I've seen this criticism a few times and figured it was just ambiguous.... while the FTX affair is obviously bad for the institutions that represent the modern

I've seen this criticism a few times and figured it was just ambiguous.... while the FTX affair is obviously bad for the institutions that represent the modern EA movement, to me this doesn't represent a real critique of EA as a philosophy. "Most EA supporters are techbros and FTX reinforces the view that techbros are bad, therefore EA is bad" is not a real argument, it's a sneer. Is the implication that I should start donating money to the Red Cross rather than GiveWell? I don't think so. At the margin yes I should be more suspicious that my money won't be used well, but I don't believe that all of these institutions are corrupt. The more material argument is whether from an EA perspective running massive scams and funneling the proceeds to EA causes should be applauded or not. Obviously the fact that this discussion is even being surfaced will cause brand damage, but again it says nothing to which perspective is correct, just that these discussions are subject to optics-based constraints. It's like the open discussions in the rationalist community over whether various horrible civilizational collapses happening to humanity might actually be desirable because it will prevent (or at least delay) an AI from killing us. There's serious discussions but it never plays well to bring this to a "normie" audience. But pretty much every movement has its Straussian elements where the "insider" narratives contradict the "outsider" narratives.