1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ923 | |
| 2 | Ṁ406 | |
| 3 | Ṁ245 | |
| 4 | Ṁ162 | |
| 5 | Ṁ149 |
People are also trading
I know the market is already resolved but the best possible example has come out:
FTX’s Collapse Casts a Pall on ‘Effective Altruism’ Movement - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
@WieDan And here's another one. From a biased source, but still:
https://nypost.com/2022/11/14/sam-bankman-fried-broke-crypto-bank-for-dems/
“He was the most famous millennial adherent of a cult known as “Effective Altruism,” which originated at Oxford University, found fertile ground in Silicon Valley — and now has gone down in flames along with him.”
EA is a disguised form of socialism, because all the “good” that is done just happens to match up perfectly with the left’s obsessions, whether climate change, social justice, equity, banning meat or his favorite, “pandemic preparedness.”
LMAO
It’s cute all the “the EAs I know don’t think this is a big deal”
Hint: the sign you’re in the cult is any challenges to it just make it all the more robust and important to you personally.
—
“So for clarity, examples of what counts and would lead me to resolve the market as YES:
- An EA organization or EA public figure is credibly accused of serious misconduct, and this story plays out in a mainstream media outlet.”
—
Somehow most of EA’s money coming from someone who stole billions of dollars to “steal to give” just isn’t a big deal 🤔
And the “only people” making fun of EA are people who are already skeptical or who don’t know what it is (hint: that’s literally everyone who’s not in the club)
@Gigacasting What do you mean? If you read the ea forum, every very upvoted post is about how big a deal this is and how dire the situation is
@Gigacasting fwiw, EAs i know, and also all the EAs i don't know but am only seeing on twitter and the forum, think this is a fucking massive deal.
@NicoDelon For me, i will consider it a YES when when discussing about EA (to non EA friend) they mention SBF and his blunder (or other reporting similar experiences)
@NicoDelon Maybe. My internal experience is that I've always interpreted the question as how it reflects on EA, and everything I'm hearing so far from non-EA people is how bad cryptobro are. So far, no one in my bubble who's heard of SBF through a mean other than EA knew he was connected to it
@JoyVoid So like, i feel that it resolving yes now would be improperly resolved. So far it seems very internal still, with respect to ea
For the record though, i expect it to blow up soon
@NicoDelon If you have any examples that criticize ea directly, using SBF as an example, as opposed to criticizing SBF and mentioning he is related to EA in passing, then I'd gladly read them
@JoyVoid Another ad hoc distinction. People have already posted many links demonstrating an association between the two.
@NicoDelon Look, you can enjoy being right and how stupid i am, and in this case it does not make sense for you to continue this conversation since I'll stay stupid anyway, or we can try to work together assuming good faith
I did read all the links here, unless i missed any or did not get them the same way you did, and so far none of them fall under what I meant. They establish a link between SBF and EA, but not to criticize EA itself. I have not seen a criticism of EA based on what has happened, only criticism of cryptobros and sbf. That is to say, ea was only mentioned either to say sbf was a huge donor to it, or to explain what it is
Again, i do think this is only a matter of time
@NicoDelon I agree with Joy. I think it's a hundred percent plausible that this is the direction things go, and in a few month's time EAs will wish they didn't have to explain what the acronym stands for, but I don't see it yet.
On Twitter I see:
-EAs having a really bad day.
-People who criticize EA constantly acting like Christmas came early.
-People who saw first the term "effective altruist" in a news article about SBF five minutes ago and are using it to grandstand about fake do-gooders.
@MichaelWheatley Thanks for sharing this, i did not have an experience with the third one and that makes me update quite a lot (if you have an example tweet to see the rethoric better I'd be interested). I predict based off this that there will probably be a hit piece like the NY article about Scott or the beigeness one in a week (two tops)
To rephrase my point, i guess that what I mean to say is that for me the market (or at least the question I'm personally interested in) was about the reputational cost EA will endure and how significant it will be
@JoyVoid People like that he called himself an "altruist" because it provides dramatic irony and it gives them a chance to condemn hypocrisy.
@JoyVoid I didn’t call you any of those things. I just think commenters are shifting the goalposts.
@MichaelWheatley What you and I are seeing on Twitter is, to me, exactly what the market is about. If there’s nothing in the spirit in the press yet there’ll be soon enough.
TBC I don’t think the backlash against EA is warranted. It’s just absolutely clear that right now the reputation of EA is taking a hit because of the actions of one its prominent members.
@JoyVoid checked through the links; out of all of them, i think the Vice article absolutely counts as an accusation of misconduct playing out in a mainstream outlet. what abt that article would make you think resolution is premature at this point?
(and as for your prediction, i just got word of two different articles about this clusterfuck that are in progress, in way more prestigious/widespread outlets than Vice. feels weird to be sitting on obvious imminent market resolution!)
@GavrielK Thanks for your comment!
> Sometimes [Effective Altruism] means convincing college students to become investment bankers so they can maximize their charitable contributions. Other times that might mean dismissing the need to prioritize addressing climate change because that it won’t be as destructive as an asteroid one day hitting Earth. For Bankman-Fried, that may have meant creating a cryptocurrency exchange that could make as much money as is humanly possible, even if it meant intertwining it with another trading firm in a precarious symbiotic union that has now resulted in disaster.
Yeah no, okay, that definitely counts, should have remarked the quotes around "effective altruism" and 'giving "effectively"' as a dead giveaway. Thanks!
(And yes, even if it weren't, it would very much resolve YES soon, that I completely agree with)