The possible link is that if the pool of OpenPhil money EVF can use is limited in a given year, they would probably not have used it to buy the castle have they not had the promise of more funds for EVF from FTX.
I don’t know if the assumption of a limited pool is actually true. I think the bigger conflict of interest regarding Wytham Abbey is that Claire Zabel, who made the grant, is on the board of EVF.
Seems like both EVF and OpenPhil claim this was a separate grant specifically for the property, in which case it seems pretty unlikely to me that it came out of OpenPhil’s “EVF/CEA budget”. I’m definitely not seeing any evidence of EVF making an internal resource-allocation decision here.
(Regarding the COI point, I think that’s a reasonable thing to raise though I’m not taking a position on it here. Seems unrelated to FTX, though.)
P.S. Please don’t call it a castle, it’s not a castle and calling it one is significantly misleading.
(Regarding the COI point, I think that’s a reasonable thing to raise though I’m not taking a position on it here. Seems unrelated to FTX, though.)
Yes, it’s unrelated.
Please don’t call it a castle
I strongly disagree. Have you seen the pictures? It’s a castle, whatever some formal legal definition might have to say. It’s certainly a castle as far as everyone outside EA is concerned. Saying it isn’t one just makes us look petty, and like our reasoning is based on a semantic argument. Better just to embrace it.
Yes, I’ve seen the pictures and it’s obviously not a castle. (There’s even an actual castle very close by for reference!)
It’s really hard for me to believe someone’s carrying out this conversation in a good-faith, truthseeking manner when they insist on using misleading wording , even after being asked to stop.
It’s really hard for me to believe someone’s carrying out this conversation in a good-faith, truthseeking manner when they insist on using misleading wording , even after being asked to stop.
I don’t know what kind of answer you expect here. You’re “asking me to stop” but I think it would be a bad thing to stop, and I explained why.
The possible link is that if the pool of OpenPhil money EVF can use is limited in a given year, they would probably not have used it to buy the castle have they not had the promise of more funds for EVF from FTX.
I don’t know if the assumption of a limited pool is actually true. I think the bigger conflict of interest regarding Wytham Abbey is that Claire Zabel, who made the grant, is on the board of EVF.
Seems like both EVF and OpenPhil claim this was a separate grant specifically for the property, in which case it seems pretty unlikely to me that it came out of OpenPhil’s “EVF/CEA budget”. I’m definitely not seeing any evidence of EVF making an internal resource-allocation decision here.
(Regarding the COI point, I think that’s a reasonable thing to raise though I’m not taking a position on it here. Seems unrelated to FTX, though.)
P.S. Please don’t call it a castle, it’s not a castle and calling it one is significantly misleading.
Yes, it’s unrelated.
I strongly disagree. Have you seen the pictures? It’s a castle, whatever some formal legal definition might have to say. It’s certainly a castle as far as everyone outside EA is concerned. Saying it isn’t one just makes us look petty, and like our reasoning is based on a semantic argument. Better just to embrace it.
Yes, I’ve seen the pictures and it’s obviously not a castle. (There’s even an actual castle very close by for reference!)
It’s really hard for me to believe someone’s carrying out this conversation in a good-faith, truthseeking manner when they insist on using misleading wording , even after being asked to stop.
I don’t know what kind of answer you expect here. You’re “asking me to stop” but I think it would be a bad thing to stop, and I explained why.
If you’re very attached to calling it a castle because you think people will perceive it as one, you could consider the wording “apparent castle”?