Thanks for the thoughtful and informative post. Your decision strikes me as a mix of good, bad, and, well, I’m not too sure.

The good: It’s great to hear that OP has confidence in novel, high-leverage global health and wellbeing (GHW) opportunities with such significant upside. GiveWell is an incredible, safe sponge for GHW funding and it’s exciting to hear about projects that, at least on some axis, are even better.

The bad (the unfortunate): Less funding is available in the aggregate.

Not too sure: I’m uncertain about rebalancing toward the global catastrophic risks (GCR) portfolio. The post explains that an increase in GCR funding opportunities has contributed to that shift. Given that, was the rebalancing “waiting” on those opportunities to arise or did OP change its relative prioritization between GHW and GCR? If further GCR opportunities emerge, would OP expect to allocate an even greater proportion of its funding to the GCR portfolio?

Thanks. There is a lot of good advice in this post, and I appreciate it.

One thing I have tried to keep in mind is that EA is a bunch of different things. It refers to abstract principles, to concrete ideas, and to specific actions; to a broad community, to particular institutions, and to individual people. 

What the "FTX situation"  means for EA  varies across that landscape. I don't think any differently about Famine, Affluence, and Morality or the importance of funding projects focused on the future.  I do think differently about  the FTX Future Fund and how affluent donors affect moral & epistemic clarity.

That framing has helped me to make sense, at least in part, of many of the contradictory emotions and reactions of the past ~10 days.