I think the lesson EA leaders are likely to take away from the FTX scandal is that they need to value consensus decisionmaking more highly. Discussions are already happening regarding establishing new accountability practices and reporting; on the whole I think this will cause EA organizations to be more cautious around funding and public image, and more determined to keep decisions about both in the hands of EA leadership.

I have a negative view of this outcome, see my comment here: https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/at-the-end-of-2023-will-people-in-e#rzrG9lV6DvW9YyyPpDve

Resolves based on my subjective judgment, establish another market if you want more objective resolution criteria. Some ways this could get closer to being operationalized (maybe these deserve their own markets):

• There exists a general mood within EA that public perception of EA is precarious and must be safeguarded.

• Major funders are asked not to use or reference EA branding if they diverge from CEA-approved grantmaking practices.

• Organizations receiving EA funding in 2023 say they are asked to comply with more stringent reporting requirements.

• The grantmaking long tail gets pulled in; fewer moonshots with potential publicity consequences are funded.

• EA grantees are given more restrictions on public relations. Not sure how I will find this out; when I got such guidance as a grantee last year, it was done privately and I was asked to keep the specific contents of that guidance private.

• Moderation on EA forum increases.

• More EA leaders receive media training, and norms evolve to discourage speaking about EA publicly without such training.

• There are fewer EA spokespeople, and they all say more similar things than in 2022.

I recognize that most likely EA will get more centralized in some ways and less in others; it's possible that I reach a different overall conclusion than you by weighing different pieces of evidence differently than you. (Get the hell out of here, Aumann!)