This post[1] is intended as an open thread for anyone to share where you donated or plan to donate in 2022, and why

I encourage you to share regardless of how small or large a donation you’re making! And you shouldn’t feel obliged to share the amount that you’re donating.

You can share as much or as little detail as you want (anything from 1 sentence simply describing where you’re giving, to multiple pages explaining your decision process and key considerations).

And if you have thoughts or feedback on someone else’s donation plans, I’d encourage you to share that in a reply to their “answer”, unless the person indicated they don’t want that. (But remember to be respectful and kind while doing this! See also supportive scepticism.)

Why commenting on this post might be useful:

  • You might get useful feedback on your donation plan
  • Readers might form better donation plans by learning about donation options you're considering, seeing your reasoning, etc.
  • Commenting or reading might help you/other people become or stay inspired to give (and to give effectively)


As a final note: we’re enabling emoji reactions for this thread. 

  1. ^

    Adapted almost entirely from Where are you donating in 2020 and why?, with permission. 

New Answer
Ask Related Question
New Comment

38 Answers sorted by

I'm currently planning to keep powder mostly dry, in order to flexibly support professional contacts who might be affected by recent events. If this doesn't come to pass, I will shift donations to next year, when it will be more tax-efficient.

(In the background, my recurring GWWC trickle goes 35% to Wild Animal Initiative, Center on Long-Term Risk, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Charity Entrepreneurship, and 65% to various funds.)

Thanks for sharing, Joel!

That seems pretty reasonable. However, I wonder whether it would be better to donate e.g. to EA Funds, which could then support people affected by the FTX collapse who apply. 

EA Funds' decisions would arguably be less biased. On the other hand, one may well be more informed about their own professional contacts than EA Funds would be, and one would also save everyone's time.

I am confident that EA Funds is less biased and has managers with uniformly greater aptitude for grantmaking than me!

But I think that your opposing points are strong. Time costs for both EA Funds and grantees are especially high right now.  And, relatedly, local information might be more precious.

If the trade-off is indeed between better-judged grantmaking and lower time/stress costs to people affected by the collapse, then, in present circumstances, I'm happy to err towards the latter.

5Devon Fritz5d
I actually strongly disagree with this - I think too many people defer to the EA Funds on the margin. Don't get me wrong, I think they do great work, but if FTX showed us anything it is that EA needs MORE funding diversity and I think this often shakes out as lots of people making many different decisions on where to give, so that e.g. and org doesn't need to rely on its existence from whether or not its gets a grant from EA Funds/OP.
2Vasco Grilo4d
Hi Devon, Thanks for engaging! A priori, I think it makes sense to assume grantmakers from the EA Funds are better than me. I am open to the possibility of finding better opportunities than EA Funds, but guess it would take me too much time to be more effective than deferring to EA Funds. I also believe exceptions exist, as Joel pointed to above. However, I do agree there should be more efforts to assess past grants from EA Funds, as Nuño Sempere did here [] . I agree that, for the same amount of non-risk-adjusted funding, more funders will tend to increase risk-adjusted funding, which is good. However, it is arguably easier to increase non-risk-adjusted funding via large funders, since wealth is heavy-tailed. I do not know which consideration (and there are more) is stronger. "Lots of people making many different decisions on where to give" does not seem to have worked out perfectly in the outer world. I expect the median person aligned with effective altruism would make better decisions than the median citizen, but specialisation to still be good. So the median grantmaker of EA Funds is arguably better at grantmaking than the median person aligned with effective altruism. One compromise is having more grantmakers (currently one of 80,000 Hours' top carrer paths []).
3Devon Fritz4d
Hey Vasco, thanks for the well thought out response. I love the compromise - I think having more grantmakers (with different, but still strong EA perspectives) is a great way to go.

Cade Mataya

Nov 23, 2022


This is pretty basic, but a majority of my giving goes to GiveWell; I find that I unfortunately do not have enough time in a day to carefully plan where I want to give, so most of it ends up to GiveWell to use at their discretion. I also think it's important to give full-time experts that power as calculating the effectiveness of certain programs or inititatives is just impossibly difficult and I just don't understand the math well enough (yet) to claim to be in a strong position to make this decision. 

Through Giving What We Can, I give (in equal amounts) to: the Animal Welfare Fund, the Against Malaria Foundation, Evidence Action, and the Good Food Institute. 
For the Animal Welfare Fund, it is my reasoning that animal suffering makes up a disproportionately large amount of the world's suffering. It seems extremely cost-effective based on what I know to alleviate that suffering. It is very likely that I will donate any extra money that I come into this holiday season via odd jobs, gifts from family, or just excess in my budget to the Animal Welfare Fund.
The Against Malaria Foundation is GiveWell's #2-ranked charity right now, so I figured that I could further my impact in malaria prevention by donating some money here.
I care a lot about proper education for a lot of reasons. It has done me a lot of good, but I also think it could be effective at lifting others out of poverty, breaking the cycle, perhaps alleviating global poverty and human suffering, and so much more. In the long term, having more educated people working on important issues would also be good for morally relevant beings as a whole. Seeing that deworming initiatives are effective at driving up school attendance rates in underdeveloped nations, I see this as a good cause to donate to. I do sometimes feel torn, because if deworming does lead to higher rates of literacy and spurs economic growth, this could lead to an increase in a demand for animal-based food products in nations that currently do not eat very much of them (this is a trend visible in all developing-to-developed countries except for India), which would increase suffering. However, it is probably better in the long run to move towards a more educated world with less global poverty than it is to maintain the status quo in this area; perhaps other nations will follow closer to India's trends or once these populations reach a certain widespread level of education demand for animal-based products will fall.
Anyone who has read this far can probably tell that animal suffering is the thing I focus on a lot. So I donate to the Good Food Institute in hopes that lab-grown meat and other plant based alternatives can reduce the consumer demand for factory-farmed and traditionally produced animal products.

