Agree. I will link this to the post and also to the discord space.
As you write though, if everyone is afraid too much to even open up a discussion and cooperate, it’s IMHO worse on expectation.
hnykda
Karma: 217
For others—no one has invited me to the group yet. Anyway, AFAIK the Slack group is basically dead and there are no useful messages as the workspace is on a free Slack plan with its only 90 days of message retention. I am somewhat surprised and disappointed we are not able to coordinate on this better 😁...
I contacted about 20 lawyers from the OP’s Lawyers reference list, but only 4 got back to me. I talked to them and think I have some relevant info, and we are going to proceed with one of them. I have talked to some other companies/non-profits that got money from FTX and are in similar positions, and I know their experience with the case. As usual, everyone is kinda afraid about sharing anything in writing or in public.
If you are a person who’s interested in this or need help or how to even start or what the current state-of-anecdotal-info is, I am happy to share whatever I know at that time.
Thanks! Will wait.
Thanks a lot! Could I get an invite or join? I hope I can contribute, as it became a thing for one of our org.
I actually wrote to Chana already, but she responded that she doesn’t manage the group and doesn’t know who does nor what the group’s rules are. Seems hard to get in.
Cool tool! Thanks for doing this.
Also, I want to appreciate the focus on the user (e.g. being very cautious about adding something that is gonna complicate the usage). You have successfully resisted the temptation 😁!
That is an awesome tool, congratulations on the release!
Hey. There is a link in optional questions to FTX Future Fund projects, but that is dead already, obviously, so you get 404. (https://ftxfuturefund.org/projects/)
Really enjoyed this post and shamelessly plan to steal some of the ideas in hiring I do for Metaculus.
Hi David. Thanks for the observation and a gotcha. I will pass this information over (and also note it down for myself, it’s interesting :-) ). But I am skeptical in how much I have an influence around this. Nevertheless, I believe that the researches behind this survey will be interested as I mentioned in the post, there should be another window of possibility later on (as the study should be done periodically).
Post updated, see UPDATE2
Some of the proposals have been accepted, more about the response here.
Hi! Not too late! Thanks for ideas. The worry I have is about what @David_Moss mentioned above, e.g. people think that they _do_ donate to effective charities already (or that they do not donate to ineffective ones)… Do you have an idea about how to fight that?
Anyway, I am going to put these down into suggestions/considerations, it’s good for inspiration at least.
Yeah, these are my biggest concerns too, that’s why I think it can’t be done in that “straightforward” way...
That said, I’d be interested if you would ask people whether they agree or disagree with some statements along the lines of: “Some charitable causes are objectively better than others.” “You can’t compare whether different charitable causes are better or worse than each other.”
This seems like a promising direction. I created a document where I am gonna try to somehow summarize these and turn into questions. Feel free to contribute directly. I would be super grateful.
Hi! Thanks a lot, these are all great!
For the donor population, I’d like to understand the split between what we at SoGive call Organisation-loyal, Cause-specific, and Open-minded donors (hopefully the labels are self-explanatory but if not please ask)
I believe so, but let me try.
Org-loyal: always give to a specific organization whatever it does
Cause-specific: throw money at a specific cause, e.g. global warming, doesn’t necessarily care about the receiving org that much
Open-minded: happy to change their mind about both of the above
I am not confident I would be able to create high-quality survey questions though. Especially to distinguish between strong and moderate preferences. I have similar problems with the next bullet points. Maybe I am overthinking this though.
But you may well be too time-constrained to wade through all their work
Yeah, I have about a week to do send some suggestions as the study should be launched by Jan 2. Nevertheless, I believe that even if I managed to establish only a handful of high-quality questions, it would be good groundwork for future additions.
More generally, very happy to discuss further. If you are willing to have a chat, let me know: sanjay [at] sogive.org
Awesome, I would be really grateful for more help. Basically, they told me that if I put together some battery of questions in a doc, then they would incorporate it into the survey. My estimate is that they would put in at least 3 questions with 60% of probability, but I am having a really hard time to estimate this as there are a lot of factors in. But it seems to me that it’s still worth to invest a few hours into this.
I created a document where I want to start summarizing this. Feel free to contribute directly.
See this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/99KphNoXj2bQBadBa/discord-space-for-people-with-ftx-clawbacks-claims-request