Hide table of contents

The FTX Foundation's Future Fund is a philanthropic fund making grants and investments to ambitious projects in order to improve humanity's long-term prospects.

Our regranting program will offer discretionary budgets to independent part-time grantmakers, to be spent in the next ~6 months. Budgets will typically be in the $250k-few million range. We've already invited a first cohort of 21 regrantors to test the program.

Large funders aren’t always aware of the best opportunities. We want to try a decentralized approach. We hope to empower a range of interesting, ambitious, and altruistic people to drive funding decisions through a rewarding, low-friction process. 

We are just getting started and we'd like to fund a lot of great projects. So our primary goal for 2022 is to perform bold tests of new approaches to scaling grantmaking. We very much consider this an experiment, and our goal is to decisively test whether this kind of program works. 

If successful, this program will help us identify great grants that we would have missed, help new people launch exciting projects, and find and empower people who could be strong grantmakers.

We're also aware that the program could cause various problems. We'll try to minimize these downsides by being thoughtful about who we select, providing relevant guidance, and carefully screening grant recommendations for downside risks and conflicts of interest.

We’re so excited to see what regrantors come up with!

Become a regrantor 

We’re planning to invite additional regrantors to join the program in a month or so. Some of these will come from our existing networks, but we’re also opening up a public process to be considered as a regrantor. 

If you’re interested, please fill these out as soon as possible; we’re reviewing materials on a rolling basis. 

About the role

Regrantors will be assigned a discretionary budget, from which they can make grant recommendations. These will be screened primarily for downside risk, conflicts of interest, and consistency with our charitable mission and tax-exempt status. An exception is that we are less likely to approve funding for orgs that are already standard targets for EA funders, because we mainly want to fund new things.

The regranting pot expires after 6 months. Regrantors will be compensated for their work based on the quality and volume of their grantmaking.

The role is extremely independent. While we'll provide some documents with basic guidance, regrantors are expected to come up with all of their own ideas for the grants they recommend, do all the necessary communication with grantees, and ensure the quality of their own work. Once the grant recommendation is reviewed and approved, we'll take care of the grantee getting the money—but that's all we're planning to provide for this program.

While we will fund their grants, regrantors will not be Future Fund/FTX Foundation employees or be authorized to speak for the Future Fund/FTX Foundation.

What we’re looking for

We're looking for people who have great grant ideas that we're likely to miss. 

We’ll also lean towards giving this opportunity to people who don’t already have easy access to funds, and those for whom it might make a valuable learning experience. (The regrantors we invite won’t just be a “who’s who” of EA—we expect that many of the effective altruists we most admire will receive no regranting pot at all.)

We think excellent regrantors will:

  • Have expertise related to our areas of interest and project ideas.
  • Have good judgment about people and projects.
  • Leverage their diverse networks.
  • Be proactive and have an entrepreneurial drive. We think the best grants will require actively going out and helping things get started, or finding new people.
  • Experiment with new things, to teach us about new approaches to grantmaking or areas we aren't familiar with.

In addition, we ask that regrantors:

  • Communicate professionally.
  • Create a good experience for grantees and potential grantees.
  • Be sensitive to the effects their funding has on the ecosystems they work in.

Types of grants we’re especially interested in:

  • Incubating new projects. We’d love to see regrantors help seed new projects. We’re especially interested in new projects that could eventually scale up dramatically. (Read more about our vision for massively scalable projects here.)
  • Bringing in new people. We’re keen on regrantors finding talented people, who they believe have promise for making an effective contribution, and helping them get started.
  • New approaches. We’re interested in getting our feet wet on new types of projects even if they haven’t received much longtermist attention so far.
  • Local knowledge. Are there easy opportunities to support the work of people in the regrantor’s network? Is there a specific, tractable subproblem in the regrantor’s field, for which they could announce a big prize?

We’re happy to answer questions, though it might take us a few days to respond due to other programs and content we're launching right now.

We look forward to hearing from you!



 



 







 

Comments11


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Cool program! One question on this:

We've already invited a first cohort of 21 regrantors to test the program.

Will you be announcing who these regrantors are, and when will that happen if so?

Thanks! We are not planning to publish the list of regrantors for now.

I'd be very interested  in joining as a regranter, though it may make sense to wait a few years, by which point I will have donated most of my crypto pool and gained a bunch of experience. You can see my current strategy at Being an individual alignment grantmaker.

Edit: Does screening for conflicts of interest mean not allowing regranters to grant to people they know? If yes, I can see the reasoning, but if I was operating under this rule it would have blocked several of my most promising grants, which I found through personal connections. I would propose having these grants marked clearly and the regranter's reputation being more strongly staked on those grants going well, rather than outright banning them.

Edit2: Will there be a network for regranters (e.g. Discord, Slack), and would it be possible for me to join as an independent grantmaker to share knowledge and best practices? Or maybe I should just apply now as I'm keen to learn, just not confident I am ready to direct $250k+/year.

You are welcome to apply now!

Regrantors are able to make grants to people they know (in fact, having a diverse network is part of what makes for an effective regrantor); they just have to disclose if there's a conflict of interest, and we may reject a grant if we don't feel comfortable with it on those grounds. 

We don't currently have a network for regrantors that is open for external people to join.

This is very exciting!

For those interested in applying to to become a regrantor, is there a deadline? And even if there's no hard deadline, is there a time that would be useful to apply by?

We’re planning to invite additional regrantors by the end of this month or so. We are evaluating regrantor expressions of interest/referrals for regrantors on a rolling basis, so please send these in as soon as possible.

Good to know, thanks!

Is there compensation for the regrantors?

Yes: "Regrantors will be compensated for their work based on the quality and volume of their grantmaking."

Is this program completely done / finished now?

As in, are regrantors no longer able to make grants?

Is it appropriate for people seeking funding to seek out regrantors in order to submit proposals to them? 

Given that you aren't willing to publish the list of regrantors, this makes me suspect the answer is "no".

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Ronen Bar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
"Part one of our challenge is to solve the technical alignment problem, and that’s what everybody focuses on, but part two is: to whose values do you align the system once you’re capable of doing that, and that may turn out to be an even harder problem", Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO (Link).  In this post, I argue that: 1. "To whose values do you align the system" is a critically neglected space I termed “Moral Alignment.” Only a few organizations work for non-humans in this field, with a total budget of 4-5 million USD (not accounting for academic work). The scale of this space couldn’t be any bigger - the intersection between the most revolutionary technology ever and all sentient beings. While tractability remains uncertain, there is some promising positive evidence (See “The Tractability Open Question” section). 2. Given the first point, our movement must attract more resources, talent, and funding to address it. The goal is to value align AI with caring about all sentient beings: humans, animals, and potential future digital minds. In other words, I argue we should invest much more in promoting a sentient-centric AI. The problem What is Moral Alignment? AI alignment focuses on ensuring AI systems act according to human intentions, emphasizing controllability and corrigibility (adaptability to changing human preferences). However, traditional alignment often ignores the ethical implications for all sentient beings. Moral Alignment, as part of the broader AI alignment and AI safety spaces, is a field focused on the values we aim to instill in AI. I argue that our goal should be to ensure AI is a positive force for all sentient beings. Currently, as far as I know, no overarching organization, terms, or community unifies Moral Alignment (MA) as a field with a clear umbrella identity. While specific groups focus individually on animals, humans, or digital minds, such as AI for Animals, which does excellent community-building work around AI and animal welfare while