I took advantage of the Matching Challenge (thanks William Kiely!) and donated to:

  • Happier Lives Institute because they've been doing some pretty amazing work recently and progressing GiveWell/EA thinking that has been unchallenged for quite a while!
  • Animal Ask because research is often not very "sexy" and hard to fundraise for - yet I know these folks have done some great work in making animal orgs be more strategic with their campaigns.
  • Wild Animal Initiative because the scale of wild animal suffering is pretty alarming and I went to some great talks by WAI about concrete things they're working on, as well as some pretty tractable-seeming interventions (which was my main doubt before).

I'll probably keep these recurring donations going for a bit too!

Probably will donate to a few other projects in the more community-building / EA infrastructure space, as well as x-risk focused, so suggestions welcome!

Thanks for the initiative!

I have donated 10 % of my net income since I started working, and will be donating to the Long-Term Future Fund from EA Funds:

  • I believe longtermist interventions are more effective than neartermist ones for the reasons described by Hilary Greaves here (I highly recommend watching the whole talk!). In short, I think:
    • The expected cost-effectiveness of interventions (including neartermist ones) is driven by their longterm effects.
    • One can better increase the longterm effects by explicitly focussing on them.
    • So longtermist interventions tend to be better.
  • I like the grantmaking approach of EA Funds, as it accounts for:

+1, I also found that Greaves talk very valuable and that it influenced my thinking a lot!

I've heard grantmakers in the LT space say that "everything that is above the bar is getting funded and what we need are more talented people filling roles or new orgs to start up." So it seems that any marginal donation going to the EA Funds LTFF is currently being underutilized/not used at all and doesn't even funge well. So that makes me lean more neartermist, even if you accept that LT interventions are ultimately more impactful. 

Apologies if that is addressed in the video above - don't have time to view it now, but from your description it looks like it is more geared around general effectiveness and not on-the-current-margin giving right now.

Curious if you have any thoughts on that.

2Vasco Grilo4d
Thanks for sharing! On the one hand, I think that bar may still be higher than that of neartermist interventions. I have estimated here [] the marginal cost-effectiveness of longtermism and catastrophic risk prevention is 9 (= 3.95/0.431) times as high as that of global health and development. On the other hand, I think one can still say the bar of longtermist interventions is more constrained by labour than that of neartermist ones. Fields like global health and development have been around for a while, so it makes sense that funding is more likely to be undersuplied relative to ideas. Whereas fields like AI safety only have very few people involved[1] [#fn048wrj0zvmmt], so the ideas space is still very nascent, and more people are needed to explore it. Benjamin Todd's post Let's stop saying 'funding overhang' [] clarifies this matter. If funding is currently oversuplied relative to labour in the longtermist space, one can prioritise interventions which focus on ensuring more people will be able to contribure to the area in the future. The LTFF makes many (most?) grants with this goal. Some examples from this quarter (taken from here []): * "The Alignable Structures workshop in Philadelphia". * "Financial support for: Finishing Master's (AI upskilling), independent research and career exploration". * "6-month budget to self-study ML and research the possible applications of a Neuro/CogScience perspective for AGI Safety". * "Funding from 15th September 2022 until 31st January 2023 for doing alignment research and upskilling". 1. ^ [#fnref048wrj0zvmmt]According to 80,000 Hours' page []:


Nov 23, 2022


Malaria Consortium, New Incentives, GiveDirectly, and my local women's refuge (in descending order of donation size).

Thank you Bruce! If it's easy to share, how did you decide on these nonprofits?

