To clarify, does "claw back" mean only actions related to liquidation proceedings or does it include any attempt to take back funds granted by FTX? e.g., by John J Ray III reclaiming funds through the terms of an original grant agreement

Ok, sorry, after rereading I think I understand that you intended to include the case of individuals getting a grant directly from an FTX-related entity, and also including the case where the non-FTX org regranted to an individual, but not including the case of an employee of a non-FTX org.

I'm still not entirely clear on this. To clarify, of these two cases:

Which of these cases is included in the question? I think your response above suggests B?

Note that this is specifically about grants that came from the bankrupt entities, which notably does NOT include FTX Foundation. However, not all grants were paid out from the foundation (according to a comment on the above post).

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/o8B9kCkwteSqZg9zc/thoughts-on-legal-concerns-surrounding-the-ftx-situation

 it appears that transactions that occurred in the last 90 days before the bankruptcy filing are typically subject to clawback (these are called "preference claims"). However, there are many reasons such a claim might not succeed (see the comments).

Nothing I've read indicates any difference in treatment between organizations and individuals.

Is there precedent for this happening (or not happening)? Best way to predict this is to find some base rates.

The intent is to talk about individuals who got grant funding, including by way of an org, and are now worried that the money they already received will be subject to legal action.  An employee of an org that got the grant funding, who opens a letter addressed to the org, is not an intended subject of the question.

To clarify, "individual workers" includes individuals who received grants and not just employees of grantees?

 I intended letter from creditors to be included as a yes, so I updated the description. Thanks for catching that! 

Pinned this to the homepage and added a little liquidity

Actually scratch part of that, Spencer's version is stricter than just a demand letter because it restricts it to a letter from a court (implying at least a motion) or from an FTX entity (which won't happen unless compelled by a court). In particular it excludes demand letters coming from FTX's creditors.

Spencer's version of the market is about demand letters (which may not proceed as far as a court case)

Nathan's version of the market is about account freezing (which would require a court case and would certainly imply demand letters were sent), but freezes could be temporary if a court later decides the funds can't be taken.

Eliezer's version of the market is about funds being actual taken (or tied up in litigation past the end of 2026), which implies the previous two.

Arb (with imperfectly matched resolution criteria) with:

https://manifold.markets/NathanpmYoung/will-there-be-more-than-5-accounts

https://manifold.markets/SpencerGreenberg/will-projects-which-received-grants

 Correct, I'm talking about going after individuals.

 including clawbacks of money that is currently held in the name of FTX Foundation or a similar grantmaking organization, which has not been transferred to any specific grantee. I expect clawbacks to be much more likely from bank accounts with "FTX" in the account name, regardless of theoretical corporate structure.)

Will >5% of an FTX grant be clawed back, from >2 individual workers, by end of 2026?

, 8k, beautiful, illustration, trending on art station, picture of the day, epic composition

Resolves YES if at the end of 2026, there was any successful or still-being-prosecuted attempt to claw back, from 

 2 individual recipients of an FTX-originating grant that went through a legal charity along the way, 

 5% of the money received; including but not limited to FTX Foundation, FTX Philanthropy, FTX Future Fund, "North Dimension" under Alameda, the FTX Future Fund regranting program, etcetera.

(This is intended to capture the spirit of "there were not just a couple of exceptional cases" and "there wasn't just a go-try-it letter with no chance of making it successfully through the legal system" and "they didn't just settle for 5%"; i.e., to measure the probability of a scenario that would pose strong danger to a lot of individual people who did work under FTX grants.  Resolves YES if there's a protracted battle still going on into 2027.)