4 ms·

It looks like you've interacted with some nasty folks who were EAs - I don't think this was a typical cross-section of EAs. Sorry to hear about your bad experie

It looks like you've interacted with some nasty folks who were EAs - I don't think this was a typical cross-section of EAs. Sorry to hear about your bad experiences

monero-xmr 3y ago
As one example, a friend of mine lost over $20 million to SBF / FTX, which funded said castle. However he did not sell his claim and is optimistic he will get most of it back. Money seems like a number on a page until you see how it affects real people! As another example, I had an EA VC investor nuke one of my seed investments in order to have a different one of his portcos acquire the IP for scrap because he had a far higher stake in the other portco, which was in the same vertical. Ruined a lot of employees' ISOs as well as my equity. But hey he's an EA - can't blame him! His expected value was simply higher.
- FinchNova12 3y ago
  No, you can blame EAs for making stupid decisions and being generally bad people if they are making stupid decisions and being generally bad people. I'll second that I'm sorry for the bad experiences you've had with EAs. In my experiences, lots of them are simply good people trying to do more good. I hope you can have better experiences with them in the future.
  - monero-xmr 3y ago
    I won't have better experiences with them in the future because the moment I discover someone is an EA I no longer have experiences with them, period.
    - haswell 3y ago
      This is deeply fallacious binary thinking. Take anything you like. A cause, religious group, political party, sports fanbase, etc. Some subset of each group are generally decent people, who do their best to be good to the people around them, and to live their lives in a generally moral and ethical manner. Some subset of each group have no interest in morals or ethics, and attach themselves to the group for purely selfish reasons. Judging the entire group based on the selfish or amoral subset is a logical fallacy of the most basic sort, and is bordering religiosity. This is even more problematic when you look at the kinds of negative EA situations that have (rightly) caused controversy. The high profile big money cases get attention. If confronted with someone who ascribes to the EA philosophy and by all measurable indicators has done incredibly good things for the world, would you be willing to change your mind?
- casebash 3y ago
  FTX didn't actually fund the castle, from what I've heard. It was another group.

It looks like you've interacted with some nasty folks who were EAs - I don't think this was a typical cross-section of EAs. Sorry to hear about your bad experiences

monero-xmr 3y ago

As one example, a friend of mine lost over $20 million to SBF / FTX, which funded said castle. However he did not sell his claim and is optimistic he will get most of it back. Money seems like a number on a page until you see how it affects real people! As another example, I had an EA VC investor nuke one of my seed investments in order to have a different one of his portcos acquire the IP for scrap because he had a far higher stake in the other portco, which was in the same vertical. Ruined a lot of employees' ISOs as well as my equity. But hey he's an EA - can't blame him! His expected value was simply higher.

FinchNova12 3y ago
No, you can blame EAs for making stupid decisions and being generally bad people if they are making stupid decisions and being generally bad people. I'll second that I'm sorry for the bad experiences you've had with EAs. In my experiences, lots of them are simply good people trying to do more good. I hope you can have better experiences with them in the future.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  I won't have better experiences with them in the future because the moment I discover someone is an EA I no longer have experiences with them, period.
  - haswell 3y ago
    This is deeply fallacious binary thinking. Take anything you like. A cause, religious group, political party, sports fanbase, etc. Some subset of each group are generally decent people, who do their best to be good to the people around them, and to live their lives in a generally moral and ethical manner. Some subset of each group have no interest in morals or ethics, and attach themselves to the group for purely selfish reasons. Judging the entire group based on the selfish or amoral subset is a logical fallacy of the most basic sort, and is bordering religiosity. This is even more problematic when you look at the kinds of negative EA situations that have (rightly) caused controversy. The high profile big money cases get attention. If confronted with someone who ascribes to the EA philosophy and by all measurable indicators has done incredibly good things for the world, would you be willing to change your mind?
casebash 3y ago
FTX didn't actually fund the castle, from what I've heard. It was another group.