Slightly confused by the large number of disagree voters here?
Like, people disagreevoting are saying they prefer to rely on billionaires?
I understand that it might be the most effective way to direct money at this point in time.But people aren’t commenting saying that—just multiple people strong-disagreeing with this.
I personally would encourage reaching out to more HNWIs. Though it wouldn’t be correct to say I am not concerned about relying on a small number of super-super rich.
Note: I can understand the downvoting (karma) - as maybe this doesn’t have the style of communication one prefers in EA Forum, nor does it explain, nor is it ‘be kind’. The latter two advised under commenting guidelines.
I don’t think the choice was between a diversified portfolio equal to SBF’s net worth and what EA actually got. I think the choice (if you can model it as a choice at all) was closer to something like SBF’s money or nothing.
SBF could have liquiditated and redistributed earlier rather than continuing to build risky leverage. This is true of any billionaire that may claim they’re trying to hoard more because they can in the long run then donate more
My guess is people are (reasonably in my view) reading “reliance on billionaires is not the way” as “stop trying to get money out of billionaires, or at least do it less”, and not merely “in an ideal world, billionaires would not be the main funders of EA causes, and plausibly wouldn’t exist at all”.
The communication norms of the movement either have created the movement’s impotence relative to its potential or have been powerless to change that. I think we should be prepared to challenge EAs cultish mistakes even if we’ll get downvoted for it
Slightly confused by the large number of disagree voters here? Like, people disagreevoting are saying they prefer to rely on billionaires?
I understand that it might be the most effective way to direct money at this point in time.But people aren’t commenting saying that—just multiple people strong-disagreeing with this. I personally would encourage reaching out to more HNWIs. Though it wouldn’t be correct to say I am not concerned about relying on a small number of super-super rich.
Note: I can understand the downvoting (karma) - as maybe this doesn’t have the style of communication one prefers in EA Forum, nor does it explain, nor is it ‘be kind’. The latter two advised under commenting guidelines.
I don’t think the choice was between a diversified portfolio equal to SBF’s net worth and what EA actually got. I think the choice (if you can model it as a choice at all) was closer to something like SBF’s money or nothing.
(I didn’t downvote the parent comment though.)
SBF could have liquiditated and redistributed earlier rather than continuing to build risky leverage. This is true of any billionaire that may claim they’re trying to hoard more because they can in the long run then donate more
My guess is people are (reasonably in my view) reading “reliance on billionaires is not the way” as “stop trying to get money out of billionaires, or at least do it less”, and not merely “in an ideal world, billionaires would not be the main funders of EA causes, and plausibly wouldn’t exist at all”.
The communication norms of the movement either have created the movement’s impotence relative to its potential or have been powerless to change that. I think we should be prepared to challenge EAs cultish mistakes even if we’ll get downvoted for it