Manifund has disclosed that former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison joined the organization after initially working under the pseudonym “Carol.” The announcement, published on September 11, revealed her identity but did not mark the date of her hiring.

According to Manifund’s announcement, Ellison began a work trial on July 13 and accepted a full-time position on August 10. During that period, she published work and supported users as “Carol.” Her responsibilities include developing the funding platform, handling operations and customer support, and researching how philanthropic funding should be directed.

Manifund Is Not a Return to the Crypto Industry

Ellison has not returned to a cryptocurrency exchange, trading firm or custody business. Manifund is a 501(c)(3) charity that hosts public grant proposals, fundraising and regranting programmes. The organization’s website lists 486 funded projects, $17.2 million directed to projects and $5.46 million distributed through regrantors.

The organization nevertheless has a connection to FTX. Manifund co-founder Austin Chen wrote that the FTX Future Fund provided seed funding to Manifold and influenced the philanthropic model that Manifund later adopted. That history helps explain why an FTX-related hire matters to Manifund’s donors and grant recipients, even though the organization is not a crypto platform.

Reconciliation Tool Found Errors but Does Not Establish Access Controls

Manifund said Ellison built a reconciliation tool that identified several incorrectly registered transactions in the five- to six-figure range. If the errors were identified and corrected as described, the tool could improve the accuracy of the organization’s records.

However, identifying an incorrect record is different from preventing an unauthorized payment before it occurs. Manifund’s announcement does not describe the platform’s approval structure or Ellison’s access to payment systems. As a result, the available public information does not allow readers to assess those controls.

Transparency Does Not by Itself Demonstrate Financial Separation

Manifund describes itself as unusually transparent, saying that its grant proposals, evaluations, finances, source code and meeting notes are public. The company acknowledged that using a pseudonym for Ellison represented a compromise on that principle, although Chen said he continued to support the decision.

Public proposals and source code make some parts of Manifund easier to inspect. They do not, by themselves, show how the charity separates payment authority, record-keeping and independent review.

Those role boundaries are particularly relevant for a small team because fewer people may be involved in approving, recording and reviewing the same transaction. A September 3 Manifund hiring post described the team as “2ish FTE” and listed grant payouts, incoming donations, bookkeeping and work with auditors among its operations and finance tasks.

Ellison’s FTX Record Makes the Role Material

Ellison pleaded guilty in 2022 to fraud, conspiracy and money-laundering-related charges connected to FTX and Alameda Research. The U.S. Department of Justice said she admitted her role in schemes that defrauded FTX customers and investors before cooperating with prosecutors.

Her guilty plea and cooperation explain why her identity is material to donors and grant recipients. Manifund’s announcement acknowledges that concern, but does not specify how the organization has divided operational and financial responsibilities since hiring her.

Coindoo’s earlier overview of the FTX case describes the different outcomes for the executives involved. That legal history provides context for scrutiny, but it does not establish how Manifund operates today.

Further Disclosure Could Focus on Operations

Manifund has identified Ellison and explained why it initially used a pseudonym. The organization could address remaining questions by explaining whether significant payouts require more than one approval, who can modify financial records and how reconciliation work is independently reviewed.

Those details would give donors and grant recipients a clearer basis for evaluating the platform’s safeguards than a general statement about transparency.