Sure - admittedly I don't put as much thought into these as I probably should, and have deferred a reasonable amount to GiveWell. At a high level I generally donate to GHD causes because I'm more risk averse with my donations than my personal time (i.e. I'm very happy to think and contribute to things that are potentially high payoff but more speculative in my work time, but I prefer my donations to be making tangible, measurable impact with short feedback loops, even if that means "only" getting ~$100/DALY). More specifically, I chose Malaria Consortium [] (MC) over AMF because MC is marginally more cost effective at the moment, and because there was a recent paper []about the benefits of combined chemoprevention alongside the recently released RTS,S malaria vaccine [] . I chose New Incentives [] because it's also super cost-effective, and I have a soft spot for improving vaccine coverage. I chose GiveDirectly [] because that seems "best-in-class" in terms of optimising for preferences of recipients / beneficiaries. I don't have fully formed views about the extent to which we should defer to recipients VS prioritise other measures, but until I do, I opt to donate a bit to GiveDirectly for this reason despite it being less cost effective by GiveWell metrics. And then I chose my local women's refuge because I think sexual assault / intimate partner violence (IPV) is terrible (I get pretty riled up by abuse of power / trust generally), and I care a lot about it for other reasons that I won't get into here. I'm mindful that this probably means I'm not maximising DALYs averted in expectation, but I'm okay with this because doing so appeals
Thanks for this candid answer! I really appreciate hearing your thinking and more emotional motivations behind the decisions.
1Vasco Grilo11d
Thanks for sharing, Bruce! I have also donated to global health and development interventions in the past, but now focus on longtermist ones (see here [] ). FWIW, one thing which made me wonder about the cost-effectiveness of GiveWell's top charities was their effects on the population size: * According to Wilde 2019 [], it seems that the population increases in the near-term, but decreases in the long-term: * Abstract: "The effect on fertility is positive only temporarily – lasting only 1-3 years after the beginning of the ITN distribution programs – and then becomes negative. Taken together, these results suggest the ITN distribution campaigns may have caused fertility to increase unexpectedly and temporarily, or that these increases may just be a tempo effect – changes in fertility timing which do not lead to increased completed fertility". * Conclusion: "In contrast, our findings do not support the contention that erosion of international funding for malaria control, specifically of ITNs, would lead to higher fertility rates in the short-run. While our results are suggestive that this may be the case for long-run fertility, we show the exact opposite for the short-run". * If the results are suggestive that decreasing ITNs leads to higher long-run fertility, AMF would tend to decrease longterm fertility. * I do not know whether increasing the population size is good or bad, but I think it may well be the major driver for the total effect of GiveWell's top charities. Even neglecting long-term effects, the sign of the effect of GiveWell's top charities seems unclear if we account for the impact on animals: * Accordind to this article
[hastily written, apologies in advance if I don't respond further] Hi! Thanks for sharing. Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to engage with the attention this comment deserves. Part of the reason I didn't default to including my reasoning initially is because I didn't want it to turn into a "neartermism vs longtermism" discussion thread. But it's my fault for not clarifying this, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, which will hopefully be helpful for other readers who do have time to engage! I think in short it sounds like I have larger uncertainties than you around both empirical and philosophical considerations, and because of these uncertainties, it's not clear to me that funding [] things like AI alignment youtube content or longtermist researchers or forecasting infrastructure [] are clearly better than preventing malaria or getting more kids vaccinated, or cash transfers to the very poor. If you have a compelling case that the cost-effectiveness of GiveWell's top charities is much lower than they think it is, I'd encourage you to also reach out to GiveWell! They recently had a "Change our Minds []" contest, and while the contest has closed, I'm confident they'll be open to a forum post that strongly justified why they are too optimistic about their top charities. Lastly, as mentioned earlier, I prefer to try and contribute to longtermist causes with my work time,[1] [#fn2mxtcykyxb9]and donate to neartermist causes. 1. ^ [#fnref2mxtcykyxb9]Things I'm involved with / have done that could plausibly be categorised as longtermist in nature: writing a grand futures paper with Anders Sandberg @ FHI, taking pa
1Vasco Grilo10d
Thanks for clarifying, and the nudge to engage with GiveWell!

Love this. I also give large amounts to GiveWell charities and smaller amounts to local charities. Good charities deserve funds. Great charities just deserve them more.

I'm a GWWC pledger so I donate ~10% of my income, and give every month to EA Funds with the following split:

Global Health and Development Fund5%
Animal Welfare Fund10%
Long-Term Future Fund40%
GiveWell (Top Charities Fund)5%
Effective Altruism Infrastructure Fund40%

(I might change this distribution, I haven't thought about it in a while - has anything important happened recently?)

There are probably benefits to giving a big sum at the end of the year, but I find it stressful to think through so I'll probably just keep doing this.

Thanks to everyone who has shared. Here's mine so far, ordered by recency:

  • Our World In Data
  • Healthier Hens
  • Shrimp Welfare Project
  • The Good Food Institute
  • Faunalytics
  • Mercy For Animals
  • My local homeless shelter

Looking forward, I'm hoping to diversify more and add longtermist causes to balance out my main focus of animal welfare, and also donate less to organizations directly and outsorce more to groups like EA Funds.

I'd be open to any feedback. I'm also pursuing the further pledge, and would like to speak to anyone who has advice on choosing a manageable baseline. Thanks for creating this thread!

Thanks for sharing!

Nitpick, it is "Mercy [not Mery] For Animals".

2Tyler Johnston10d
Oops, thanks — I've fixed it now.

I'm donating to lobbying the Israeli government to various directions, which is, I claim, relatively neglected (there are definitely less than $200k/year going to these causes. It's not like the U.S where there are huge funds going in all directions), relatively high leverage (for the normal reasons that lobbying governments is high leverage), and I should write about it in length on the forum sometime (until then, I think I have added value in noticing these opportunities that EA funders are not even looking at).

