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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Interesting point

The form was indeed outdated, and I agree that moving away from email would be a good thing.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.

So, maybe, focusing on stronger cases?

Yes, and seminal cases.