The movement has not imploded with Mr Bankman-Fried. The Centre for Effective Altruism (cea), a think-tank, runs conferences and online forums that still buzz with chatter. 80,000 Hours, a recruitment website run by the cea recommending “high-impact” careers, has not seen visitor numbers drop. Devotees remain devoted. In a large survey by Rethink Priorities, a research group, at the end of 2022, 84% said they are still likely to be involved in the movement in three years’ time. Many said they thought the community’s leaders had responded well to the scandal.

Second, it has always relied on a few big financial backers. According to rough estimates on the 80,000 hours blog, over one-third of the hypothetical $46bn committed in 2021 was down to Mr Bankman-Fried and his team at ftx. Almost half was attributable to Mr Moskovitz, who is now playing an even bigger role.

There is a third thing, too. There are broader divisions about strategy, with some supporters determined to focus on improving lives today, while others are looking more at the long term and arguing for putting money into tackling far-flung risks. Even the most devoted eas recognise the limits of data. “In a math problem you can see whether or not the answer is right,” acknowledges Elie Hassenfeld, co-founder of GiveWell. “In what we’re doing, some of it is quantification but a lot of it is judgment.”

It is not clear yet whether the movement will continue to grow or fade into insignificance. Perhaps its biggest contribution might be its adherents’ willingness to ask big questions and challenge conventional approaches. That is exactly what the giving industry needs