Will substantial evidence emerge by end of 2025 showing FTX Future Fund team had strong suspicions of fraud?

[MANIFOLD](https://manifold.markets/) Sign up

Back

Open options

Will substantial evidence emerge by 2025 that the FTX Future Fund team had strong suspicions of fraudulent activities at FTX before November 2022?

![EgeErdil avatar](https://manifold.markets/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fa-%2FAOh14Gg3RTsR032iovwh3hpTS0K91W0_nweu1U2MXp6a%3Ds96-c&w=48&q=75)
[Ege Erdil](https://manifold.markets/EgeErdil)

2

100
Ṁ2.6kṀ150k

resolved Dec 31

Resolved

NO

1H

6H

1D

1W

1M

ALL

The FTX Future Fund team had five members: Nick Beckstead, Leopold Aschenbrenner, Avital Balwit, William MacAskill and Ketan Ramakrishnan. The question will resolve positively if substantial evidence emerges before start of year 2025 that at least one of these people subjectively placed the odds of substantial fraud at FTX or Alameda Research above 25% at any time before start of month November 2022. The question will resolve negatively otherwise.

Resolution is necessarily somewhat subjective here, so I'll try to give some concrete examples about what would or would not suffice for this question to resolve positively. You can request further clarifications in the comments as you please.

For the question to resolve positively, it's not required that these people expected something of the scale or severity of what actually happened: any suspicion that FTX was deploying customer assets in risky investments via Alameda despite their public commitment to not do so would suffice to resolve this market positively, as one example.

Suspicions that lack concrete details can be sufficient. For instance, if chat logs between two members of the Future Fund team were discovered that showed them discussing the possibility of fraud at FTX in a way that put serious credence on it, despite not having any specific details about the nature of the fraud, this question would resolve positively. If explicit probabilities are not directly specified in the available evidence, then I will rely on my best judgment to estimate some implied probability based on how seriously the possibility of fraud is being treated in the available evidence.

Note that positive resolution requires suspicion of fraud. If we discovered evidence that the Future Fund team had moral reservations about using a cryptocurrency exchange to fund EA causes, but had no actual suspicions of fraud, this would not be sufficient by itself to resolve this question positively.

If I believe that the members of the Future Fund team suspected fraudulent activities at FTX, but this belief is not supported by any material evidence accessible to the traders on this market, this question will resolve negatively despite my personal beliefs. The question is not about what I will think but about what concrete evidence will be discovered.

This question is managed and resolved by Manifold.

Market contextGenerate

[Whistleblower Markets](https://manifold.markets/topic/scandal-markets)

[FTX Insolvency Crisis](https:

... (truncated, 28 KB total)