There are two things here that seem to be true, either of which I think it’s reasonable to object to (though my own views are not yet settled):
FTXFF and EVF had shared board members, and FTXFF gave a bunch of money to EVF.
OpenPhil also gave a bunch of money to EVF, to buy a fancy house to use as an event venue.
You’re persistently trying to link the two of these together in a way that implies...something nefarious, I’m not sure exactly what. Currently they seem to me to be two largely separate events. You need to elaborate on the chain of reasoning here, because right now I’m just confused.
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.
I think it’s unlikely that #2 would have happened if EVF leadership hadn’t known that #1 would also happen, as SBF had promised he’d make donations to MacAskill (according to the New Yorker article).
Financing a stately mansion is a lot less risky if you know your rich friend is going to recoup the cost.
There are two things here that seem to be true, either of which I think it’s reasonable to object to (though my own views are not yet settled):
FTXFF and EVF had shared board members, and FTXFF gave a bunch of money to EVF.
OpenPhil also gave a bunch of money to EVF, to buy a fancy house to use as an event venue.
You’re persistently trying to link the two of these together in a way that implies...something nefarious, I’m not sure exactly what. Currently they seem to me to be two largely separate events. You need to elaborate on the chain of reasoning here, because right now I’m just confused.
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”?
I think it’s unlikely that #2 would have happened if EVF leadership hadn’t known that #1 would also happen, as SBF had promised he’d make donations to MacAskill (according to the New Yorker article).
Financing a stately mansion is a lot less risky if you know your rich friend is going to recoup the cost.
Why would #2 be risky in the absence of #1? OpenPhil covered the cost of the mansion, so EVF wasn’t taking on financial risk from the purchase anyway.