I'm sorry but these two points are extremely disconnected. EA really has no bearing on the financial mechanisms that undid SBF. Furthermore, although he was a prime donor to EA, I don't think his involvement with it necessarily discredits them.
This is the world EAs want - the one they’ve been advocating for a long time.
It’s just in this iteration it failed. If the chance of success was higher than X% vs the risk of failing, it was all worth it. That’s the kind of morally bankrupt philosophy EA pushes.
It had bearing on the ethical/moral decisions he has been making. EA has allowed him to justify doing blatantly illegal acts.
No wonder SBF went hard into the social capital accumulation game almost immediately, buying off politicians and grandiose charitywashing gestures. His window to establish a network of elite string pullers was short and closing fast.