Thank you for the clarifications. This is very interesting. The parallel with Gates did come to my mind as well. > I'm not very knowledgeable about crypto, but

Thank you for the clarifications. This is very interesting. The parallel with Gates did come to my mind as well. > I'm not very knowledgeable about crypto, but I don't understand how the definition of crypto means this? Crypto doesn’t really power real-life use cases outside of trading crypto assets and associated financial services. For real money to come into the space there needs to be an influx from outside. Usually that means VCs and, more largely, retail. I’m not necessarily arguing here that the crypto space is a drain on society, as I think that’s contentious, but the claim that most real money in crypto originates from people outside of it should be a truism. To me this makes SBF’s approach something misguided, as they’re reallocating capital from people at large to a single person. Even with the best intentions I can’t see this as a humanist approach. Some charitable projects do require massive funding and opinionated goals, but isn’t that what nonprofits and politics are for? I guess it does come down to whether someone sees making money off of crypto as having strong negative externalities or not. If SBF was simply creating value by democratizing access then it’s just a regular job. If he was propping a scam industry that drains retail investors of real money then it’s a net negative even with EA as the goal. Still, the inherent long-termism within EA seems to make it easier for people to embrace very Kantian views that maybe discount their short-term impacts.