Resolves YES if a reputable article/blog/forum post etc. numerically shows that a scandal had a greater negative effect on donations and/or public approval than the FTX crash. Resolves to 50% if it's equally bad. Resolves NO otherwise.
Potential half-baked spit-balling worst case scenarios I'm low-key worried about:
Nick Bostrom publicly endorses eugenics and scientific racism
Peter Singer publicly endorses legalization of bestiality
Any major EA figure is outed and convicted as a serial pedophile
A major world leader or popular celebrity publicly and extensively condemns the EA movement for misrepresentative strawmannish reasons
CEA is revealed to have embezzled billions of donor funds on stereotypical wasteful opulent luxury
Feel free to comment your own scenarios
@traders noticed this market has received an unexpected uptick in traffic recently, was it reposted by a famous user or linked on another site as far as anyone knows?
@OzzieGooen Don't most EA orgs publish financial reports? Presumably the decreased funding due to PR will be inferable from the overall decrease minus that known to be due to e.g. funding bodies like FTX ceasing to exist?
@TheAllMemeingEye Most do, but we might be talking about 50+ orgs, and the financial reports aren't trivial to read.
@OzzieGooen do you think it would be fairer for me to resolve NO or n/a in the event that a scandal of significant size does occur, but nobody else has made a reputable article/blog/forum post showing greater negative effect on donations / public approval, and I find that the financial reports are too confusing to do it myself?
@TheAllMemeingEye I think n/a would be better / more expected. (Happy to also get others takes here!)
Else, I'd assume no
was pretty likely, because of this.
@OzzieGooen good point! In this case I'm focusing on the PR effects of the scandal, so not the lack of ftx funding itself
@TheAllMemeingEye luckily it seems to have fallen a lot since I last checked, so maybe there's hope :)