Cool! Looking forward to the post. Would you mind sharing briefly what you're (paying for) lobbying for?

9Yonatan Cale10d
1. econ literacy / anti corruption / get the gov to stop forcing people to do things because other people like those things 1. Small example: Since according to Judaism you're not supposed to drive in the weekend, the gov banned public transport for (almost) the entire country in the weekend. 2. Small example: The gov gives certain certain companies protection by regulation (which are obvious corruption if you ask me). A funny example is that Heinz is not allowed to be called "ketchup" in Israel, because a different company (that probably copied Heinz) got their own recipe to be the only thing you're legally allowed to call "ketchup". I say this because it's silly/funny, but most important examples have an important impact on making the cost of living much higher in Israel, and mainly effect the more poor/weak people. 3. My main pitch is "this is making a difference in the past years, and is super cheap" 2. It's called "against sexual violence", but that's very vague 1. A good example is - in cases of rape - where the hospital gets evidence such as the DNA of the attacker, DON'T THROW THAT EVIDENCE AWAY. This seems super important (including effecting incentives) and scalable (one law = all hospitals), and since nobody is lobbying FOR throwing the evidence away, this is an example of a super cheap battle ("tugging the rope sideways (where nobody is fighting you)"), so neglected that one person has made a significant difference here while also making other similar changes (not only this one), in about 1 year. 2. If I were an impact VC, I'd invest in Yael Sherer [hebrew wikipedia []]. I bet you'll hear about her, just you wait This obviously deserves longer posts and not just a few

I fulfil my gwwc pledge by donating each month to the EA funds animal welfare fund for the fund managers to distribute as they see fit. I trust them to make a better decision than I will on the individual charities' effectiveness since I don't have that much time/expertise to look into it.

I think the long-run future is incredibly important, and I spend my labour mostly on that. But my guess (though I'm pretty unsure) is that my donations do more good in animal welfare than in longtermism-focused things. Perhaps the new landscape should change that but I haven't made any updates yet.

I also admit to donating a bit extra to The Humane League because they are close to my heart and also seem really effective for animals.

I don't think about this that often, and there was part of me that didn't want to post this because it's not very rigorous! But also maybe others also feel that way and it feels honest to post. (If other people have takes on where I should donate instead though I'm open to hearing them!)

My husband and I are planning to donate to Wild Animal Initiative and Animal Charity Evaluators; we've also supported a number of political candidates this year (not tax deductible) who share our values. 

We've been donating to WAI for a while, as we think they have a thoughtful, skilled team tackling a problem with a sweeping scale and scant attention. 

We also support ACE's work to evaluate and support effective ways to help animals. I'm on the board there, and we're excited about ACE's new approach to evaluations and trajectory for the coming years.


Nov 28, 2022


I've been saving up my donations for a few months to give a large amount at the end of the year and I currently give to global health charities (because that's what is tax deductible here in Australia).

I think for this donation I'll also support the Good Food Institute, StrongMinds and the Lead Exposure Elimination Project. (Even though I won't get a tax benefit)

Each of these orgs are doing really exciting work on different causes and I especially love that LEEP was started by people in the community as well as being on such an exciting trajectory!

For me, the best part of finally having started work after 6-7 years in higher education is getting to donate 10% of my income (£200/month), which compared to some people here is a very small amount but still feels like a satisfyingly big step up from my effectively nominal student giving. 

At the moment it all goes to GiveDirectly, chosen because I have (I suspect) a much higher uncertainty-discount rate than the median EA and I think there are hard-t0-measure benefits from their intervention that make it less suboptimal than many might think. 

My work satisfaction gets a non-trivial boost from knowing that it enables this impact, especially because it's not a supremely impactful job in and of itself. 

I recently took the Giving Pledge, and I'm planning to donate 10% of my annual income to GiveWell this year. It looks like this year is a particularly good time to donate to GiveWell, as they are both more funding constrained than expected and have found more cost-effective opportunities that need funding. I think I'm going to donate to the All Grants Fund, because I'm excited about the prospect of evaluating and scaling new charities.


Nov 23, 2022


I aim to continue giving to the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI)! Occasionally, I might give to the Shrimp Welfare project or the Animal Welfare Fund. My reasoning for doing so is as follows:

  1. The suffering of non-human animals is severely neglected. Within causes that help non-human animals, fish/shrimp/similar are further neglected. 
  2. It is easy to help a large number of non-human animals with comparatively small amounts of money.
  3. The Levels of Donation post — the amount I am currently donating doesn't warrant a thorough CBA.

I took the Try Giving Pledge a few months ago and plan to give somewhere between 2%-5% of my income this year! If you are a graduate candidate, an early career professional, or just generally new to giving, I recommend taking the pledge. I have been able to spend money on essentials, extras, and savings and still comfortably give $ to my favorite charities.

I randomly checked FWI's website before posting this, and it turns out they have a funding gap of $800K — consider giving here!

How do you pick between FWI and SWP? I'm looking between those myself.


Nov 23, 2022


- Top line, donate ~25% of income, matching 2021 in nominal (not inflation-adjusted, which I should start doing) dollars. 83% of the way there.

