This post is co-authored with Ben Garfinkel. It is cross-posted from the CEA blog. A PDF version can be found here.
Summary: Some strategic decisions available to the effective altruism m...
TL;DR: I'm releasing a website that ranks philanthropists according to EA principles and research, and allows users to re-rank the list using their own assumptions. I'd like feedback and help making it better. I'd especially like ideas for how to make the results more trustworthy. Funding may be available.
Crossposted to LessWrong.
...
TL;DR: Marginal Victories is a new initiative to provide 1:1 career advising, opportunities, and resources for people exploring high-leverage U.S. democracy preservation and political work. Built by impact-oriented people doing pro-democracy work, the early MVP is now up at marginalvictories.org. Fill out the 10-minute form now to receive these resources as they become available over the next few...
If you think about the fraud SBF did, it could technically be thought of as merely a redistribution of wealth from those who held FTX to those who shorted ftx and almeda.
Could it be possible that this redistribution was good?
Among other reasons to disagree with this statement, I don't think it is accurate to say that depositors "held FTX."
Was anyone able to short FTX or Alameda? Neither was publicly traded.
Presumably could short the FTT token, which was a form of psuedo-equity in FTX.
For every dollar someone lost, someone else gained a dollar, I wonder where that money went.
Overpriced private equity investments, bad crypto trades, celebrity endorsers, etc. Pretty sure the marginal utility of Tom Brady having more money is minimal at best!
Michael Lewis tries to provide some rough estimates in the last chapter or two of "Going Infinite". From memory, his answer is more or less along the same lines as Jason's comment. Also, some of the money was stolen in hacks, and some has now gone to the bankruptcy lawyers etc.