.
This is important to prevent future errors of this scale. I’m just asking and inquiring, rather than accusing. That’s why I asked Robert if it was the case. It may not be. There should be no harm or censuring in asking, but apparently I was wrong.
There were some financial predictions made about future returns, amidst a backdrop of optimism, and the worst possible outcome wasn’t considered and there was no warning. Most of the time this isn’t an issue. This time it was.
Elsewhere on the sight, SBF (via FTX) was the prime example of how to earn to give. Now a new paragon is needed for that strategy.
As Robert himself wrote, people were too quick to trust. Today the optimal strategy influential figures have adopted is to distance themselves from SBF’s projects. I don’t blame them for this. Wouldn’t you do the same? But there are lessons that need to be learned .
Robert, I wish to understand. At any time did 80,000 recommend readers or EAs to invest their savings in FTX crypto?
If memory serves right, there was an official 80,000 post composed by Benjamin Todd that recommended asset diversification away from what was regarded as the current EA investment portfolio, which was described as being highly tilted towards Facebook and FTX, and decentralized finance and big U.S. tech companies. In hindsight, it was optimal advice and I hope EAs listened to it.
However, by sheer virtue of associating the EA portfolio with FTX (I’m not sure how that conclusion was reached or what data it was based off of), I posit readers were instead led to mimic the behavior of others and also invest in EA-led FTX. A ‘follow the leader’ kind of behavioral mimicry whereas the intention was ‘Do as I say, not as I do’.
Unfortunately, in the same post financial advice and forecast was provided, “a major driver of the stock of capital will be the investment returns of Facebook, Asana, FTX, and Ethereum”…
What projections was this based off of? On what basis or data was this forecast (expecting positive returns) made? After all, who is to say FTX or Eth will even produce future returns at all (rather than say go to zero)? That’s what I want to know.
Even a passing sentence like this may have influenced others to invest in these entities hoping to see returns they could donate to effective charities.
https://80000hours.org/2021/07/effective-altruism-growing/
Those who have invested in these entities have lost much of their savings and capital. And the losses are irreparable. Like yourself I feel terrible for these individuals. A possible (but short term) tech stock crash and crypto was mentioned in the article, but it was nowhere as close or bad as what happened.
It is concerning that parties that championed SBF’s organization (and privately invested in crypto there) will now hastily attempt to dissociate themselves from it for self-preservation / reputation salvaging purposes. It’s only natural and expected to make genuine public statements of apallment, but when the dust settles, it is opportune to take responsibility and identify what went wrong.
Readers would certainly appreciate a thorough compilation of any and all financial advice 80k hours gave its readers with respect to FTX and crypto, if at minimum, to identify errors and avoid suboptimal financial advice in the future… even if it turns out no such financial advice was given.
Edit: Some minor additions were made, like modifying the last sentence of the final paragraph to emphasize this is a question, not a charge. This is an honest inquiry, not an accusation. Don’t make it out to be one.
Edit 2: I did not expect such hostility from posing questions. Unfortunate, and noted.
so hang on, 8k Hours gave some really really good financial advice and you’re trying to critique them because giving the good advice may have subconsciously influenced some people to do the opposite???
jesus, that’s a bit harsh
I’m not critiquing them. I’m sharing what I know was said and am asking for increased transparency on what other financial advice was provided. That’s it. Do you take fault with that?
I don’t know you are trying to paint me as the ‘bad guy’ here. If you wish to defend the financial advice provided by 80k, you are free to do so. As my initial comment plainly stated, I don’t know how they came to the conclusion as to what the mainstream EA investment portfolio looked like.
I applauded them for promoting diversification, but was skeptical of their forecasts on FB/FTX returns. I don’t know on what basis, evidence, or reasoning they made those forecasts. I’d demand the same from my stockbroker if he made those same statements.
It’s valuable to be strict, even at the risk of being called harsh. My comment and my inquiry is in line with EA consequentialism. There are always consequences, foreseen and unforeseen, for putting out statements and recommendations. It may seem marginal to you, but people’s savings are at stake and 80k has earned a spot as of influencer for their reliable work. But no group is flawless and it is important to identify mistakes.
dude you’ve misunderstood what the 8k Hours piece was saying. It wasn’t saying that the median EA’s individual investment portfolio was overweight FB and FTX. It was saying that EA collectively was hugely overweight FB and FTX, which yeah, duh, it absolutely was because Dustin M and SBF—the two main zillionaire funders—were massively overweight those two things. Obviously if you’re working in EA don’t really want to be massively long the same two things that the people who ultimately pay your salary are long, because if things go south you both lose your job (potentially) AND the value of your personal investment portfolio drops like a rock. So diversifying is both good for you as an individual and good for EA collectively because then collective EA wealth is at least very slightly more diversified.
I understand, but I never said that diversification wasn’t good. Again, I commended the recommendation for diversification.
My error was thinking it was a claim about the median EA portfolio. My apologies.That said, the rest of my post still stands uncorrected. I should not be downvoted nor silenced to inquire if 80k (and others) provided financial advice that later proved catastrophic. 80k provided all sorts of awesome advice but is responsible enough to look back and identify where things were off the mark.
This is important to prevent future errors of this scale. I’m just asking and inquiring, rather than accusing. That’s why I asked Robert if it was the case. It may not be. There should be no harm or censuring in asking, but apparently I was wrong.
There were some financial predictions made about future returns, amidst a backdrop of optimism, and the worst possible outcome wasn’t considered and there was no warning. Most of the time this isn’t an issue. This time it was.
Elsewhere on the sight, SBF (via FTX) was the prime example of how to earn to give. Now a new paragon is needed for that strategy.
As Robert himself wrote, people were too quick to trust. Today the optimal strategy influential figures have adopted is to distance themselves from SBF’s projects. I don’t blame them for this. Wouldn’t you do the same? But there are lessons that need to be learned .