If one of the main motivations for effective altruism is to challenge traditional, ineffective ways of doing things, such as bureaucracy, mismanagement, passivity, and established procedures, and to differentiate itself from the world of charity and its connection to the establishment, especially in societies like the UK, then traditional institutional experience by older persons won't be enough. I would argue that a better goal would be identifying what is not working and must be worked on  in relation to learning about and fighting fraud, including developing better tools to do so.

To truly go against the traditional ineffective way of doing things and create differentiation, effective altruism needs to prioritize developing new tools and approaches for addressing issues like charity fraud. This could include using coordination technologies, artificial intelligence, and knowledge networks to identify and review potential frauds, as well as working on building a community of expertsand an academic network who can help develop and implement these solutions. By focusing on innovation and tackling these challenges head-on, effective altruism can continue to set itself apart and make a real impact.

For those who care about scalable effective altruism, it's surprising that there aren't more proposals for using coordination technologies, AI, and knowledge networks to rate and review potential charity frauds.

 While it's important to warn about the risks of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, we also need to prevent future scams in other forms. Even if we believe that web3, defi, and other emerging technologies aren't just iterations of the same scam, we should at least agree that there are no effective tools for identifying which projects have real open-source activity, privacy policies, links with reputable networks, whistleblower protections, and other features that could be used to measure and identify weaknesses that lead to fraud. Ignoring this issue and prioritizing the promise of fast riches for fast altruism will only lead to repeating the same historical mistakes. However, such an AI would probably not rank EA organizations highly either.

You mean something like this ? https://www.carnegie.org/about/governance-and-policies/

I feel like Effective Ventures, the parent organization here, lacks this and more. One does not know if it has a startup feeling and they have not yet gotten to the point of giving clarity on these things, or if the lack of clarity is part and parcel. 

Perhaps it is more like saying that the Sugar Appreciation Society tends to have a certain blindness to 1. the effects of sugar (which in extreme cases may cause blindness) 2. the effects of appreciation or fanaticism  or sweetness as a fetish or as a means of persuasion into a cause 3. The complex origins and history of sugar and its links to empire and exploitation. 

But it is hard to not like SAS. As a non-SAS I am in awe of what has been built and discussed, and even of the openness that does exist which is greater than in other societies, and I am at fault for pointing towards its closedness when I am new, and prefer not to be as open about my love of sugar but engage in it perhaps less conciously than I would like, and also must acknowledge that sugar is everywhere. 

But if SAS looks at itself in the mirror it wants to see only a sweet image. It that image changes, as it must, into a saltier or spicier one as it may as it engages with other perspectives, SAS may become unrecognizable, and may fear that, as one fears a ghost ?

You are my first reply in this forum, friendly and thorough as one would desire, as I have come in a bad time or a time of need and suffering for a group that seems to know and care about these things, doctor.

I address you by your title as I would like to offer a reflection on someone who also carries titles: vice admiral sir Francis Drake.  The difference a title makes! And their role in disguising the truth of piracy, of slavery, of pillage and plundering! But perhaps more interesting, what some call 'different perspectives of history' but in reality may be  a whitewashing and rationalization that was fundamental to the creation of the british empire, that passed through much charity and justified as regulations not having been defined at the time. 

Any crypto enterprise is closer to privateering than to a Ponzi scheme, which in any case is only concensually defined as such postfacto. Privateering, which is less discussed, is a breaking things to go fast approach, fast before regulations catch up as they have anticipated from the very beginning, a quasi anarchic and ambitious career making project that ultimately wants to be in good society, pretend the good, but will never shed its links to piracy. 

Philosophers have perhaps struggled with these impossible questions before,

https://brill.com/view/journals/rip/26/1/article-p25_2.xml?language=en

-- being new here, I have the feeling that for all of its love of applied utilitarian philosophy, this community is dissapointing in its lack of openness to other philosophical readings.

I understand that due to the recency and impact of events there is a work of mourning happening in this forum, and proposing healthy paths for this , if possible,  is important to those who have belonged and formed affinities and conversations. The trajectory change has already happened, it just may not be recognizable yet. 

Please someone explain to me, how the information publicly available years ago did not clearly indicate this was a fraud risk , as before starting FTX SBF engaged in the Kimchi Premium, or arbitrage on South Korean and perhaps Japanese exchanges ? South Korean authorities may have a word to say about that, considering that such arbitrage was as illegal then as it is now, and SBF used a EA cutout to carry it out. 

How did the Goodwill MacAskill says existed with SBF originate, and what was the  breaking point and limits defined? There is much more explaining to do here than pointing out at passages of your recent book I am afraid. 

If this forum too survives longterm, Sara's idea to sort commentary by controversiality, or a sort of red-teaming seach engine sounds like something I would love to test out, even beyond the confines here, and a very necessary innovation for a heterodox community.  Especially  one that would want to avoid self-censoring at certain moments even if not all the time, and where interesting voices like SaraAzubuike or even anonymous ones can be heard, at least for now.

1. Anonymity and pseudonimity may be more common around here than one would initially suppose. Even that Voldemort fellow or the other billionaire founders may occasionally express their views around here, as too may a mosquito net recipient such as myself.
2. It is unclear to me that when controversy hits an effective entity it should be perturbed as much as I observe it to be. Perhaps we mosquito net recipients should make our voices heard louder as  money seems to have been flowing mostly endogamously very effectively.

Clawback suits. FTX cannot declare chapter 11 because of these. Dealing in unregistered securities is unprotected by the FDIC but also subject to very strong anti-Ponzi laws. Binance is covering up, not buying.