The thesis of the article is that EA started out with those stated goals but because of human nature and the effects of forming a larger public organization it

The thesis of the article is that EA started out with those stated goals but because of human nature and the effects of forming a larger public organization it is probably unlikely that they still do so or will continue to do so longer term. The incentives just kind of start shoving them in a very different direction. As you see with the FTX scandal/fraud. Your response could be well that's not really EA then to which the article would say "Yeah but to keep it from happening you sort of have to limit EA to "local" low profile giving. I would posit that the level of giving where you run out of opportunities in your personal network that you can effectively give to is quite high. Far higher than most people. A final thought is that "of all the orphanages in developing countries, which ones do the best job of improving the lives of the children under their care?" is perhaps a bad question to be asking. It assumes that you can even rank such a thing which I would posit you can't. Beyond do they feed, clothe, and educate as a minimum bar there is far more to the improving the lives of children. The quantifiable stuff does little and is relatively easy to accomplish. The rest is unquantifiable and has dramatic impacts on long term outcomes. If you want to know how effective the orphanage is you can't look at the balance sheet. You have to go visit it and get to know the people running it. And frankly if I'm giving my money to an orphanage the unquantifiable but in many ways most important elements are not something I am going to trust an organization of people to get correctly assess. It's inevitable that the organization will eventually lose sight of the mission.