Just a note to acknowledge that market participants are taking a risk on my judgement re: this resolution. It is subjective, and 20 years from now you may be unhappy with whatever I decide.

It seems appropriate for highly subjective markets like these to be duplicated with different judges for each, so if you feel like you inhabit a different worldview than me, you may be able to add value by duplicating the market and offering a competing position of "judge" that traders might prefer.

Is this question about the sentiment or the first derivative of the sentiment? How does it resolve if sentiment becomes less negative over time, but remains negative?

@StevenK former. if still negative, then resolves No. EAs would have to view positively, not "less negatively"

I think the market is massively underestimating how much people change and how much people can forgive in 18 years.

Everyone wants to believe the genius with demon-tier physiognomy just screwed up.

Accidentally left all the assets with his hedge fund, accidentally vastly outspent profits and ate into user funds, accidentally had worse security than the average ledger owner.

That’s not quite how intent works—criminally or perceptually; every dollar deposited was gained via fraudulent misrepresentation (even the daytime journalists understand this)

How is the “he just ran hedge fund bad” “run on bank” and now “just bad at CEOing” crowd still willfully blind to basic facts.

Siphoning user funds to prop up your side business is a crime. And not one of “oh did too many uppers wasn’t paying attention” but deliberate evil intent.

(do not be a quokka)

@Gigacasting this mentality seems like it would similarly bias in the direction of being too cynical. Maybe a healthy middle ground?

P('He does things that signal he has learned that fraud is bad.') * p('EA people belief him')

Are there any examples of popular fraudsters being recognized as such and then public opinion rowing back? What credible thing could he do to get back the trust he lost?

@Tassilo I think most of the YES probability mass is coming from EA shifting to place less weight on ethical injunctions like "don't commit fraud", and believe that SBF's choices were positive expected value at the time they were made.

@IsaacKing i disagree. SBF is already remorseful to some degree. I think Yes probability depends more on whether he continues to credibly signal that & to what degree EA is able to forgive.

@CarsonGale I think it's also possible (maybe not likely) that SBF is not ultimately understood to have committed fraud, but was instead just a really bad CEO of an exchange. In the long run, that is much easier to forgive than deliberate/ incidental fraud

@CarsonGale Is he? His communications have been inconsistent and confusing. He claims remorse, but I don't think he's signaling it in any believable way. At this point I match his behavior most closely to "internet troll".

@IsaacKing maybe you heard something that I still haven't heard?

On the Twitter spaces where I've heard him at least, he was certainly remorseful. But it's also hard to tell in that format.

1) What

2) H

3) Etc.

doesn't look like remorse to me.

@IsaacKing i agree that particular thread did not feel remorseful

Sentiment towards him/his actions in 2022 or towards him in 2040? i.e. if people like him in 2040 but continue to think that FTX was bad does this resolve YES?

@vluzko yes that is right

From evil criminal to recovering drug addict,

Or from malevolent fraudster to confused acolyte of toxic ideas like act utilitarianism

@Gigacasting The intent of the question was moreso regarding the possibility that SBF sufficiently "atones" for his actions, such that EAs view him positively in spite of his misdeeds.