I see more possible action points from the original post, mostly having to do with brand risk management and risk containment. I think it’s hard to deny that the crypto sector has much higher-than-average risk of causing reputational damage, and that EA just got a concussion from crypto. So, it is at particular risk of something akin to second concussion syndrome (SCS) if there’s another crypto concussion before this one heals.
So my additional possble action points based on the original post:
There are advantages of splitting one’s social movement into different brands. Corporations know this—Marriott owns Ritz Carlton and a bunch of other hotel brands, but it doesn’t splash the Ritz Carlton brand over all its stuff. If you’re right that crypto is a large portion of available funding, maybe people should be steered toward the “Crypto for Human Flourishing” movement with its own meta organizations and public figures, which could use EA organizations as vendors (e.g., commissioning research from RP, GiveWell, etc.) There needs to be a brand that non-crypto billionaires have a good opinion of and are proud to be associated with—and having the big-money crypto folks at the party probably isn’t conducive to that (at least in the medium run).
Likewise, maybe EA meta orgs should avoid taking crypto money altogether. Instead, solid donors like OP could funge the crypto donor’s non-donation to meta causes and create the correct funding balance. For various reasons, I think EA meta taking bad crypto $$$ has a much higher reputational risk than (e.g.) AMF or GiveDirectly doing so. To outsiders, meta can come across as smug, self-indulgent, arrogant, and morally superior—I am not endorsing those views, but it’s just a lot harder for other people to stay mad at an organization that just delivers bednets or cash transfers to people in Africa.
I have generally been skeptical of donor vetting/investigation, but one could argue that the increased risk of the crypto sector + the current risk of SCS warrants much heavier scrutiny by an independent “EA Inspector General” in advance of accepting major crypto-linked funding. At a minimum, if (when) there is another incident, EA could show that it did as much as it could to vet. As opposed to the current situation, where the public reporting gives the impression that EA leaders ignored clear warning signs brought to their attention.
Finally, the original post supports a need for special mitigation measures for crypto donations. At least given the risk of SCS: on Day 1 of the next EA-linked crypto scandal, the message that “if it turns out this source’s money was rotten, we will voluntarily return every penny from the last six years (or whatever) to the victims” must be very clearly conveyed (and pre-prepared). By the time the fraud is clear, the returns need to start happening the same week (they could be transferred to a temporary organization if the bankruptcy estate isn’t ready to receive them yet). That may require that crypto money needs to be kept in Treasuries for a while, or spent on capital assets that could be sold (like manor houses...), or that a big-money source agrees to “insure” smaller organizations against crypto-fraud risk for approved donors ex ante. It might even be possible to buy partial insurance coverage on the market, although that is speculation on my part.
I see more possible action points from the original post, mostly having to do with brand risk management and risk containment. I think it’s hard to deny that the crypto sector has much higher-than-average risk of causing reputational damage, and that EA just got a concussion from crypto. So, it is at particular risk of something akin to second concussion syndrome (SCS) if there’s another crypto concussion before this one heals.
So my additional possble action points based on the original post:
There are advantages of splitting one’s social movement into different brands. Corporations know this—Marriott owns Ritz Carlton and a bunch of other hotel brands, but it doesn’t splash the Ritz Carlton brand over all its stuff. If you’re right that crypto is a large portion of available funding, maybe people should be steered toward the “Crypto for Human Flourishing” movement with its own meta organizations and public figures, which could use EA organizations as vendors (e.g., commissioning research from RP, GiveWell, etc.) There needs to be a brand that non-crypto billionaires have a good opinion of and are proud to be associated with—and having the big-money crypto folks at the party probably isn’t conducive to that (at least in the medium run).
Likewise, maybe EA meta orgs should avoid taking crypto money altogether. Instead, solid donors like OP could funge the crypto donor’s non-donation to meta causes and create the correct funding balance. For various reasons, I think EA meta taking bad crypto $$$ has a much higher reputational risk than (e.g.) AMF or GiveDirectly doing so. To outsiders, meta can come across as smug, self-indulgent, arrogant, and morally superior—I am not endorsing those views, but it’s just a lot harder for other people to stay mad at an organization that just delivers bednets or cash transfers to people in Africa.
I have generally been skeptical of donor vetting/investigation, but one could argue that the increased risk of the crypto sector + the current risk of SCS warrants much heavier scrutiny by an independent “EA Inspector General” in advance of accepting major crypto-linked funding. At a minimum, if (when) there is another incident, EA could show that it did as much as it could to vet. As opposed to the current situation, where the public reporting gives the impression that EA leaders ignored clear warning signs brought to their attention.
Finally, the original post supports a need for special mitigation measures for crypto donations. At least given the risk of SCS: on Day 1 of the next EA-linked crypto scandal, the message that “if it turns out this source’s money was rotten, we will voluntarily return every penny from the last six years (or whatever) to the victims” must be very clearly conveyed (and pre-prepared). By the time the fraud is clear, the returns need to start happening the same week (they could be transferred to a temporary organization if the bankruptcy estate isn’t ready to receive them yet). That may require that crypto money needs to be kept in Treasuries for a while, or spent on capital assets that could be sold (like manor houses...), or that a big-money source agrees to “insure” smaller organizations against crypto-fraud risk for approved donors ex ante. It might even be possible to buy partial insurance coverage on the market, although that is speculation on my part.