Netflix Series on FTX collapse

Simon Holm

I just thought I'd make people aware of this, since I haven't seen anything else posted on the Forum about it (or maybe at this point we've stopped keeping track of FTX-related media productions? not sure). I assume there may be a wave of EA PR of unknown nature, depending on how the series chooses to portray the ideas and the movement. Maybe even worth for CEA or the like to make themselves available to the series producers for inquiries?

In any case, I'm looking forward to watch it!

https://cryptoslate.com/ozark-star-julia-garner-to-play-caroline-ellison-in-obama-netflix-miniseries-on-ftx-collapse/

17 Reactions

Comments9

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 1:44 AM

escapealertJul 56

I feel firmly that a big mistake is people not standing on the EA label, I saw a lot of friends stop calling themselves EA after the SBF/FTX scandal but I think instead explaining it is a much better approach
(1) EA is about giving your money away to help as many people as possible
(2) SBF lied and commited fraud
(3) SBF didn't practice EA
(4) SBF wasn't EA he was just saying he was

it's kind of like if someone says they're vegan whilst eating meat, you should point out the persons being dishonest in their labelling and doesn't represent veganism

Manuel Del Río Rodríguez 🔹Jul 61

While I agree that people shouldn't have renounced the EA label after the FTX scandal, I don't quite find your simile with veganism convincing. It seems to fail to include two very important elements:

SBF's public significance within EA: this is more like if one of the most famous Vegan advocates in the planet, the one everybody knows about, was shown to actually not only consume meat, but have a rather big meat-packing plant.
Proximity framing: I think one can make a case for SBF being a pure, naive Utilitarian who just Petersburgged himself to bankruptcy and fraud. While EA is not ideologically 'naive' Utilitarian, one can argue that its intellectual foundations aren't far from Sam's (in fact, they significantly overlap) and might non-trivially cast a shadow on them. It is common for EAs to make really counterintuitive EV calculations and take pride in giving support to stuff normies would find highly objectionable, while paying what from the outside might seems as only lip-service to 'oh, yeah, you should abide by socially established rules and norms' while paradoxically holding that such abiding is merely strategic and revocable.

escapealertJul 65

you're right I should have emphasised that better
I'm not sure what petersburgged means but I think you mean he started out pure then gradually gave himself more justification for increasingly bad actions as time went on, in which case I agree that early on he was definitly ea (I remember he went vegan the day after a friend showed him it doesn't align with his (sbfs) values) so he was clearly commited to moral action at some point but I would say the sbf that commited the fraud etc was a distinct sam from the one that was ea

Manuel Del Río Rodríguez 🔹Jul 64

It was my lame attempt at making a verb out of the Petersburg Paradox, where a calculation of Expected Value of the type I play a coin-tossing game where if I get heads, the pot doubles, if I had tails, I lose everything. The EV is infinite, but in real life, you'll end up ruined pretty quick. SBF had a talk about this with Tyler Cowen and clearly enjoyed biting the bullet:

COWEN: Okay, but let’s say there’s a game: 51 percent, you double the Earth out somewhere else; 49 percent, it all disappears. Would you play that game? And would you keep on playing that, double or nothing?
BANKMAN-FRIED: With one caveat. Let me give the caveat first, just to be a party pooper, which is, I’m assuming these are noninteracting universes. Is that right? Because to the extent they’re in the same universe, then maybe duplicating doesn’t actually double the value because maybe they would have colonized the other one anyway, eventually.
COWEN: But holding all that constant, you’re actually getting two Earths, but you’re risking a 49 percent chance of it all disappearing.
BANKMAN-FRIED: Again, I feel compelled to say caveats here, like, “How do you really know that’s what’s happening?” Blah, blah, blah, whatever. But that aside, take the pure hypothetical.
COWEN: Then you keep on playing the game. So, what’s the chance we’re left with anything? Don’t I just St. Petersburg paradox you into nonexistence?
BANKMAN-FRIED: Well, not necessarily. Maybe you St. Petersburg paradox into an enormously valuable existence. That’s the other option.

I am rather assuming SBF was a radical, no holds barred, naive Utilitarian who just thought he was smart enough to not get caught with (from his pov) minor infringement of arbitrary rules and norms of the masses and that the risk was just worth it.

Eevee🔹Jul 72

I suppose you could say he petered out

Toby Tremlett🔹Jul 34

This was shared as a quick take a month ago, and there was some discussion then.

Simon HolmJul 33

Oh! Fantastic, thanks for letting me know Toby - should've looked in the "COMMENTS" section of the search results as well!

Toby Tremlett🔹Jul 34

No worries! Not everyone is as terminally on the Forum as me lol

NickLaingJul 44

Terminally on the terminal