- Took GWWC in 2018, so there's a 10% floor for EA organizations.
 So far, Clean Air Task Force, GiveWell, and Against Malaria Foundation,
 split roughly 4:3:3. The thinking here --
1) GiveWell and AMF are pretty high on effectiveness lists and have been consistently so. It's easy to understand what they're doing and they're solid defaults.
2) Clean Air Task Force is a new thing for me, an EA-ish organization that takes on policy interventions and lobbying even. I do sometimes find it hard to figure out what they're doing as distinct from RMI or RFF, say; but they're well regarded in climate circles and recently in EA lists, so it was worth adding this year.
3) I've found it easier to start with donations where I can understand the impact. I'd like to build up ambition - both on the giving-amount and being-comfortable-with-failure axes, but have slowly done only the former. Would like to do the latter, Ackva's writing on this has been a good "do better" call for me.

Open questions -
 1) Giving Green recommended Evergreen Collective (the 501c3) but didn't take a position on the 501c4, Evergreen Action. What do folks think about them?
 2) How do you begin to evaluate lobbying for specific legislation or rule-making? First order effects are easy, but often what passes through a process only vaguely resembles what was advocated-for; there's a kind of "put the ball in play" effect I'm interested in capturing w/ this question.
 3) In the past I've given to Nuclear Threat Initiative and associated organizations (Arms Control Association, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, ...), but I did so for reasons that had nothing to do with X-risk. How do you evaluate or compare anything in this space?

- I'm just a baby EA, so I do a lot of giving outside of EA. Remainder is primarily to US state-level climate policy organizations, roughly weighted by - 1) a state's grid emissions intensity; 2) organization's
 capacity to intervene in regulatory proceedings (evidenced by prior interventions); 3) my ability to evaluate the organization. Primarily focused on Fresh Energy (MN), Climate Solutions (WA), Montana Renewable Energy Association (MT), Western Resources Advocates (intermountain west). Two national organizations - Carbonplan and Union of Concerned Scientists. Former because the quality of the data they produce has caused some rethinking, latter for legacy reasons.


Nov 23, 2022


I hadn't donated for the last couple years despite having taken the GWWC pledge. This is because:

  • It started to seem like I have sufficiently good judgement, domain knowledge, and connectedness* that my money would be most useful for making opportunities I have special knowledge of happen quickly, rather than donating to large existing opportunities
  • I didn't happen to stumble upon anything especially good
  • I kind-of procrastinated / got busy (without reducing willingness to give; I still planned to "catch up" on this giving)

The downfall of FTX and resignation of the Future Fund team make me think now is a good time for me to catch up on this backlog of giving, and maybe also do some of my coming years' giving at the same time. So I've reached out to ~6 (former) FTX regrantors I know to let them know I'm potentially open to donating to things they think are especially promising or urgent. 

*My evidence for this included being offered a role on the EA Infrastructure Fund, among other things.

making opportunities I have special knowledge of happen quickly

This is something I've also be thinking about. What are your thoughts on pushing for a higher salary (within a nonprofit, e.g. RP), for this purpose?

I would be keen to hear examples from you and Michael about what this looks like in practice! Can't conceptualise the kinds of projects you mean so examples would be very useful.

The last few for me were: 1. Paying someone to update the Big List of Cause Candidates [] . 2. Paying someone to update Metaforecast [] . 3. Giving seed funding to researchers I find promising (x4). 4. Seed funding for prediction market plays or for incentivizing markets (too time consuming, not doing this as much). 5. Paying an engineer friend of mine to estimate the cost of various large infrastructure projects (upcoming, may not happen). Now, in practice, I've been using other people's money for this, e.g., from QURI, the now-defunct FTX Foundation and its regrantor programme, SlateStarCodex grants, etc. But I do see a clear line between the amount of resources I control and the amount of things that I am able to make happen, and getting a higher salary seems like a straightforward way to increase resources. You can also see a list of projects that Vipul Naik [] has sponsored.


Nov 25, 2022


My standard 10% donation this year was mostly made before FTX events fully unfolded and went to (by descending "ticket size")

  • A research project that was previously funded via EA Funds and had another funding gap. I know the people doing it and felt comfortable saving EA Funds and them the work of re-applying for another tranche, and I had a way of doing it tax-efficiently
  • Future Matters Project, an organization that supports people, institutions and movements to address the major issues of our time by providing research and tools for effective movement building. I know the founder well, had done in-depth diligence on them last year for a bigger donation, and they were funded by EA funds in between, so I felt comfortable adding a bit more
  • The Long-term Future Fund of EA Funds
  • Givewell's top charities fund 

In the light of recent events, and because I also know some of the FTX regranters well whose proposals didn't get funded, I will likely pull forward some donations from the next year(s). I think this makes sense if the projects one funds are of a nature that still makes sense given what we now know about EA's total assets, and if giving more now doesn't materially affect one's runway (i.e., one still keeps a comfortable buffer).

Really excited about the work the Wild Animal Initiative is doing, so I will be donating to them. I'll also be giving to AMF. 

Thanks for sharing, Yadav!

