Thank you for writing this. I'm not sure if I'll have time to reply substantively/to all the points, but I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your thinking.
One point I am curious about: you bring up my decision to invite Richard Hanania to Manifest as a parallel to hiring Caroline Ellison. I hadn't considered the similarity before, but appreciate you pointing it out.
I'm curious if people in this community have updated at all on Richard Hanania based on his track record, because, from where I sit, I feel somewhat vindicated on that specific decision. Since my first time inviting Hanania, he has come out in support of various EA causes including the Shrimp Welfare Project; been referenced by neutral well-known parties for his takes (off the top of my head, Matt Yglesias and Patrick Collison); supported immigration and decried racism; and generally been a strong critic of many of Trump's actions, which is particularly notable given the relative lack of such criticism from the conservative side of political commentors.
(At the same time, I still find some of his X/Twitter posts more inflammatory and distasteful than I would wish to see in the public discourse.)
I am a little concerned that you have immediately jumped to respond to the most controversial part of the post, rather than respond to any of the 9 uncontroversial reasons put forward that your decision to hire a convicted fraudster was a terrible decision.
I personally still don't trust Hanania, and I certainly don't think whether one supports shrimp welfare should have any bearing at all about how we feel about racism accusations, but is it really more important to discuss this rather than the fact that half of the two employees at Manifund have committed billion dollars worth of fraud?
Naaah come on. You could always say this had he done anything less than respond to all 9. He responded to what he thought was a high priority, is his response good, or bad?
For those that may not know this, I was in conflict with Austin over the Hanania thing, probably one of the most in conflict, and I pushed pretty hard on Manifold to for him not to be a speaker, and wrote a blog about it at the time. I spent quite a lot of social capital on it.
Two points:
I agree that Hanania's output has improved a lot and that you are largely vindicated in my eyes here
I think Hanania is pretty open about doing whatever it takes to get views and subscribers. He has improved, but I don't know how to engage with someone who seems so self-evidently pragmatic in their public positioning. It troubles me.
Speaking as someone who strongly disagreed with you inviting him to Manifest, Hanania has certainly improved a lot in my view, though I also agree he still says pretty bad/bigoted stuff from time to time, though I can't think of an example off the top of my head. I do still think he is fairly intensely elitist, and disaprove of that, but I don't think that meets the bar for shunning on its own.
The key question David Thorstad raised in the Reflective Altruism post is not whether Richard Hanania has improved relative to his far-right white supremacist days. It's whether his behaviour since has been exemplary enough to say that he's redeemed himself and to use one's influence to increase his, such as by inviting him to conferences.
Under the pseudonym, Hanania argued for eugenics, including the forcible sterilization of everyone with an IQ below 90.[5] He also denounced "race-mixing" and said that white nationalism "is the only hope".[26] He opposed immigration to the United States, saying that "the IQ and genetic differences between them and native Europeans are real, and assimilation is impossible". He cited a speech by neo-Nazi William Luther Pierce, who had used Haiti as an example to argue that black people are incapable of governing themselves.[5]
It's an improvement if Hanania is no longer citing neo-Nazis, no longer denouncing "race-mixing", and no longer advocating forced sterilization. But if he's still expressing racist views, this is not a redemption story.
I'm in favour of people with extreme racist views improving and having relatively less racist — but still racist — views. In the absence of full reformation, partial reformation is better than nothing. But that's not really the point. The point is whether his behaviour has been so exemplary as to constitute redemption and whether effective altruist organizations should use their resources to try to give him a position of influence and power in shaping public discourse, such as inviting him to EA conferences.
As with Caroline Ellison, I don't think anyone is saying that someone who has done something morally egregious should not be able to get a job or should be excluded from society. But does Caroline Ellison need to continue working in a financial role? Does Richard Hanania need to continue writing about race and racial politics? Why do they need to have these specific jobs where they have done so badly before?
Why not give financial jobs to people with no record of financial crimes? Why not give that conference invite or that Substack recommendation to, say, someone who has experienced racism?
