I meant the money they took from FTX Future Fund, obviously. Or is it “Effective Altruism” to keep money that you know was stolen?
Tony Sinclair
Karma: −177
No, I don’t, I just noticed a number of people in that thread were using their real names. One of them even posted this meme on their twitter :
https://web.archive.org/web/20211114183540/https://twitter.com/LinchZhang/status/1459951267401273345
P.S. You should probably check out the drama regarding the purchase of a stately mansion called Wytham Abbey by the Effective Ventures Fund (formerly Centre for Effective Altruism).To make a long story short: Two of EVF’s board members (Will MacAskill and Nick Beckstead) were selected by SBF to be on the FTX Future Fund leadership team (FTX Future Fund being a “charitable” arm of FTX). Under their leadership, the FTX Future Fund donated millions to EVF-afflilated charities (including ~$14million for an EVF subsidiary also called the Centre for Effective Altruism) . While this was happening, EVF was finalizing the purchase of a stately mansion near Oxford England that was listed for £15 million.
However, the purchase was made without the community’s knowledge, we only found out because of a New Yorker article about SBF. An EVF board member claims (without documentation) that FTX money was not used in the purchase of the mansion, but also made it apparent that the purchase probably would not have been made if the additional cashflow from FTX hadn’t covered the cost.
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
On second thought, you’re right. SBF was fine with using FTX money to buy beachfront mansions in the Bahamas, so it probably does fit with SBF’s “philanthropic priorities”. But then SBF is a conman, so I really don’t think “It’s what SBF would have wanted” is a very good justification for any of this!
And CEA/EVF wants to keep the money that was probably stolen from FTX customers because....why, exactly? What’s the ethical justification here?
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?
Isn’t this a conflict of interest and self-dealing on the part of CEA/EVF leadership?
You might want to try tracking down the people who participated in the FTX EA fellowship program, FTX advertised it in 2021 here:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/sdjcH7KAxgB328RAb/ftx-ea-fellowships/
I think it’s unlikely that #2 would have happened if EVF leadership hadn’t known that #1 would also happen, as SBF had promised he’d make donations to MacAskill (according to the New Yorker article).
Financing a stately mansion is a lot less risky if you know your rich friend is going to recoup the cost.