I also like the work of Wild Animal Initiative, as I think the scale of the welfare of wild animals is plausibly much larger than that of farmed ones.

You may be interested in this comment I made about donating to GiveWell's top charities.

I just dumped $2k into AMF. 

  • I was behind on taking 5% out of a bunch of invoices, and decided to catch up all in one place
  • My direct work efforts have all been longtermismy the past year
  • Historically, I've donated toward animals or future people. 
  • Clear, legible wins for virtue signaling without mental gymnastics are desirable. I don't want to have to explain a 300 IQ plan that makes forecasting tech or game theory altruistic every time I want to make an attempt at transmitting the "things are broken, if I can try to help then you can too" core message to someone. 

Earlier this year I maxed out the Carrick Flynn donation, which in the most ancient and wisest words of whomever "seemed like a good idea at the time". 

The above two targets are money I made as a proof engineer at a defi startup. I took a paycut from there for work in the EA ecosystem, and I haven't decided yet if I'm gonna try to skim 5-10% off the top of my post-paycut money for more donations. 

I'm donating 10% of my pre-tax income this year, and most of it will be distributed to the usual suspects identified by GiveWell, Happier Lives Institute, and Animal Charity Evaluators. A small amount will be reserved for some local charities whose work I am familiar with. 

What I would love some advice on is ways to donate to Ukraine. There is probably no way to really know the effectiveness of any donations to Ukraine, but in general I think supporting the norm of respect for national sovereignty is actually quite important, apart from the (also quite important) humanitarian considerations. Does anyone have any thoughts?


Nov 23, 2022


Against Malaria Foundation

I thought I'd mention one (relatively minor) part of my giving plan and solicit some feedback on the rationale. 

I had concerns with how GiveWell handled the discontinuation of standout charity status in late 2021, and said as much on their blog at the time. Given that GiveWell's decision was not based on any re-evaluation of the former standout charities, I felt that more should have been done to help some of those organizations transition to new sources of income. For some of them, a large portion of their revenue ran through GiveWell, so I treated this as akin to a situation in which an organization had suddenly lost a major donor. In an attempt to cushion this blow, I diverted some funds that I would have ordinarily given to GiveWell's top charities in 2021 and gave them to some of the former standout charities (generally via The Life You Can Save).

My question for feedback is (1) how much I should consider this sort of thing in making allocation decisions, and (2) for how much time I should apply this kind of "special consideration for a recently lost major donor" adjustment to an organization.

I'm donating to the Good Food Institute for 2 reasons:

1: Moving the world more towards alt protein has a positive impact in many different areas including animal welfare, food security, pandemic prevention and climate change

2: I live in Switzerland and effective-spenden makes it bureaucratically easy and tax deductible to donate to them

Plan is 

The total will be about 10% of my annual income.

 the ^ is my approximate probability distribution about what the “right” cause is

Someone who donates to DxE, very cool! I spent some time with DxE folks during the AVA summit in DC and know a few fairly well - they're a really committed and great bunch :) plus amazing win with Wayne & Paul getting acquitted if you saw it!

1Seth Ariel Green6d
Very cool! I did see that and I'd say that was one of the most important wins for reducing animal suffering this past year, which is pretty strong evidence to me that they are an effective charity in the sense of 'gets stuff done'

My monthly donations go to GiveWell charities via One for the World, but if I'm able to make discretionary donations this year, they will go Generation Pledge and High Impact Professionals. In light of recent events, efforts to support more HNW and effective giving outreach (respectively) are doubly important, to diversify EA's funding base.

I love reading the responses in this thread :)!

I'm also a GWWC pledger, and throughout most of this year I've donated on a monthly basis to:

I'm now updating this to also include the Longtermism Fund.

I also reserve some funds to do more active (very small-scale) grantmaking. For example, I supported the 0.7% campaign and have made several smaller contributions to support local EA community building work. 

This year, I am giving $10K to Charity Entrepreneurship's incubated charities at their discretion as they know where it will best be placed after all counterfactuals have been calculated. I am giving here for a lot of reasons (CoI: I like them so much I am on the board):

  • I think there is a lot of counterfactual value in supporting new EA startups with higher risk profiles, especially within CE, where there is a good rate of growth to GW Top Charity status.
  • I like to fund stuff that isn't getting funded through the normal means to create more diversified funding in the EA space, which I believe is extremely important and more important than ever given the FTX situation.
  • It is FUN to read project proposals and be a bit more involved early stage - feels more like venture capital than e.g. giving to AMF (although I wouldn't begrudge anyone giving to AMF by any means!)

I also gave smaller sums to other organizations this year - numbers rough as I don't have the donation receipt yet and am too lazy to look it up: $2500 to a mix of the following charities:

  • Effektiv Spenden - they have a crazy multiplier on money in -> money raised so I think this is a great, leveraged way to donate.
  • CATF
  • AMF

I gave to CATF and AMF as well mostly to hedge on myself being too meta. I think there is a tough tradeoff between leverage in meta stuff and meta 1) being less clearly linked to actual impact and 2) the fear that donating to meta orgs, where I've been more at home over the past 6 years is more giving to my friends and keeping the money "in the family" than doing actual good. I think meta is still worth it, as evidenced by my donations, but I think this is a concern to take seriously.