There is an additional problem of corruption in the case of Caroline Ellison that isn't present in the case of Richard Hanania. Caroline Ellison stole money and gave it Manifund. Austin Chen decided to reward her crime — and this is part of his stated reasoning — by giving her a job in return. Austin has decided to reward and endorse her crime by hiring her. The message is: 'Thank you so much for stealing money for us. I owe you one. Take this job as my way of saying thanks.' This is effectively a retroactive quid pro quo in which Austin has decided to trade Caroline $500,000 in stolen cash for a job. This is morally outrageous.
It's worth mentioning in this context that Austin has harshly criticized the EA community for its supposed disloyalty to Sam Bankman-Fried in the wake of the revelations about FTX's fraud. Austin has also argued that Bankman-Fried should be released from prison and be allowed to work in crypto and finance again. Austin's language in this latest announcement still seems to downplay the seriousness of the crimes committed at FTX.
The rest of the EA community can't directly control Austin's decisions, but it can decide whether Austin and Manifund will be included in the community in the future. It's well within any organization or individual's power to repudiate Manifund and dissociate from it. The rest of the EA community bears moral responsibility for whatever decision it makes on this. Now is the time to think about it and decide.
For my part, I already deleted my Manifold account after the Manifest racism scandal. I will never donate through Manifund. I strongly condemn Manifund's hiring of Caroline Ellison.
I’d agree that to the degree that Hanania’s recent positive engagement with EA is downstream of your inviting him, that should abound to your credit. (I never opposed your decision to platform him, so I might be biased!)
Ah, to be clear, I don't wish to take particularly much credit for his outlook change (though, I do believe he eg somewhat reconsidered his outlook on trans people after meeting a trans person at Manifest. I also believe he did meet some EAs which he collaborated more with afterwards); mostly I cite it as an example of prescience
Reading this gave me occaion to read Austin's previous comments on the subject that are linked in the article. Not sure if I read them at the time but regardless, reading or re-reading them makes me feel more willing to go harder on Austin than I need in the comments on the other post.
Below is directed @Austin:
But from EA folks, this behavior strikes me as cowardly, coldhearted, opportunistic, bandwagon-y, two-faced and distasteful. I am extremely confused, because these EA leaders are some of the smartest and “good-est” people in the world, whose work I respect and admire, who have shaped the way I think. So it’s very possible that I’m just in the wrong here, but…
What type of galaxy-brained, tying-yourself-in-knots, motivated-reasoning-infused bullshit reasoning does it take to accuse business associates or work collaborators of SBF of disloyalty and two-facedness for not defending him, while hiring a person who knowingly engaged in a criminal conspiracy and then testified against their co-conspirator only after the crime came to light, in exchange for a significantly reduced sentence, the literal platonic ideal of an act of disloyalty?
I don't believe that your primary interest in this whole situation is loyalty, at least in the sense of the type of interpersonal loyalty that I consider a virtue, vs loyalty to an in-group. I also don't believe that your primary reason for hiring Ellison is a belief that she is among the best for the position, as you claim in your other post. You may actually believe she is, but I don't believe, based on statements like the one I quote here, that this the main factor driving your decision. I think the main factor is the viewpoint which you discuss in the post linked above, and your announcement post gives emphasizes the "she's the best for the job" reason because you know that is more defensible. To me, this seems like you claiming to oppose PR-y type actions by EAs while engaging in them yourself. If you really believe the ideas you claim in the post defending SBF, as you seem to, say it with your fucking chest!
In addition to those comments you quoted from November 2022, Austin made similar comments in April 2025:
I think if you abandon people who have what I viewed as earnestly try to support you and your movement. If you just turn tail on them, be like, "oh yeah, no, actually SBF he was not acting according to our principles and we do not endorse this" and we like give up on all of the stuff that he did. Then when some future billionaire is looking at your movement, what will they think?
And:
...I think we should free SBF and put him to work.
It's worth noting that Austin is being sued by the FTX Recovery Trust for $1.5 million that Sam Bankman-Fried, Caroline Ellison, et al. gave him out of stolen customer funds. Austin explicitly said in his announcement:
I felt a keen debt to the FTX Future Fund. They provided seed funding for Manifold.
So, this decision to hire Caroline Ellison is because Austin supports her and SBF's criminal conduct and wants to reward it because he got $1.5 million out of the arrangement. It's corruption. What's remarkable is that the corrupt intent is so openly stated.
