I agree that crypto is not the most user-friendly option, but more traditional options would almost certainly increase the regulatory and administrative burden on arbiters.
On the regulatory side: the use of crypto allows arbiters to never have full custody over funds. The law obviously hasn't caught up with crypto yet, but we don't think anyone will argue arbiters passively appointed by bettors are hosting games of chance. If arbiters actually agree beforehand to receive funds from both parties, and they even have the option to run away with the funds, we expect regulators to give them a lot more scrutiny (and rightfully so).
On the administrative side: arbiters have no risk of assets being frozen because their payment processor mistakes them for an online casino, there's no risk of arbiters' personal finances and stakes commingling, etc.
We tried to keep the crypto aspect as simple as possible. We use a stablecoin (1 xDAI = 1 USD) that can also be used for the (negligible) transaction fees, and there is no need to set up allowances or other weird stuff. Still, we won't deny it's a hurdle.
The US legal definition of hardship is more stringent than ours, and we can only assist people who experience US-level hardship because we operate under a US charity. No choice there. I think pointing people to legal definitions won't help.
Extending the eligibility period is less of a utilitarian choice than something deontological/oriented at community building. We believe we have a duty to help EAs who'd be able to support themselves if they hadn't given away their money. Besides that, we hope current and potential EAs will see that we're looking out for each other, which will make the EA community a more attractive place to be in. There's also an argument to be made that getting donors back on their feet might get them to donate again, and it could stop them from leaving EA altogether.
This is something we'd like to expand to, but it's much harder to define "EA volunteer" than "donor to effective charities". Once donor assistance is running smoothly, we'll likely give volunteer assistance a try.
I personally think the inflation section is just as important. People won't make a long-term bet denominated in USD with an expected ROI lower than inflation. This also affects markets that aren't 95% lopsided.
I agree that your proposal gets around most (maybe all?) of the issues I mentioned.
Ah, that's where we went wrong. I assumed you would have mentioned that if you thought so.
However, your proposal focuses on earning-to-givers who have already given a fair bit, this seems to be tackling a minority of the problem (maybe 20%?).
I agree, and it is quite challenging to determine the size of that minority. If anyone knows anyone who has been in this situation, please send me a message.
Hey, I wrote the article you refer to. I only intend to partially reimburse people who donated money to EA-related causes. Most problems you describe apply to a safety net for all effective altruists, which would be much more difficult. I'll quote a comment of mine:
By focusing exclusively on reimbursing donors in financial trouble, we avoid opening a can of worms. First of all, the risk of fraud is much lower. If EAs can only get back half of what they gave away, there is no way to use the fund to make money, unless they control a GiveWell-recommended charity. Second, we do not have to judge whether people are EA-aligned. Third, people cannot take advantage of the fund and, perhaps more importantly, people will not have to worry other people are taking advantage of the fund.
To expand on the last point, if we ever decide to reimburse a donation because someone's second car broke down, that might annoy some people with a different idea of what constitutes an emergency, but at least they know that person donated at least twice the amount needed to fix the car. Now, if we handed out fix-your-second-car money to people who never donated anything to charity, I'd predict riots.
Also, coupling the two promotes donations. People who would normally find parting with substantial amounts of money scary have the assurance that they can always knock on our door.
I believe this covers all points you raised, but let me know if I missed anything. Just to reiterate, my hypothetical charity wouldn't make a judgment on whether applicants are still effective altruists if they need money.
The top comment on my article:
This seems like the type of infrastructure that should be experimented with on a small scale rather than heavily debated
This is a commendable effort! However, it is unfortunate that detected fraud cases and actual fraud cases are conflated throughout the article.
$241,633 was lost to fraud this year — that’s about what we expect
We estimate 0.23% of those funds was lost to theft, bribes, and imposters.
By your own admission, the increase from 0.18% to 0.23% is mostly the result of improved detection. Such a large improvement in a one-year span suggests there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit. Because of that, fraud is probably much more common than reported here.
It is perfectly normal not to know how much money you are losing to fraud! I have spoken to fraud detection folks at an insurance company as well as ex-forensics. Established large organizations don't have reliable estimates either. Detected fraud cases do have a use, of course, as a lower bound on actual fraud cases.
I agree that crypto is not the most user-friendly option, but more traditional options would almost certainly increase the regulatory and administrative burden on arbiters.
On the regulatory side: the use of crypto allows arbiters to never have full custody over funds. The law obviously hasn't caught up with crypto yet, but we don't think anyone will argue arbiters passively appointed by bettors are hosting games of chance. If arbiters actually agree beforehand to receive funds from both parties, and they even have the option to run away with the funds, we expect regulators to give them a lot more scrutiny (and rightfully so).
On the administrative side: arbiters have no risk of assets being frozen because their payment processor mistakes them for an online casino, there's no risk of arbiters' personal finances and stakes commingling, etc.
We tried to keep the crypto aspect as simple as possible. We use a stablecoin (1 xDAI = 1 USD) that can also be used for the (negligible) transaction fees, and there is no need to set up allowances or other weird stuff. Still, we won't deny it's a hurdle.
The form was indeed outdated, and I agree that moving away from email would be a good thing.
This is something we'd like to expand to, but it's much harder to define "EA volunteer" than "donor to effective charities". Once donor assistance is running smoothly, we'll likely give volunteer assistance a try.
Thanks for letting us know, fixed!
I personally think the inflation section is just as important. People won't make a long-term bet denominated in USD with an expected ROI lower than inflation. This also affects markets that aren't 95% lopsided.
Yes, and seminal cases.
Ah, that's where we went wrong. I assumed you would have mentioned that if you thought so.
I agree, and it is quite challenging to determine the size of that minority. If anyone knows anyone who has been in this situation, please send me a message.
Hey, I wrote the article you refer to. I only intend to partially reimburse people who donated money to EA-related causes. Most problems you describe apply to a safety net for all effective altruists, which would be much more difficult. I'll quote a comment of mine:
I believe this covers all points you raised, but let me know if I missed anything. Just to reiterate, my hypothetical charity wouldn't make a judgment on whether applicants are still effective altruists if they need money.
The top comment on my article:
Do you agree with this?
This is a commendable effort! However, it is unfortunate that detected fraud cases and actual fraud cases are conflated throughout the article.
By your own admission, the increase from 0.18% to 0.23% is mostly the result of improved detection. Such a large improvement in a one-year span suggests there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit. Because of that, fraud is probably much more common than reported here.
It is perfectly normal not to know how much money you are losing to fraud! I have spoken to fraud detection folks at an insurance company as well as ex-forensics. Established large organizations don't have reliable estimates either. Detected fraud cases do have a use, of course, as a lower bound on actual fraud cases.