Resolves very subjectively, I'm not even going to bother to try to define this exhaustivly. Feel free to ask about hypothetical scenarios and I'll answer how I'd judge them. I'll add clarifications to this description as they're worked out.
"A leader in EA" refers to anyone who has significant influence/social status within the EA community or has the power to move large quantities of EA-allocated funds. Heads of EA organizations, writers of EA-aligned books, grantmakers, etc. I'll be fairly liberal with this definition; I'll lean towards more people being "leaders" rather than fewer. (It does not include SBF or anyone else who could be considered FTX/Alameda leadership.)
The "unethical behavior" in question must have been related to fraudulent investiment strategies that involve spending other people's money without their permission. If SBF engaged in unrelated unethical behavior, such as walking past a child drowning in a pond or illegally harvesting organs, that doesn't count for this market.
"Cover up" refers to knowing about the unethical behavior and chosing to keep that knowledge private. There doesn't have to have been any particular action taken; inaction is morally equivalent to action, after all. Some clarifications:
The EA leader in question must have assigned a decent probability to fraud/theft occurring. It it seems that they had enough evidence to conclude there was fraud happening, but naivety/motiviated reasoning prevented them from realizing it, that does not count as a "cover up". (I won't be too generous with this; if it seems like any reasonable person would have known, yet they still profess innocence, I'll count that as a cover-up.)
If they were afraid of retaliation and didn't publicize their concerns out of fear for themselves, that still counts as a cover-up. Any charitable organization where whisleblowers are discouraged that strongly has a serious problem.
If they only found out about the fraud after signing an NDA and couldn't legally say anything about it, that does not count as a cover-up on their part. (It would certainly be a cover-up from FTX, but we already know that happened.) After all, the whole point of this scandal is that we don't want EAs breaking laws just to do what they personally think is right.
If actions were taken to maintain plausible deniability, or it otherwise seems like they were trying to "avoid finding out" about the fraud, that still counts as a cover up. Bayes cannot be fooled by such games.
Market resolves YES if at least one EA leader satisfies these criteria. Multiple "leaders" is not a necessity.
I will not be placing any trades in this market. I will discuss my intended resolution with the community here before actually resolving it, to ensure people feel my resolution is reasonable.
If anyone wants to submit information completely anonymously, you can do so here.
🏅 Top traders
# | Name | Total profit |
---|---|---|
1 | Ṁ5,922 | |
2 | Ṁ2,583 | |
3 | Ṁ1,928 | |
4 | Ṁ1,505 | |
5 | Ṁ1,052 |