If the effective altruism community at large stands by this, no one will be able to say: 'we didn't know any wrongdoing was occuring; we honestly thought everything was above board.' The corruption is happening now in plain sight.
How empty everything said about FTX in defense of EA will be if the community doesn't eject Manifund and Austin when he openly pays Caroline Ellison with the money she stole as a reward for stealing it.
(I wrote this 4 years ago, 2 weeks after FTX had collapsed. My feelings on the subject have changed somewhat, as more information has come to light and I've spoken with people involved in the matter, including Caroline herself. I didn't do a big "What I think about FTX now" post because that seemed like it would just be adding fuel to the fire, for ourselves and for EA. I may write that post sometime in the future, when things have settled down. Also fwiw "What I think about the Future Fund" is more likely as a post.)
Sure though I feel like you have generally been weakly pro SBF in the meantime. And doesn't it cause some question of judgement if it took you 3+ years to come to the same conclusion that most people reached in 7 days?
But there are limits to the degree of acceptable antagonism against public opinion, and a willingness to send costly signals against public opinion for relatively moderate organization gain is not to the credit of Manifold.
Isn't this 'just having principles'? Like isn't this what principles are? To take costly stands which are not pragmatic? I don't really take a view on hiring Caroline (except to say that funders should vote with their feet) but I like organisations being run according to taste if they aren't hugely powerful. And Manifund isn't hugely powerful, so Austin is being principled. And I guess I tend to like that, even if I disagree with the principles.
I know we like to launder this point here, but is the underlying point accurate? Hanania did not, to my recollection, speak at Manifest and which racists have later been platformed?
This talking point annoys me because it usually bottoms out at a few anecdotes or that bad guardian article. Is that what "repeatedly platforming racists" implies?
Manifest 2023: Richard Hanania was invited to speak, with the invitation converted to a book signing after protests. Jonathan Anomaly spoke.
Manifest 2024: Hanania and Anomaly were re-invited as special guests. Anomaly spoke again. Brian Chau, Razib Khan, and Stephen Hsu also spoke. Unofficial afterparty hosted by Curtis Yarvin.
Manifest 2025: Richard Hanania, Steven Hsu, and Cremieux spoke.
Manifest 2026: Razib Khan, Cremieux and Steven Hsu spoke.
Surely you know this? You've been there. And the link in the passage you quoted points directly to my discussion of Manifest 2023 and Manifest 2024.
I do know this, but I think if we are going to use talking points we should get to the bottom of them. So I wonder if "repeatedly platforming racists is accurate".
Hanania has disavowed previously racist positions. I would agree in 2023, hence I spent a lot of work pushing against him being a speaker.
Anomaly is voluntary eugenicist. Not clear to me he is racist as that word is typically used. Does he advocate for animus towards people on the basis of race?
Chau plausibly is. I don't particularly enjoy being the racism police, but I dislike Chau enough that I can't be bothered to defend him
Khan, Hsu, I can't find anything racist. Hsu is a voluntary eugenicist, I think.
I am not going to deal with unofficial afterparties.
I don't love how Cremiux talks, but has he published anything racist? Looks like another volunatry eugencist to me. Mother Jones claims he has a racist reddit account, he claims not.
So is "repeatedly platforming racists" accurate? I tend to think no.
To me this looks more "genetic differences between races" and "parents should be able to genetically select their children". I think that's pretty meaningfully different to racism and if you want to make Manifest the racism conference you can try but personally I like there being a line between the two. I prefer for people to be able to discuss genetics, but not advocate for animus or lazy thinking about races, genders, etc. Hence I worked hard (and lost friends) pushing for Hanania not to be a speaker in 2023.
I am a bit sensitive about this, but I think it's such a misplay from people close to EA to act as if any non-orthodox view on eugenics/crime/immigration is identical to racism. Personally, I think it's not helpful for seeing the world as it is and makes it harder to push back actual racial abuse in spaces I care about. I think that this view has largely caused the right to act as if racism isn't (and perhaps never was) real. And I think that's probably bad.
Community (Part 1: From FTX to Manifund) | Reflective Altruism
Headline finding: I audited 17 AI Safety Talent programmes. Zero of 17 have published any comparison group, rejected-applicant follow-up, matched control or randomisation. Not one. Every programme that mentions a counterfactual does it by asking participants to self-report.
