sure, I was mostly just disagreeing with "90% loss of a major coin" - but I suppose you can read that sentence more charitably. But focusing on the inherent value of FTT as the avenue of affecting customers I think is misguided.
I don't really think FTT is considered a "major coin" - it's new, and only used by this one exchange. Not sure it has much any use at all outside FTX and would be kinda weird to overinvest in as an outsider other than as a bet on FTX itself.
in a related vein, just putting up air quality/CO2 monitors (and maybe noise while you're on it) could be a quite cheap & scaleable intervention that might offer some valuable/interesting data. If attendees are getting unnecessarily fatigued from a bad environment it might cancel out a bunch of the value from the conference.
For doing this at an EAG, I think it could make sense to start doing this in a single (or a few) rooms as a trial. Should at least be much easier to convince venue & organizers that it's not gonna be a major burden.
Especially fitting if it's rooms used for biorisk discussions!
Since eag's are already volunteer-heavy (I just volunteered at EAGxBerlin), it feels relatively plausible for you/somebody to take ownership of this idea:
contact IAQ organizers and ask for more details & retrospective (this feels worthwhile on it's own regardless! Very good forum content)
contact CEA/organizing teams for upcoming conferences and pitch the idea
if other points work out: contact the venue
volunteer yourself (and/or recruit other interested) for the conference as responsible for the management & running of the equipment
Not the author, but this is my understanding assuming the idea holds:
OpenPhil/FTX/etc currently spend a lot of time & effort on evaluating grants. The idea here is that it's easier to evaluate a project after it's finished, e.g. "the area where bednets were given out had X% lower mortality, lives are valued at Y$, so this bednet intervention was worth Z$" - but current status quo is that you have to predict the value of X when evaluating the grant, and make a prediction on the likelihood that it works at all. (technically you'd predict a probability distribution over different values of X), which is much harder than measuring X after the intervention.
Investors (which are VC's and other people) take over the role of predicting the future, and oracular funders (openphil/FTX/etc) get an easier job and can make more accurate donations - making a larger impact than they would do otherwise. And good charity entrepenurs are rewarded more accurately, making more good for the world than if money was wasted on charities that at first glance seemed like a good idea but in fact has bad expected value.
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes
Skills:
Programming: deep knowledge of Python, C & C++, some experience with two dozen other languages. Git, linters, command-line debuggers.
Linux: hardcore user for 15 years, experience with configuring pretty much the whole OS stack.
Résumé: https://github.com/jakkdl/resume/raw/main/john_litborn_resume.pdf
Email: firstname [dot] lastname [at] pm.me
Notes: Followed the EA space intently for a long time - took GWWC pledge in 2017, but mostly by reading blogs & listening to podcasts
Doesn't the leverage go both directions? Donating causes earlier people to pay more, but also adds leverage for later people? Such that you don't know if later people would've donated unless you also did.
Though maybe that depends on some factors of the system, whether the leverage grows or shrinks with more donations. I think this might hit your worry that it incentivizes donating later cause that makes you pay less, but if actors are proper EV-maximizers won't they scale up their donation such that the expected payment/leverage is the same?
Seems like there's lots of strategies at play here, including donating several times. Making it work both for real-life humans with real-life problems and TAI seems ambitious though, they require very different incentives to work and I imagine the design ends up significantly different.
Interesting stuff!
If the lateral-flow test can be cheaply produced, distributed and stored at smaller clinics - then you might be able to then quickly drive patients to larger clinics once positively diagnosed and might not then have to worry as much about the larger costs of the anti-venom. Will depend a lot on the time/distance to nearest larger clinics though.
sure, I was mostly just disagreeing with "90% loss of a major coin" - but I suppose you can read that sentence more charitably. But focusing on the inherent value of FTT as the avenue of affecting customers I think is misguided.
I don't really think FTT is considered a "major coin" - it's new, and only used by this one exchange. Not sure it has much any use at all outside FTX and would be kinda weird to overinvest in as an outsider other than as a bet on FTX itself.
in a related vein, just putting up air quality/CO2 monitors (and maybe noise while you're on it) could be a quite cheap & scaleable intervention that might offer some valuable/interesting data. If attendees are getting unnecessarily fatigued from a bad environment it might cancel out a bunch of the value from the conference.
For doing this at an EAG, I think it could make sense to start doing this in a single (or a few) rooms as a trial. Should at least be much easier to convince venue & organizers that it's not gonna be a major burden.
Especially fitting if it's rooms used for biorisk discussions!
Since eag's are already volunteer-heavy (I just volunteered at EAGxBerlin), it feels relatively plausible for you/somebody to take ownership of this idea:
Yeah not a perfect fit for my current niche, but I have no problem picking up new techs and even coded some C# in school, so I'll definitely apply!
Not the author, but this is my understanding assuming the idea holds:
OpenPhil/FTX/etc currently spend a lot of time & effort on evaluating grants. The idea here is that it's easier to evaluate a project after it's finished, e.g. "the area where bednets were given out had X% lower mortality, lives are valued at Y$, so this bednet intervention was worth Z$" - but current status quo is that you have to predict the value of X when evaluating the grant, and make a prediction on the likelihood that it works at all. (technically you'd predict a probability distribution over different values of X), which is much harder than measuring X after the intervention.
Investors (which are VC's and other people) take over the role of predicting the future, and oracular funders (openphil/FTX/etc) get an easier job and can make more accurate donations - making a larger impact than they would do otherwise. And good charity entrepenurs are rewarded more accurately, making more good for the world than if money was wasted on charities that at first glance seemed like a good idea but in fact has bad expected value.
Beautiful sketches! Images certainly don't have to be professional to be informative~
Location: Linköping, Sweden Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: Yes Skills:
Doesn't the leverage go both directions? Donating causes earlier people to pay more, but also adds leverage for later people? Such that you don't know if later people would've donated unless you also did.
Though maybe that depends on some factors of the system, whether the leverage grows or shrinks with more donations. I think this might hit your worry that it incentivizes donating later cause that makes you pay less, but if actors are proper EV-maximizers won't they scale up their donation such that the expected payment/leverage is the same?
Seems like there's lots of strategies at play here, including donating several times. Making it work both for real-life humans with real-life problems and TAI seems ambitious though, they require very different incentives to work and I imagine the design ends up significantly different. Interesting stuff!
If the lateral-flow test can be cheaply produced, distributed and stored at smaller clinics - then you might be able to then quickly drive patients to larger clinics once positively diagnosed and might not then have to worry as much about the larger costs of the anti-venom. Will depend a lot on the time/distance to nearest larger clinics though.