Hide table of contents

The Giving What We Can Donor Lottery is now open with a block size of $100,000 USD! 

Interested in donor lotteries? We suggest you read our in-depth page on donor lotteries to understand the concept better. Here's a quick summary:

  • A donor lottery gives you a chance to direct a larger sum of money while keeping your own donation amount the same. For example, you could donate $1,000 and have a 1% chance of directing a $100,000 pot, or donate $5,000 and have a 5% chance of directing a $100,000 pot.
  • If you win, the larger sum makes it worthwhile to spend more time deciding where the money should go. This extra time can lead to better decisions and greater impact, without changing the amount you were planning to donate in the first place.
  • Because of this, we believe donor lotteries are one of the most effective ways for smaller donors to give, provided you're comfortable with the approach.
  • Winners also get advised by our team and may be introduced to other experts or experienced grantmakers to make the most informed decisions possible.
  • It’s best to enter a donor lottery if you or someone you trust will actually commit time to think more about where to allocate the funds if you win.
  • You can enter anonymously (your name will only be shared with relevant members or our team).

Key dates

  • Close date: 10 January 2024 at 12:00 PM UTC. New entries will not be accepted after this time.
  • Lock date: 24 January 2024 at 12:00 PM UTC. Any payments not confirmed by Giving What We Can after this time will not be accepted as entries.[1]
  • Draw Date: 31 January 2024 at 12:00 PM UTC. The UNIX timestamp of this date will be used to select the NIST beacon entry from which the winning lottery number is derived.

How to enter the donor lottery

Enter the lottery by making a donation to the Donor Lottery before the close date.

Providing backstop funds

We are looking for new funders to act as a benefactor and backstop funds for future lotteries. We will likely open up bigger pots if we are able to find enough funding. If you are interested in providing backstop funds please contact us.

Questions?

For more in-depth information about the lottery process (including the important terms), please see the donor lottery website or contact us.

  1. ^

    It's up to the donor to ensure that Effective Ventures UK or Effective Ventures US receives the payment before the lock date. Especially if you plan to donate in January, we recommend using a payment method that we can confirm quickly (like via credit card, or via bank transfer if you're confident it will arrive before the lock date). Otherwise, tickets will be allocated for the next lottery.

37

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments11


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Update: Winners have been drawn!

 The lotteries have been drawn and results are in!

The winners will receive an email in the next few days with more information.

Congratulations to the winners and thanks to everyone who participated this year!

Probably not worth the time to tinker with the site this year, but it would be nice if we had options for attribution other than "Anonymous" and our full name, such as first name only or Forum user name (which are actually the same for me).

Thanks for the feedback!

For now, you can enter as "Anonymous" and then contact us at tech@givingwhatwecan.org with the payment reference and the name you want to have associated with that entry. (Please contact us from the same email address that you entered for the payment)

Hopefully, that's good enough? Sorry for the inconvenience.

Sorry for the delay, updated the entry https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/donor-lottery/227966102255917

If anyone reading this wants the same, let us know

Is there any way to give a donor lottery entry as a gift to someone?

Not at this time, sorry! You could enter the lottery and, if you win, ask someone else for advice on how to recommend to allocate the amount.

Someone apparently bought a significant number of $5 tickets all in a row. I'm guessing those might have been a sort of charitable lottery tickets given as gifts? If so, interesting gift idea!

Yes, I think that was very probably their intention. I am not sure if it would be a great gift though, as many (most?) people seem to find the concept of a donor lottery a bit counterintuitive.

Who was behind the backstop funds in the previous years? Do you know why they would not offer the backstop funds this year?

While I can't share specific details about our previous benefactor for various reasons (e.g. privacy), I can assure you the reasons for this are not related to any issues with the Donor Lottery itself (e.g. support of the approach, estimation of its value or cost-effectiveness, any issues with the process etc).