Background
At least $70 million...
I want to start by noting that I am amazed and somewhat in awe of what's been accomplished by the EA animal welfare movement. I am enthusiastically supportive of all campaigns that make living and dying conditions less bad for farmed animals.
I worked on such campaigns for almost 20 years, and I'm proud of that work.
That said, I do think it's a strategic error that the EA animal movement has so thoroughly moved on from advocacy for animal liberation and diet change.&n...
Author: Grace Ryba (she/her), Executive Director
TL;DR:
* BluePerch is a new animal welfare grantmaker.
* Grant applications aren't open yet - we're aiming to open applications in roughly mid-2027.
* We welcome early expressions of interest from potential grantseekers so we can notify you when applications open - express your interest here or see further details below.
* We're also seeking boa...
This is Part 1 of a new series, Community.The effective altruist and rationalist communities are strange beasts. They are often impenetrable to outsiders and frequently misunderstood. However, understanding the structure of these communities is integral to understanding why they behave as they do. This series discusses issues surrounding the effective altruist and rationalist communities.
Today’s post explores a striking recent development. Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research, the trading arm of FTX, has been hired by Manifund, a leading funder.
The announcement of Ellison’s hiring is admirably transparent, and Manifund executives have shown remarkable patience in responding to criticism. However, at the risk of joining the already existing pile-on, I want to discuss some reasons why this hiring should be looked on unfavorably.
Due to the recency of these developments, I prioritized speed at the possible expense of rigor in preparing this post. While I have done my best to make sure that the discussion meets a reasonable standard of rigor and accuracy, there is a higher-than-usual possibility of error, which concerns me due to the sensitivity of the material. I am open to correction and will retract and apologize for any mistaken claims.
2. Background
2.1. Manifold and Manifund
Manifold is a social prediction platform founded by Austin Chen and Stephen and James Grugett. The platform is closely tied to the rationalist community, and to a lesser extent to the effective altruist community. Manifold has been funded by organizations including the FTX Future Fund, Survival and Flourishing Fund, and Astral Codex Ten.
Manifold hosts an annual conference, Manifest, at the Lighthaven campus run by Lightcone Infrastructure, the parent company of LessWrong. This is one of a trio of three consecutive annual events considered by many to be the central events of the rationalist social calendar. This conference has attracted significant controversy for repeatedly platforming racists.
Manifund is a funding platform run by Manifold. Manifund funds many projects broadly concerned with the rationalist and effective altruist communities. The platform runs a number of flexible funding options, and at one point even funded this blog (at a rather generous amount). I no longer receive a financial benefit from this funding, with an equivalent gift having been made to the NAACP to offset this benefit.
FTX collapsed after allegations of large-scale financial fraud and mismanagement. As for fraud, executives were prosecuted and convicted for misappropriating billions of dollars in customer deposits for use at Alameda Research to cover risky financial bets.As for mismanagement, FTX had a wasteful spending culturebacked by an absent and eventually non-existent board of directors, and a CEO who regularly took to playing video games during business meetings.
By all appearances, there was no such entity as the FTX Future Fund. The fund was not a separately incorporated legal entity, but rather a project of FTX through which the company distributed funds, including misappropriated customer assets, to primarily longtermist projects.
Many executives received hefty sentences for their role in the financial fraud at FTX. FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison on charges including wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering. Ryan Salame, CEO of FTX Digital Markets, was sentenced to 7.5 years.
Caroline Ellison decided not to go down with the ship. After cooperating extensively with federal investigators, including testifying directly against Bankman-Fried, Ellison was sentenced to just 2 years in prison and served only 14 months on charges including wire fraud and money laundering.
3. Hiring announcement
Just six months after her release from federal prison, Ellison began a pseudonymous work trial with Manifund, which was converted to a full-time job on September 11, 2026.
The announcement cited three reasons for considering Ellison: enjoyment of her writing, personal debt to the FTX Future Fund for funding Manifold, and a belief in the possibility of redemption.
The announcement justified ultimately hiring Ellison largely in terms of Manifund’s need for talent, including “useful expertise around finance and systems management.” It also cited her personal qualities.
