It would be great to have more people involved in estimating the probability that FTX Future Fund grants end up getting clawed back (i.e., that projects that received such grants are asked to give the money back). This is a very important question for grant recipients right now, with a lot of murkiness around it - your forecasting help is appreciated!

If you have an opinion on the topic, would like to help make the forecasts more accurate, or are just interested in the question, here are three forecasting tournament pages related to the question:


New Comment
6 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 7:10 PM

Is there a prediction about all clawbacks being covered by someone else, to mitigate the damage? My guess would be close to 90%.

As a grantee, I'd be very interested in hearing what informs your estimate, if you feel comfortable sharing.

I don't have any special insights. But I would assume that the total amount of undistributed grants is not huge, and there are EA-adjacent funding orgs that have funds available. Using previously selected now-unfunded grantees saves them the work of identifying promising projects. Plus it limits the fallout from the current FTX debacle. Win/win.

Clawbacks refer to grants that have already been distributed but would need to be returned. You seem to be thinking of grants that haven't been distributed yet. I hope both get resolved but they would require different solutions. The post above is only about clawbacks though.

Good point. I meant both, since the same logic applies

Could you also post some case law or analysis of such clawbacks for those unfamiliar with the legal terrain?

New to LessWrong?