[lern_too_spel]

I still don't understand GGP's point. Is the logical conclusion really that because other EAs couldn't recognize SBF as a scammer, we should not even try to measure the impact of charitable donations?

I might note that EA makes logical sense to me, and I pretty much ignored SBF because, as I've often noted in this forum, the entire crypto space is filled with scammers and suckers.

[polygamous_bat]

> Is the logical conclusion really that because other EAs couldn't recognize SBF as a scammer, we should not even try to measure the impact of charitable donations?

My (logical) conclusion is that since other EAs couldn't recognize SBF as a scammer, we should double- and triple-check all of their math about risk and effectiveness, instead of trusting them. Not saying the idea of charitable giving has lost merit, rather its primary champions in the last decade have lost a ton of credibility.

[eddsh1994]

I think one strong argument against this is SBF/FTX was highly funded by sophisticated investors and VCs. If they didn't catch it, why should anyone else? People believed FTX was making money through tx fees and front-running via Alameda. The classic "due diligence was done by others" scenario.

Saying this, people were skeptical of SBF in EA, worried about so many eggs in one basket, and didn't like crypto as a source of funding. It's a large group with many views!

I agree with double- and triple-checking all the math about risk and effectiveness. I'm interested in donating to effective charities that use my dollar in the best way and if you correctly find better ones to do so I'd donate :)

[yboris]

Are you suggesting that the skill of detecting a scammer (who actively was giving away large amount of money - using a very strong, costly signal) and the skill of estimating effectiveness are similar enough that having an example in failure of one suggests trouble for the other?!

[lern_too_spel]

Is it more beneficial for EAs to check the math of charities or to check the math of other people claiming to be EAs by gaining unauthorized access to their financial data?

[polygamous_bat]

When you are putting all your metaphorical eggs on one FTX baskets by relying on SBF to run your high profile programs, I would say you should ask hard questions or diversify. Then again, my risk assessment is different from EAs, which is why I propose triple checking their math.

[ben_w]

> I would say you should ask hard questions or diversify

Sure, but… how? How does one magic up a backup multibillionaire just in case the first surprise super-donor turned out to be less than half as smart as he thought he was?

(Definitely triple check their maths. And the assumptions too: in my experience, a lot of things are lost in the unstated assumptions of groups and individuals).

[lern_too_spel]

Now you're confusing the receivers of the donations with the people who make charitable donations. What should the people who make charitable donations do that is better than EA? People who receive charitable donations from people who do not subscribe to EA have the same problem with diversification.

[skinnymuch]

Focus and figure out what to do without the crutch on capitalism that charity is these days. People can continue donating as they have been, but the focus shouldn’t be on fully participating head first in one of the primary reasons we need so much charity —- capitalism (or whatever any one wants to call the current neoliberal status quo).