The announcement concludes with a few words from Ellison:
I’ve said a lot about what I did wrong at Alameda/FTX—you can read what I said at my plea, during trial, and remarks at sentencing. I’m deeply sorry for what I did, and I completely understand why people may not want to work with me. But I’m very grateful to Austin for giving me a second chance, and judging me on my current work performance rather than my past. I feel very lucky not only to have a job, but to be working somewhere that I think is doing great work and has a mission I believe in.
When I started my work trial, unsure if I’d get a full-time offer at the end, I didn’t want to go through a public announcement just to potentially be let go a month later. But now that I’ve accepted a full-time offer at Manifund, I want to be upfront about it.
I’m excited to continue improving our technical infrastructure, working on operations and customer support, and posting updates on our newsletter.
What should we make of this announcement? It is, admittedly, admirably transparent. There are also some grounds for concern.
4. The nature of the position
Most reputable organizations adopt an informal policy against hiring people in roles related to their previous criminal activities. Child predators are not hired in roles that require them to interact with children. Bank robbers are not hired as bank tellers. Thieves are not hired to lead corporate procurement.
This policy exists for a good reason. No matter the prospects for redemption, criminal activity of a certain type remains one of the most reliable indicators of future criminal activity of the same type. Giving convicted criminals the opportunity to commit similar crimes is widely taken to be extremely risky.
Ellison’s hiring is a striking departure from this practice. The announcement specifies that Ellison has been hired by Manifund “to develop our funding platform and research how to effectively direct philanthropic dollars.” During her work trial, she has written about topics such as regranting, impact markets, and saving for the future. Elsewhere in the post, Ellison is specifically praised for building a reconciliation tool to identify misregistered transactions on Manifold’s books.
Ellison is a convicted criminal who served time for one of the largest financial frauds in history, including nine figures worth of fraudulent charitable donations. To hire Ellison into a position at Manifund would be one thing. But to hire Ellison in a position of significant responsibility for shaping and directing charitable funds is a strong departure from the norm against hiring criminals into roles related to previous criminal activities.
5. Outstanding debts to FTX
After the collapse of FTX, many leading effective altruist organizations returned misappropriated customer funds that had been wrongly sent to them under the guise of charitable donations. For example, Effective Ventures returned over twenty-six million dollars in donations, amounting to 100% of funds received from the FTX Future Fund. These funds were returned because they were not legitimate charitable donations by a registered charity, but instead misappropriations of customer funds.
Rather than returning misappropriated funds, many leading rationalist organizations have refused to fully compensate the FTX estate and are engaged in ongoing litigation regarding the return of funds. For example, Lightcone Infrastructure was sued for $4.9 million of transfers from FTX-linked organizations, and appears to have settled for a significantly lower amount.
Rationalist leaders have cast this behavior as a principled stand. For example, Eliezer Yudkowsky argues on the EA Forum that:
In my possibly contrarian opinion, and speaking as somebody who I don’t think actually got any money directly from FTX Future Fund that I can recall; also speaking for myself and hastily, having not run this post past any other major leaders in EA: You are not obligated to return funding that got to you ultimately by way of FTX.
In this context, it is especially noteworthy that Manifold received over a million dollars from FTX. To my knowledge, this money has not been returned. (Chen has not yet commented publicly on the matter, citing legal concerns.)
The hiring of individuals convicted for financial crimes involving FTX should be especially concerning given Manifold’s financial relationship to FTX.
That is not how Manifold views things. In fact, the announcement of Ellison’s hiring actively praises the FTX Future Fund and lists this praise as one of the reasons why Ellison’s hiring was considered.
I felt a keen debt to the FTX Future Fund. They provided seed funding for Manifold. They funded the retreat which drew me into the EA community, and the conference where I met my wife. Much of Manifund’s work today is directly inspired by the Future Fund’s approach.
Elsewhere, Manifund CEO Austin Chen has directly defended Bankman-Fried. In this defense, Chen suggests that “the FTX blowup might be a bad judgment call, not willful fraud” and admits that Bankman-Fried “was a personal hero of mine.” Chen praises the value of loyalty and condemns the EA community’s reaction to FTX as “cowardly, coldhearted, opportunistic, bandwagon-y, two-faced and distasteful.”
