Resolves YES if, in the best judgement of me or people I trust, Centre for Effective Altruism has committed a significant malfeasance before end of 2026. Else resolves NO.
See also:
https://manifold.markets/Amaryllis/will-vox-write-an-article-about-a-s-c10c60e6e5e0
https://manifold.markets/Amaryllis/will-nyt-write-an-article-about-a-s-aaa3f2ff5c16
Update 2026-03-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): CEA's response to sexual harassment (linked in comments) does not meet the resolution threshold for YES, but is noted as a significant negative update. The creator is still deliberating.
1,000People are also trading
Resolves yes @Amaryllis...?
CEA's response to sexual harassment: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/XxXnPoGQ2eKsQx3FE/cea-s-response-to-sexual-harassment
@DylanRichardson I don't feel that this quite crosses the threshold I had in mind when I created this market, but it is a significant negative update. I'll keep thinking about it.
Thank you for raising this to my attention.
@NathanpmYoung If it comes to light that they have already committed significant malfeasance some time since their founding in 2012, I will resolve YES.
For example, if, before end of 2026, we have significant evidence that they were closely involved in the FTX collapse, I will resolve YES.
@harfe I do not consider the purchase of Wytham Abbey to be "significant malfeasance". I am thinking more of things like purposeful accounting fraud. (But this market is very much subjective, and I fully understand if people are reluctant to bet on it.)
I have edited the description to include links to markets with less subjective metrics.
