Isn’t it a conflict of interest and self-dealing when two of EVF’s board members (Will MacAskill and Nick Beckstead) were also on the FTX Future Fund team? The fact that the purchase of Wytham Abbey wasn’t finalized until after the FTX Future Fund gave $14million to CEA (and millions more to other EVF-affiliated organizations) looks pretty suspicious.
If the money didn’t come from FTX, then where did it come from? More to the point, would the purchase have been finalized if CEA/EVF hadn’t received the money from the FTX Future Fund?
You say that you try to publish grants within 3 months, but it’s been over 7 months since the purchase went through and over a month since FTX itself collapsed. Why isn’t transparency about this particular grant a bigger priority, especially considering it’s become such a divisive issue?
I’m a bit confused about this comment. I’m sorry it was downvoted so much however and I’ll try to be helpful. Note that I don’t have any access to private information.
If the money didn’t come from FTX, then where did it come from?
As mentioned in the first line of the comment you replied to, the money presumably came from an Open Phil recommendation. Most of Open Phil money comes from Good Ventures, which is set up by Dustin Moskovitz (Facebook cofounder and Asana CEO) and Cari Tuna. Dustin’s money comes from Facebook, Asana, and other investments. This has been discussed in the past on this forum.
You say that you try to publish grants within 3 months, but it’s been over 7 months since the purchase went through and over a month since FTX itself collapsed. Why isn’t transparency about this particular grant a bigger priority, especially considering it’s become such a divisive issue?
Presumably FTX’s collapse has caused Open Phil’s communications people to be more busy, not less.
This feels like a non sequitur to me. What in Linch’s comment suggests that EVF should give the money back to OpenPhil? (By which I assume you mean, sell the house?)
It’s much more plausible that they should give back the FTX money, once it finally becomes clear how one can even do that (lots of discussion of this on the Forum already). I expect that EVF has been going through a lot of internal agonising about how to handle their FTX-related liabilities.
This doesn’t have much direct bearing on the Abbey purchase, though.
Isn’t it a conflict of interest and self-dealing when two of EVF’s board members (Will MacAskill and Nick Beckstead) were also on the FTX Future Fund team? The fact that the purchase of Wytham Abbey wasn’t finalized until after the FTX Future Fund gave $14million to CEA (and millions more to other EVF-affiliated organizations) looks pretty suspicious.
If the money didn’t come from FTX, then where did it come from? More to the point, would the purchase have been finalized if CEA/EVF hadn’t received the money from the FTX Future Fund?
You say that you try to publish grants within 3 months, but it’s been over 7 months since the purchase went through and over a month since FTX itself collapsed. Why isn’t transparency about this particular grant a bigger priority, especially considering it’s become such a divisive issue?
I’m a bit confused about this comment. I’m sorry it was downvoted so much however and I’ll try to be helpful. Note that I don’t have any access to private information.
As mentioned in the first line of the comment you replied to, the money presumably came from an Open Phil recommendation. Most of Open Phil money comes from Good Ventures, which is set up by Dustin Moskovitz (Facebook cofounder and Asana CEO) and Cari Tuna. Dustin’s money comes from Facebook, Asana, and other investments. This has been discussed in the past on this forum.
Presumably FTX’s collapse has caused Open Phil’s communications people to be more busy, not less.
Also, it’s been like a week since this grant has become a divisive issue. I don’t think anyone was really talking about it 3 weeks ago.
Ok. So is EVF/CEA going to give the money back?
P.S. Is this you? Nice meme: https://web.archive.org/web/20211114183540/https://twitter.com/LinchZhang/status/1459951267401273345
This feels like a non sequitur to me. What in Linch’s comment suggests that EVF should give the money back to OpenPhil? (By which I assume you mean, sell the house?)
I meant the money they took from FTX Future Fund, obviously. Or is it “Effective Altruism” to keep money that you know was stolen?
It’s much more plausible that they should give back the FTX money, once it finally becomes clear how one can even do that (lots of discussion of this on the Forum already). I expect that EVF has been going through a lot of internal agonising about how to handle their FTX-related liabilities.
This doesn’t have much direct bearing on the Abbey purchase, though.
This is a very odd question to ask in response to a comment by a non-FTX funder stating that the money came from them.