In this light, Ellison’s hiring can begin to seem like a pattern of excusing misbehaviors at FTX and working directly with those involved in the FTX fraud.
6. Repentance and redemption
One of the reasons given for hiring Ellison is the possibility of redemption. Chen writes:
I believe in redemption. Caroline has admitted her faults, worked to make creditors whole, and served her time in prison. I’d like to give her the opportunity to contribute back to the world; I hope that the world will concur.
The concern here is not with the possibility of redemption, but with how lightly redemption is earned.
Part 3 of my series on Human Biodiversity discussed Richard Hanania. We saw there that Hanania expresses a number of deeply deplorable views, including the view that people of color are genetically disposed to be less intelligent and more criminal than others, and that as a result immigration should be restricted and eugenic policies should be imposed, including forced sterilization of anyone with an IQ under 90. We saw that not only has Hanania largely failed to repudiate his racist beliefs, but also that he continues to actively peddle many of them.
This is relevant because, as we saw in Part 2of my series on Human Biodiversity, Richard Hanania was a repeated speaker and attendee at the controversial Manifest conferences. When asked to justify Hanania’s inclusion, Chen again appealed to the possibility of redemption:
“To err is human, to forgive, divine.” I believe in second chances; he’s publicly denounced his past views and announced an intention to do better. Such admission of wrongdoing strikes me as in keeping with the spirit of making public predictions. I’ve personally (and occasionally, publicly) held radioactive opinions, and I’m grateful to my friends and communities for calling me out while continuing to work with me.
As we saw above, the possibility of redemption is being wielded incredibly lightly and forgetfully here. There is not now, and was not at the time, credible evidence of repudiation or reform, but simply a credulous, or at least willfully ignorant refusal to honestly assess the prospect of Hanania having reformed.
In a similar way, Ellison is being offered the prospect of reform at an incredibly light standard in terms of evidence and personal growth. In the very same year that Ellison was released from jail for financial crimes, Chen asks that we already excuse her due to a belief in the possibility of redemption.
Matters would be different if Ellison had spent many years publicly making up for her misdeeds and proving her capacity to work on the right side of the law. But that is not what has happened. Redemption, here, is offered quite lightly.
It may also be worth remarking on a related parallel between the Ellison and Hanania cases: ongoing financial involvement with Manifold. In Hanania’s case, we saw that Hanania’s first invitation to speak at Manifest was preceded by a forecasting tournament at Manifold which Hanania sponsored and co-organized. And in this post, we saw that Manifold received significant funding from the FTX Future Fund.
When those granted redemption are involved in significant financial relationships with the redeeming organization, this makes it harder to believe that the redemption is offered purely on the merits of the case.
7. Mixing personal and professional considerations
One of the more striking facts about the effective altruist and rationalist communities is the free mixing of professional and personal lives. Members of these communities often live together in group houses, and there are not infrequent reports of romantic relationships bleeding into the workplace or across grantmaking relationships. Indeed, Ellison herself was romantically involved with Bankman-Fried during some of her employment at FTX.
The announcement of Ellison’s hiring at Manifund lists three reasons why Ellison was hired. The third exhibits this familiar mixing of personal and business reasoning:
Through working together, I’ve had the privilege to know Caroline as more than just an icon of FTX. I find her to be kind, humble, down to earth, hardworking, smart and witty. She cares deeply about doing right, for our users, our donors, and the world. She shares many of my sensibilities around extant problems of philanthropy; see, for example, our essay in support of for-profits. She adores Ada, my 2yo daughter (and, the feeling is clearly mutual).
While these remarks may be partly excusable as a misfired attempt to humanize Ellison, they do evidence a difficulty in separating personal relationships from business reasoning. Much of this passage, while admirable, just does not belong on a list of why someone was hired, particularly if (as it appears) they were not hired through an advertised search.
8. Bad judgment
A broader concern about the Ellison hiring is simply that it is a signal of bad judgment. There was, as we saw in Section 2, a significant run of bad judgment at FTX and Alameda, including fraud, wasteful spending, and mismanagement.
There has also been evidence of poor judgment at Manifold. In particular, their annual conference, Manifest, has repeatedly platformed racists and shows little evidence of repenting and changing its way. And as we saw in Section 6, the CEO of Manifund is the author of one of the more ardent and poorly-aged defenses of Bankman-Fried’s actions at FTX.
