Otherwise known as: Effective givers should bankroll more effective giving infrastructure

Do you donate a significant amount to GiveWell's Top Charities, perhaps because you have pledged money and you want to end preventable childhood death? Would you like more money to go to GiveWell's Top Charities? You should instead consider donating to:

• A professional effective giving fundraising organisation, that employs staff to fundraise on behalf of GiveWell's Top Charities. There are a load of them around with 3x or greater multipliers and real funding gaps. I'd actually like to see someone do a proper public analysis of this space to work out where the reasonable multipliers and consistent funding gaps are.
• Your local EA community-builder or local EA group's operations costs, or other small EA thing happening in your local area. Tell them you would like effective giving towards GiveWell's Top Charities to be a more visible and valued part of the EA movement and that is the purpose of your donation. There are many EA community-builders who are able to use extra money to expand the EA movement in such a way as GiveWell's Top Charities get extra money at at least a 1x multiplier. They are very probably not as good as an organisation entirely dedicated to doing that. But you do also get the personal benefit of having a more well-funded local EA group that is less vulnerable to changes in the allocation criteria of central EA community-building money, and anything else the community-builder does as a result of being better funded.

You don't have to entirely switch. You can still give money directly to GiveWell's Top Charities. But there are ways you can do a bit more with your money while still supporting exactly the causes you care most about.

If you disagree, I am curious about your thoughts about who should be paying for effective giving infrastructure and what its purpose should be. I have made this post after having seen various large and small effective giving organisations and community-builders be denied infrastructure funding that would stabilise support and expand their operations. There's just not enough infrastructure funding to go round to meet every reasonably good effective giving infrastructure funding ask, and the most impactful ones with the highest multipliers or best early-stage potential are prioritised by grantmakers (fair enough).

Which leaves a massive gap of things that are stably and verifiably 'better' than GiveWell's Top Charities through the simple fact that they verifiably move extra money to GiveWell's Top Charities, plus a bunch of people who care about effective global health and development and direct their donations to GiveWell's Top Charities.