Thanks for this! I echo Lizka’s comment about linkposting.
In light of the recent events I’m struggling a bit with taking my hindsight-bias shades off, and while I scored it reasonably highly, I don’t think I can fairly engage with whether it should have received a prize over other entries even if I had the capacity to (let alone speak for other panelists). I do remember including it in the comment mainly because I thought it was a risk that didn’t receive enough attention and was worth highlighting (though I have a pretty limited understanding of the crypto space and ~0 clue that things would happen in the way they did).
I think it’s worth noting that there has been at least one other post on the forum that engaged with this specifically, but unfortunately didn’t receive much attention. (Edit: another one here)
Ultimately though, I think it’s more important to think about what actionable and constructive steps the EA community can take going forward. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions wrt accountability from EA leaders in terms of due diligence, what was known or could have been suspected prior to Nov 9th this year, and what systems or checks/balances were in place etc that need to be answered, so the community can work out what the best next steps are in order to minimise the likelihood of something like this from happening again.
I also think there are questions around how these kinds of decisions are made when benefits affect one part of the EA community but the risks are pertinent to all, and how to either diversify these risks, or make decision-making more inclusive of more stakeholders, keeping in mind the best interests of the EA movement as a whole.
This is something I’m considering working on at the moment and will try and push for—do feel free to DM me if you have thoughts, ideas, or information.
Thanks for this! I echo Lizka’s comment about linkposting.
In light of the recent events I’m struggling a bit with taking my hindsight-bias shades off, and while I scored it reasonably highly, I don’t think I can fairly engage with whether it should have received a prize over other entries even if I had the capacity to (let alone speak for other panelists). I do remember including it in the comment mainly because I thought it was a risk that didn’t receive enough attention and was worth highlighting (though I have a pretty limited understanding of the crypto space and ~0 clue that things would happen in the way they did).
I think it’s worth noting that there has been at least one other post on the forum that engaged with this specifically, but unfortunately didn’t receive much attention. (Edit: another one here)
Ultimately though, I think it’s more important to think about what actionable and constructive steps the EA community can take going forward. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions wrt accountability from EA leaders in terms of due diligence, what was known or could have been suspected prior to Nov 9th this year, and what systems or checks/balances were in place etc that need to be answered, so the community can work out what the best next steps are in order to minimise the likelihood of something like this from happening again.
I also think there are questions around how these kinds of decisions are made when benefits affect one part of the EA community but the risks are pertinent to all, and how to either diversify these risks, or make decision-making more inclusive of more stakeholders, keeping in mind the best interests of the EA movement as a whole.
This is something I’m considering working on at the moment and will try and push for—do feel free to DM me if you have thoughts, ideas, or information.
(Commenting in personal capacity etc)