In this vein, the Ellison hire looks like another in a string of poor judgments by Manifold. Manifold has taken a massive risk and incurred reputational loss to place a convicted financial criminal in a position of significant financial responsibility, within the very same community to which the FTX Future Fund previously channelled funds. This is not the kind of good judgment expected of an organization’s leaders.
Many effective altruists take the importance of good governance and good judgment to be among the chief lessons of the FTX scandal. Noble goals, coupled with poor judgment, can quickly go awry. If this is right, then even those broadly sympathetic to Manifund’s mission might be concerned about the impact of its leaders’ judgment on Manifund’s performance.
9. Reputation and signaling
Effective altruists and, perhaps to a greater extent, rationalists, sometimes display a remarkable degree of disregard for the public perception of their actions.
Hiring a prominent financial criminal into a position of financial responsibility within a broader community that seeks to distance itself from the crimes at FTX does not send a good signal. It signals lack of concern for the seriousness of the crimes at FTX, and lack of desire to distance oneself from those crimes. It also signals either misunderstanding of, or lack of concern for, the nature and grounds for likely public reactions.
It is not always advisable to bow to public pressure. One of the things that makes effective altruism valuable is the willingness of the community to stake out its own perspective, even when that perspective runs contrary to received opinion. But there are limits to the degree of acceptable antagonism against public opinion, and a willingness to send costly signals against public opinion for relatively moderate organization gain is not to the credit of Manifold. They are not, here, engaged in taking a stand central to the effectiveness and survival of the movement, but taking a significant stand for modest gain. That is very hard to justify.
10. Taking stock
This post discussed the hiring of Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research, into a position of financial responsibility at Manifund. After an introduction to Manifold, Manifund and FTX (Section 2), we looked at the announcement of Ellison’s hiring (Section 3).
Despite the admirable transparency of the announcement, we saw that this announcement raises several important concerns.
It breaks well-established conventions of not hiring convicted criminals in roles related to their crimes (Section 4). It creates significant conflict of interest given Manifold’s funding history with FTX (Section 5). It shows, for at least the second time, a cheap standard for redemption (Section 6). It involves uncomfortable mixing of personal and professional considerations (Section 7). It looks very much like one in a string of bad judgments at Manifund and FTX (Section 8). And it shows remarkable unconcern for the signals sent by this hiring (Section 9).
I don’t often write publicly about FTX. To a large extent, I am willing to respect the public narrative that leaders in the effective altruist and rationalist community were not aware of the crimes committed at FTX.
But to turn around and hire the former CEO of Alameda Research into a position of financial responsibility in the same year that she is released from prison for financial crimes is not the way for any organization or movement to credibly distance itself from the crimes at FTX. This was a poor decision that does little to quiet criticism of the community’s relationship to FTX.
Note: This essay is cross-posted from the blog Reflective Altruism written by David Thorstad. It was originally published there on September 13, 2026. The account making this post has no affiliation with Reflective Altruism or David Thorstad.
You can leave a comment on this post on Reflective Altruism here. The author will not necessarily see comments left below this cross-post.
73
More posts like this
317
EA is underfunding animal advocacy according to our own preferences
Thank you for writing this. I'm not sure if I'll have time to reply substantively/to all the points, but I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your thinking.
One point I am curious about: you bring up my decision to invite Richard Hanania to Manifest as a parallel to hiring Caroline Ellison. I hadn't considered the similarity before, but appreciate you pointing it out.
I'm curious if people in this community have updated at all on Richard Hanania based on his track record, because, from where I sit, I feel somewhat vindicated on that specific decision. Since my first time inviting Hanania, he has come out in support of various EA causes including the Shrimp Welfare Project; been referenced by neutral well-known parties for his takes (off the top of my head, Matt Yglesias and Patrick Collison); supported immigration and decried racism; and generally been a strong critic of many of Trump's actions, which is particularly notable given the relative lack of such criticism from the conservative side of political commentors.
(At the same time, I still find some of his X/Twitter posts more inflammatory and distasteful than I would wish to see in the public discourse.)
