4 ms·

no, he ran a crypto exchange and behind the scenes his companies trading desk used it's own coin as leverage, nothing to do with ea

by ikt 3y ago

boxed 3y ago
Yea exactly. He just said he did crypto stuff to get money for good things later. Those later things didn't materialize.
- ikt 3y ago
  Just reading this Atlantic article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-ftx-sam-bankman-fried/672149/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/cryptocurr... > Yet this crisis also creates an opportunity. * Effective altruism, the movement, is not the same thing as effective altruism, the practice of financially maximalist and rigorously data-driven philanthropy. * Divorcing the latter from the former would benefit everyone on the planet. I've been wondering why you guys care about some guy who ran a crypto exchange and what that has to do the with the core philosophy of effective altruism but it seems like you've all linked the movement with the philosophy to my chagrin.
  - yunwal 3y ago
    Personally, I have a few issues with the philosophy of EA that I believe are reflected in the community. 1) I believe the thought leaders behind the philosophy severely downplay the downsides of making money amorally. It’s considered a completely legitimate approach to find the highest paying job you can and donate lots of your salary. High paying jobs that attract EA believers (finance in particular, many areas of tech as well) tend to destabilize the economy, oppress people, and contribute to unreasonable expectations about economic growth that kill our planet. 2) The movement is culturally weak, doesn’t really attempt to branch out of a few men with similar finance/tech backgrounds with huge egos and savior complexes. This, to me, is not how change occurs. Culture is a necessary part of change. Sure, you can provide mosquito nets to malaria-ridden areas of the world, but that doesn’t change a culture of corruption or encourage the next generation to solve the local systemic issues that only they’re capable of fixing. Real movements attempt to change hearts and minds and incorporate different types of people. In other words, movements are inseparable from their community. Any philosophy that doesn’t incorporate community building is not going to be the most effective way of creating positive change.

no, he ran a crypto exchange and behind the scenes his companies trading desk used it's own coin as leverage, nothing to do with ea

by ikt 3y ago

no, he ran a crypto exchange and behind the scenes his companies trading desk used it's own coin as leverage, nothing to do with ea

boxed 3y ago

Yea exactly. He just said he did crypto stuff to get money for good things later. Those later things didn't materialize.

ikt 3y ago
Just reading this Atlantic article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-ftx-sam-bankman-fried/672149/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/cryptocurr... > Yet this crisis also creates an opportunity. * Effective altruism, the movement, is not the same thing as effective altruism, the practice of financially maximalist and rigorously data-driven philanthropy. * Divorcing the latter from the former would benefit everyone on the planet. I've been wondering why you guys care about some guy who ran a crypto exchange and what that has to do the with the core philosophy of effective altruism but it seems like you've all linked the movement with the philosophy to my chagrin.
- yunwal 3y ago
  Personally, I have a few issues with the philosophy of EA that I believe are reflected in the community. 1) I believe the thought leaders behind the philosophy severely downplay the downsides of making money amorally. It’s considered a completely legitimate approach to find the highest paying job you can and donate lots of your salary. High paying jobs that attract EA believers (finance in particular, many areas of tech as well) tend to destabilize the economy, oppress people, and contribute to unreasonable expectations about economic growth that kill our planet. 2) The movement is culturally weak, doesn’t really attempt to branch out of a few men with similar finance/tech backgrounds with huge egos and savior complexes. This, to me, is not how change occurs. Culture is a necessary part of change. Sure, you can provide mosquito nets to malaria-ridden areas of the world, but that doesn’t change a culture of corruption or encourage the next generation to solve the local systemic issues that only they’re capable of fixing. Real movements attempt to change hearts and minds and incorporate different types of people. In other words, movements are inseparable from their community. Any philosophy that doesn’t incorporate community building is not going to be the most effective way of creating positive change.