@traders noticed this market has received an unexpected uptick in traffic recently, was it reposted by a famous user or linked on another site as far as anyone knows?

I'd note that "negative effect on donations" is hard to track, as small donors make up an unusually small amount of EA funding, and aren't well tracked (often aren't disclosed by nonprofits).

@OzzieGooen Don't most EA orgs publish financial reports? Presumably the decreased funding due to PR will be inferable from the overall decrease minus that known to be due to e.g. funding bodies like FTX ceasing to exist?

@TheAllMemeingEye Most do, but we might be talking about 50+ orgs, and the financial reports aren't trivial to read.

@OzzieGooen do you think it would be fairer for me to resolve NO or n/a in the event that a scandal of significant size does occur, but nobody else has made a reputable article/blog/forum post showing greater negative effect on donations / public approval, and I find that the financial reports are too confusing to do it myself?

@TheAllMemeingEye I think n/a would be better / more expected. (Happy to also get others takes here!)

Else, I'd assume no was pretty likely, because of this.

@OzzieGooen fair enough, thanks :)

"numerically shows that a scandal had a greater negative effect on donations
-> Does this include the fact the fall of FTX directly led to FTX stopping their donations to EA orgs? This was a lot of money, would be very difficult to out-do.

@OzzieGooen good point! In this case I'm focusing on the PR effects of the scandal, so not the lack of ftx funding itself

I have to say, the current predicted yearly rate (45%) is pretty damn problematic for the movement to continue existing at all long term, which is a shame :(

@TheAllMemeingEye luckily it seems to have fallen a lot since I last checked, so maybe there's hope :)