I am a little concerned that you have immediately jumped to respond to the most controversial part of the post, rather than respond to any of the 9 uncontroversial reasons put forward that your decision to hire a convicted fraudster was a terrible decision.
I personally still don't trust Hanania, and I certainly don't think whether one supports shrimp welfare should have any bearing at all about how we feel about racism accusations, but is it really more important to discuss this rather than the fact that half of the two employees at Manifund have committed billion dollars worth of fraud?
Naaah come on. You could always say this had he done anything less than respond to all 9. He responded to what he thought was a high priority, is his response good, or bad?
For those that may not know this, I was in conflict with Austin over the Hanania thing, probably one of the most in conflict, and I pushed pretty hard on Manifold to for him not to be a speaker, and wrote a blog about it at the time. I spent quite a lot of social capital on it.
Two points:
Speaking as someone who strongly disagreed with you inviting him to Manifest, Hanania has certainly improved a lot in my view, though I also agree he still says pretty bad/bigoted stuff from time to time, though I can't think of an example off the top of my head. I do still think he is fairly intensely elitist, and disaprove of that, but I don't think that meets the bar for shunning on its own.
Put him in charge of DEI at Manifund then.
The key question David Thorstad raised in the Reflective Altruism post is not whether Richard Hanania has improved relative to his far-right white supremacist days. It's whether his behaviour since has been exemplary enough to say that he's redeemed himself and to use one's influence to increase his, such as by inviting him to conferences.
Let me quote a paragraph from Hanania's Wikipedia article:
It's an improvement if Hanania is no longer citing neo-Nazis, no longer denouncing "race-mixing", and no longer advocating forced sterilization. But if he's still expressing racist views, this is not a redemption story.
I'm in favour of people with extreme racist views improving and having relatively less racist — but still racist — views. In the absence of full reformation, partial reformation is better than nothing. But that's not really the point. The point is whether his behaviour has been so exemplary as to constitute redemption and whether effective altruist organizations should use their resources to try to give him a position of influence and power in shaping public discourse, such as inviting him to EA conferences.
As with Caroline Ellison, I don't think anyone is saying that someone who has done something morally egregious should not be able to get a job or should be excluded from society. But does Caroline Ellison need to continue working in a financial role? Does Richard Hanania need to continue writing about race and racial politics? Why do they need to have these specific jobs where they have done so badly before?
Why not give financial jobs to people with no record of financial crimes? Why not give that conference invite or that Substack recommendation to, say, someone who has experienced racism?
There is an additional problem of corruption in the case of Caroline Ellison that isn't present in the case of Richard Hanania. Caroline Ellison stole money and gave it Manifund. Austin Chen decided to reward her crime — and this is part of his stated reasoning — by giving her a job in return. Austin has decided to reward and endorse her crime by hiring her. The message is: 'Thank you so much for stealing money for us. I owe you one. Take this job as my way of saying thanks.' This is effectively a retroactive quid pro quo in which Austin has decided to trade Caroline $500,000 in stolen cash for a job. This is morally outrageous.
It's worth mentioning in this context that Austin has harshly criticized the EA community for its supposed disloyalty to Sam Bankman-Fried in the wake of the revelations about FTX's fraud. Austin has also argued that Bankman-Fried should be released from prison and be allowed to work in crypto and finance again. Austin's language in this latest announcement still seems to downplay the seriousness of the crimes committed at FTX.
The rest of the EA community can't directly control Austin's decisions, but it can decide whether Austin and Manifund will be included in the community in the future. It's well within any organization or individual's power to repudiate Manifund and dissociate from it. The rest of the EA community bears moral responsibility for whatever decision it makes on this. Now is the time to think about it and decide.
For my part, I already deleted my Manifold account after the Manifest racism scandal. I will never donate through Manifund. I strongly condemn Manifund's hiring of Caroline Ellison.
I’d agree that to the degree that Hanania’s recent positive engagement with EA is downstream of your inviting him, that should abound to your credit. (I never opposed your decision to platform him, so I might be biased!)
Ah, to be clear, I don't wish to take particularly much credit for his outlook change (though, I do believe he eg somewhat reconsidered his outlook on trans people after meeting a trans person at Manifest. I also believe he did meet some EAs which he collaborated more with afterwards); mostly I cite it as an example of prescience