This was a strange mix because despite the misanthropic explanation of events, the suggested solutions were oddly naive. I think the author's principle argument

This was a strange mix because despite the misanthropic explanation of events, the suggested solutions were oddly naive. I think the author's principle argument is that there is a societal dynamic that inevitably leads to movements being co-opted. However, the solutions proposed just amount to "don't let yourself be co-opted", and then a glib line that if your movement then fails, that's an indictment of charity itself. The proposals to prevent the movement being co-opted are proposals that also prevent the movement functioning. The proposals seem to be to prioritize being ideologically pure over being effective. Which is odd, because it's literally meant to be effective. There's a tension here that the author thinks that it's bad to allow this certain class of people use your movement for influence, but in doing so essentially legislates against the movement being able to use influence itself. EA isn't just about making sure your money is effective, it's also about incentivizing charities to be more effective - that's exactly what GiveWell. You can view GiveWell donating to CHAI as a corrupt revolving door, or you can say GiveWell successfully has managed to drive EA into the broader industry, and now, with someone versed in how EA works is able to drive money into that charity. The optimist view is as valid as the cynical view, and the EA view would be neither, it would be to focus on what actually happens with that donation.