Our previous benefactor has been instrumental in supporting the lottery in the past and we deeply appreciate this. We'd be excited to find more backstop funds to increase the size of the Donor Lottery again.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Science just released an article, with an accompanying technical report, about a neglected source of biological risk. From the abstract of the technical report: > This report describes the technical feasibility of creating mirror bacteria and the potentially serious and wide-ranging risks that they could pose to humans, other animals, plants, and the environment...  > > In a mirror bacterium, all of the chiral molecules of existing bacteria—proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites—are replaced by their mirror images. Mirror bacteria could not evolve from existing life, but their creation will become increasingly feasible as science advances. Interactions between organisms often depend on chirality, and so interactions between natural organisms and mirror bacteria would be profoundly different from those between natural organisms. Most importantly, immune defenses and predation typically rely on interactions between chiral molecules that could often fail to detect or kill mirror bacteria due to their reversed chirality. It therefore appears plausible, even likely, that sufficiently robust mirror bacteria could spread through the environment unchecked by natural biological controls and act as dangerous opportunistic pathogens in an unprecedentedly wide range of other multicellular organisms, including humans. > > This report draws on expertise from synthetic biology, immunology, ecology, and related fields to provide the first comprehensive assessment of the risks from mirror bacteria.  Open Philanthropy helped to support this work and is now supporting the Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund (MBDF), along with the Sloan Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Patrick Collison. The Fund will coordinate scientific efforts to evaluate and address risks from mirror bacteria. It was deeply concerning to learn about this risk, but gratifying to see how seriously the scientific community is taking the issue. Given the potential infoha
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
1. Introduction My blog, Reflective Altruism, aims to use academic research to drive positive change within and around the effective altruism movement. Part of that mission involves engagement with the effective altruism community. For this reason, I try to give periodic updates on blog content and future directions (previous updates: here and here) In today’s post, I want to say a bit about new content published in 2024 (Sections 2-3) and give an overview of other content published so far (Section 4). I’ll also say a bit about upcoming content (Section 5) as well as my broader academic work (Section 6) and talks (Section 7) related to longtermism. Section 8 concludes with a few notes about other changes to the blog. I would be keen to hear reactions to existing content or suggestions for new content. Thanks for reading. 2. New series this year I’ve begun five new series since last December. 1. Against the singularity hypothesis: One of the most prominent arguments for existential risk from artificial agents is the singularity hypothesis. The singularity hypothesis holds roughly that self-improving artificial agents will grow at an accelerating rate until they are orders of magnitude more intelligent than the average human. I think that the singularity hypothesis is not on as firm ground as many advocates believe. My paper, “Against the singularity hypothesis,” makes the case for this conclusion. I’ve written a six-part series Against the singularity hypothesis summarizing this paper. Part 1 introduces the singularity hypothesis. Part 2 and Part 3 together give five preliminary reasons for doubt. The next two posts examine defenses of the singularity hypothesis by Dave Chalmers (Part 4) and Nick Bostrom (Part 5). Part 6 draws lessons from this discussion. 2. Harms: Existential risk mitigation efforts have important benefits but also identifiable harms. This series discusses some of the most important harms of existential risk mitigation efforts. Part 1 discus
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
THL UK protestors at the Royal Courts of Justice, Oct 2024. Credit: SammiVegan.  Four years of work has led to his moment. When we started this, we knew it would be big. A battle of David versus Goliath as we took the Government to court. But we also knew that it was the right thing to do, to fight for the millions of Frankenchickens that were suffering because of the way that they had been bred. And on Friday 13th December, we got the result we had been nervously waiting for. Represented by Advocates for Animals, four years ago we started the process to take the Government to court, arguing that fast-growing chicken breeds, known as Frankenchickens, are illegal under current animal welfare laws. After a loss, and an appeal, in October 2024 we entered the courts once more. And the judgment is now in on one of the most important legal cases for animals in history. The judges have ruled in favour on our main argument - that the law says that animals should not be kept in the UK if it means they will suffer because of how they have been bred. This is a huge moment for animals in the UK. A billion Frankenchickens are raised with suffering coded into their DNA each year. They are bred to grow too big, too fast, to make the most profit possible. In light of this ruling, we believe that farmers are breaking the law if they continue to keep these chickens. However, Defra, the Government department responsible for farming, has been let off the hook on a technicality. Because Defra has been silent on fast-growing breeds of chicken, the judges found they had no concrete policy that they could rule against. This means that our case has been dismissed and the judges have not ordered Defra to act. It is clear: by not addressing this major animal welfare crisis, Defra has failed billions of animals - and the farming community. This must change. While this ruling has failed to force the Government to act, it has confirmed our view that farmers are acting criminally by using