Finally, I suppose I donate to my own org, High Impact Professionals, by taking a lower salary than I otherwise would as that makes more sense than taking a salary, getting taxed, and then donating back to my own org, at least if you think, as I do, that our org can do more good than the marginal dollar to the German/US government. I am a little bit biased on that one though.

2 small donations through Effektiv Spenden.

  • Their climate change fund - according to their description, this adds money to the organizations recommended by Giving Green and Founders Pledge. I don't prioritize climate change as a cause area, but I give a fixed amount per year to climate charities and Effektiv Spenden supports this one. Why? I do believe climate change is a big problem. Many people feel helpless about climate change, and by donating to a climate charity I can signal that there is a way to actually help - beyond consumption choices. This is also a donation I might be able to talk openly about.
  • Their animal welfare fund - mostly ACE recommended charities. The animal welfare movement is quite funding constrained (I've heard from people from ACE that recommended charities usually(or never?) get their funding gap** filled completely) and evidence-based animal welfare is a new and growing field.

Unfortunately I will not move a lot of money this year, nor will I spend a lot of time thinking about my donations. But I am happy that I can do at least this little bit.

* I thought that, if everyone with an income similar to mine would do this, the climate would be in a better state, but I was wrong. I quickly fact-checked this. This article on says "The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that an annual investment of $2.4 trillion is needed in the energy system alone until 2035 to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 °C from pre-industrial levels.". I understand from the article this includes funding from governments and companies. I am not going to disclose my income and my donation budget here, but I can say that my donation is much less than a fair share of this 2.4 trillion. (It may be, if my donation is unusually cost-effective). - apparently it's damn hard to fix climate change.

** there may be difference between funding gap that the org believes they have themselves, and the funding gap that ACE thinks the org has. I mean the latter.

2022 donations in USD:

5k to Maternal Health Initiative (new CE org, family planning in Africa)
5k to Vida Plena (new CE org, mental health in LATAM)
2k to Giving What We Can fund (short and longtermism causes)
2k to Cellular Agriculture Australia (developing cell ag industry)

Donated to own EA projects:

22k to GoalsWon (accountability coaching app, pro-bono for EAs)
1k to EA for Kids (EA storybook creation started)

Overall happy with the year, the best yet for contributions both directly and investing in own EA projects. Also thankful for all the collaboration and advice from the community.

While my work is focused mostly on longtermist interventions, most of my donations for the first half of the year were to Givewell as unrestricted donations. I also did a smaller amount of political giving to EA-aligned candidates, which was partially from my 10% of income dedicated to EA giving. (I split those political donations 50-50 between my bucketed EA spending and my personal spending.) I also gave a small amount to MIRI via

I have not yet donated all of my 2nd-half-of-2022 donations.

Try something new this year

This year I am taking a new direction with my donations by giving to Stichting Effectief Doneren (English: Effective Giving Foundation). I may be preaching to the choir here, but regardless - I am very excited about what we are doing in the Netherlands and Belgium. We are looking for financial support - maybe you would like to help us?
At the present moment, we are 100% financially dependent on the EA Infrastructure Fund. One thing the SBF debacle has taught me is that diversification of funding sources can mitigate risk. We can make good use of the money to build a continuity reserve fund. Our current funding is guaranteed until April 2023.

The purpose of Doneer Effectief

We want to make it as easy as possible to donate or leave an inheritance to the most effective charities worldwide.

Retrospective 2022

  • February: Establishment of Stichting Effectief Doneren (Effective Giving Foundation)
  • April: Received ANBI status (Public Benefit Organisation), podcast series Effectief Doneren
  • August: Appointment of our full-time director (me), external newsletter completed
  • September: Several articles in Dutch media (in collaboration with The Dutch 10% Club)
  • October: Launch of our new website (NL / EN) with donation platform for the Netherlands and Belgium 
  • November: 300 donations, €60k in less than 2 months, 20 gift agreements signed, 7 contracts to leave an inheritance, 600 followers, 300 newsletter subscriptions, 5.000 unique website visitors per month, 10 volunteers, 5 ambassadors

Outlook 2023

  • Expand our website with a user portal and donation dashboard
  • Grow the giving community in collaboration with The Dutch 10% Club to 800 members (currently 100)
  • Increase national media attention (carefully)
  • Set up processes/workflows/educational resources for major donors
  • Begin cooperation with the salary-gifting organisation The Social Handshake
  • Receive CBF Hallmark
  • Receive recommendations from GWWC and Founders Pledge
 Donation Forecast Required Budget Multiplier
20220,1mio (started Oct 1st)60kn/a


What you could do...

It would be fantastic if you'd like to support us! Don't hesitate to contact me at or give directly via our platform to our 'start-up' foundation. Thank you for your attention.

I am Dutch and I am excited about doneer effectief. Would a separate post to raise funds for doneer effectief be worth a post on it's own? See also posts tagged "funding request".

[+][comment deleted]6d 0

I donate monthly to charities collectively chosen by my colleagues and friends, for four reasons:

  • I believe in epistemic democracy
  • I want to learn about others' priorities
  • I want to encourage them to think about donating themselves
  • I want to test my voting app (which I use for that collective decision)

So far, most of those donations went to public health charities like Doctors Without Borders or Malaria Consortium. If you want to have a say where my November donation goes:

Brad West

Nov 23, 2022


I have been donating about 80% of my income (about $1k/week) to the Consumer Power Initiative because the cause area of enabling consumers to discriminate in favor of effective charities is has extreme impact potential (trillions annually to effective charities could be transformative), is tractable (we can create companies that work for charities that can offer similar products at the same prices), and neglected (very little efforts and resources is being expended in this area).

If you want to learn more about our organization, feel free to check out my EA forum post and I'll link to a draft of our upcoming newsletter.

A list I'm considering for end-of-year donations, in no special order:

I'm also very interested in the best ways to help people affected by recent events, especially ways which are more scalable / accessible than supporting personal connections.

I begin with splitting my donations between cause areas: currently, 60% to longtermism and 40% to animal welfare. And then I decide which funds/orgs to give to from there.

This month, that is:

30% Long-term future fund

30% Longtermism Fund (Longview Philanthropy)

30% Animal Welfare Fund

5% Faunalytics

5% Good Food Institute

I'm becoming more comfortable with 'diversifying' my donations; 2 months ago I was just giving to the Long-term Future Fund and the Animal Welfare Fund.

For me, I think a big reason I'm starting to diversify is that while I trust that the folks at all these orgs know how to spend money more effectively than I do, it perhaps makes sense to trust multiple teams of experts in case there's a more general failure at one of them. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for this post! I'm donating to multiple charities via the platform I help run: Give For Good. Give For Good is a charity donation platform that turns every donation into a miniature investment fund for the charity that you choose. There are dozens of charities on the website on you can invest for any other registered charity by emailing them at  

I'm supporting Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's cause. He's online lectures were very helpful for me and I am returning the favor so he can help more people.

[-]Miguel5d 2

I just answered a very straightforward question where I was donating and I got down voted. I wish voters may share their thoughts on my chosen donee. Thank you

I also think it's unfortunate that this was downvoted. I wonder if things would have gone differently if agree/disagree voting was enabled for this post, so that people who disagree with your choice of donee could express it that way instead. (I think the emoji thing is much worse, personally.)

No worries. We are all making our choices here and atleast I'm trying to understand the general mechanics on how to handle discussions here. Thank you for replying.
I think your short comment + link unfortunately look very similar to many spam comments, especially because there's no obvious link to Effective Altruism
thank you for your reply Kirsten.
6 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 4:55 AM

I'm  confused why almost all of the comments seem to be from people donating to many charities. For small amounts that an individual would donate, I don't imagine that diminishing marginal returns would kick in, so shouldn't one donate entirely to the charity that has the highest EV on the current margin?  

I expect that figuring out the highest EV charity is very noisy, such that it doesn't make that big a difference. And that doing this makes giving more emotionally satisfying and fun, which is great! (At least for me personally, this is the case). It also makes the amount of good done lower variance, which seems emotionally good.

I basically agree that on utilitarian grounds it's somewhere between totally irrelevant and slightly negative though, and definitely not a good use of effort.

In practice, "the charity that has the highest EV on the current margin" is more complicated than you may realize; see e.g. Section 1.3 of froolow's post on incorporating uncertainty analysis in cost-effectiveness modeling, showing how any of GiveWell's (older list of) top charities could be highest EV given reasonable assumptions:

and when:

I think it's also worth noting that GiveWell's CEAs don't actually calculate CE on the margin, and not the marginal impact of the donor's dollar but of all dollars generated by the donated dollar via leverage/funging (2nd bullet point in the Errors section); I was confused by this when I first tried to replicate (one column of) GW's AMF CEA. 

Another reason is just bets-hedging. It's probably unwise to put all one's eggs in one basket, not just due to theoretical considerations like moral uncertainty but operational considerations as well, like whether the organization can deliver on the forecasted impact next year (as someone directly impacted by the recent fiasco this is front-of-mind).

I'm also personally torn between EV-maxing and risk aversion. The former suggests donating to longtermist charities and the latter to GiveDirectly; I care that I have some impact as much as(?) I care about the opportunity cost of missing out on more impact. This is a little like how I think about personal investing, although in the latter case risk aversion is greater. 

Frankly this may just be me failing to find the right numbers or something, but I'd be curious to know if you yourself have identified any single charity you consider highest-EV on the margin (not historical EV), and what that EV number is (and preferably a link to how it's calculated).

The Levels of Donation post contains lots of good advice on the same.

 What would be a good place to donate to support organizations hurt by the FTX collapse? EA Funds? 

I don't now. This is worth a question on its own. Nonlinear is providing emergency funding and mentions donation opportunities, and Open Philanthropy is looking for applications for funding.
I don't know if the EA Funds are donig anything to support organizations or individuals who lost funding due to the FTX collapes. IIRC they haven't pubished anything about whether they do, and I would not assume they do.