Hide table of contents

The first mini-event we have planned for Giving Season is Funding Strategy Week (Nov 4th – Nov 10th). Personally, I’m very excited about this. As a category of EA thought I think it has as much depth and potential for discovering cruxy disagreements as, say, the recent Animal Welfare vs Global Health debate.

However, it’s one of the less well defined themes, so you might not be immediately inspired to write a post. In this post, I want to lay out what we were thinking of when we came up with the idea, and give some examples of posts that would fit under the theme.

We were originally calling this week "Funding Diversification Week". The narrowest interpretation of that term is something like “funding is very concentrated in OpenPhil, and we think this is bad, what can we do to change this?”. Posts that would fit under this theme would be things like:

  1. What your org has done to fundraise from non-OP sources
  2. A story of an organisation’s mission being subverted as a result of pressure from funders
  3. How concentrated funding increases the risk of organisations collapsing (relevant)

We’d love to see posts like these. But we were also thinking of a much broader range of questions related to funding. Upon reflection, “Funding Diversification Week” was a bit of a misnomer. We've renamed the week “Funding Strategy Week”.

There are inputs and outputs in EA[1]. The outputs are all of the organisations, what the people in them do all day, and the research and interventions they produce. This is obviously a rich set of topics, where there can be a lot of discussion about even a tiny portion of it (e.g. there are 2162 posts on Cause Prioritisation).

The input side is just as important, and consists of questions about where funding comes from, how much there is, restrictions on its use, and similar questions for other inputs like talent, time, and social capital. A lot of this can fall under the banner of “funding strategy”. This grandiose vision of funding strategy being near-equal in depth to the whole “output” side of EA is what I want you to keep in mind when thinking about what you could write.

The next section gives some sorts of posts that would fit under this theme.

Posts which would fit under the theme:

  1. Strategy for small donors
    1. Whether to split your donations vs giving to one thing[2]

    2. Giving now vs investing to give later

    3. Giving to tried and tested (and OP funded?) orgs vs unknown/underrated/reputationally risky opportunities[3]

  2. Earning to give

    1. Stories from E2G-ers, about their strategy, personal experience, challenges and so on

    2. Data visualisation on how much EAs (including E2G-ers) donate. I believe the latest on this is EA Survey 2020 Series: Donation Data, maybe more recent data doesn’t exist, but I’d be interested in someone trying

    3. High-upside vs predictable career choices
  3. Solutions to funding problems without getting more funding
    1. How to be frugal (as a person or org). Or “a good steward of funding”, e.g. keeping your funding in a money market account
    2. Promoting things to mainstream appeal, à la PEPFAR or LEAF
    3. When should we value volunteering/pro-bono work over direct funding?
  4. Non-standard funding mechanisms
    1. Introducing new funding mechanisms (like this)
    2. Donor lotteries
    3. Impact certificates and prizes
    4. Donation matching
  5. Large donors
    1. Input from wealthy and EA-adjacent people (e.g. Vitalik Buterin) who don’t donate to the standard “big EA” charities, on their reasoning behind their personal giving
    2. Posts from people who work with High Net Worth Individuals (e.g. Founder’s Pledge), on whatever insights they have as a result of this
  6. Fact posts (underrated)- posts which contribute to our collective understanding of the funding ecosystem
    1. Anything like this spreadsheet that @Hamish McDoodles kindly created
    2. Changes in the proportion + demographics of people doing Earning to Give over time
    3. How big is the pool of near-EA funding (e.g. The Navigation Fund)

For many of these, we have specific people in mind who we would love to hear from, and we’ll be reaching out to you if you are one of them. If you know someone who has interesting thoughts on topics like these, you can claim some sweet counterfactual impact by reaching out to them too.

  1. ^

     I stand behind something like this dichotomy, although if you think too closely about what counts as an “input” or “output” it falls apart. So please try to interpret it as a vibe level thing for the purposes of this post

  2. ^

     There is at least one previous post about this, I feel the state of the art could be improved upon

  3. ^

     I am personally planning a post on the value of small donor dollars relative to OP dollars for earlier stage opportunities

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

What I'd like to see (but don't have the insights to fully write):

According to an apparently common argument, having more medium-size donors (e.g., from earning-to-give) would create a significant decentralization of funding power in EA (e.g., the post from Abraham linked in the original post). However, I can easily envision worlds in which the new mid-size donors largely end up funging off Open Phil (and a few other megadonors), and there isn't any meaningful decentralization at all. Therefore:

  • Under what circumstances would introduction of a significant number of medium-size donors be likely to cause a significant decentralization?
    • Working theory: It would be particularly challenging for mid-size donors to meaningfully influence the split between major cause areas, but it would be easier to influence which smaller orgs get funded, which sub-cause areas / early-stage cause area candidates get funded, etc.
  • What steps, if any, should major funders take to avoid controlling more than their "fair share" of the funding allocation?  
    • I do not have a firm definition of "fair share," which would be an interesting discussion in itself.
    • As a tentative starting point: I think it is generally undesirable for a major funder to have greater percentage control of the funding landscape than the percentage of funding they bring to the table. One could argue for a lower threshold as well.

I’m sorry, but after reading the article I’m still unsure what the final decision is.

“ Upon reflection, “Funding Diversification Week” is a bit of a misnomer. From now on we’ll call it “Funding Strategy Week”.”

But the title of this post is still Funding Diversification Week. So what will it be called?

Thanks Elliot! Good question- it is now Funding Strategy Week. 
I think the problem is that its very easy to assume people have the context that you do- so we would have assumed that people expected to see a post about Funding Diversification instead of Funding Strategy. But realistically most readers probably hadn't memorised the name of our mini-event. I'll post a quick take when I've got a minute, to make this clearer. 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Does a food carbon tax increase animal deaths and/or the total time of suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? Theoretically, this is possible, as a carbon tax could lead consumers to substitute, for example, beef with chicken. However, this is not per se the case, as animal products are not perfect substitutes.  I'm presenting the results of my master's thesis in Environmental Economics, which I re-worked and published on SSRN as a pre-print. My thesis develops a model of animal product substitution after a carbon tax, slaughter tax, and a meat tax. When I calibrate[1] this model for the U.S., there is a decrease in animal deaths and duration of suffering following a carbon tax. This suggests that a carbon tax can reduce animal suffering. Key points * Some animal products are carbon-intensive, like beef, but causes relatively few animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are large. Other animal products, like chicken, causes relatively many animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are small, but cause relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. * A carbon tax will make some animal products, like beef, much more expensive. As a result, people may buy more chicken. This would increase animal suffering, assuming that farm animals suffer. However, this is not per se the case. It is also possible that the direct negative effect of a carbon tax on chicken consumption is stronger than the indirect (positive) substitution effect from carbon-intensive products to chicken. * I developed a non-linear market model to predict the consumption of different animal products after a tax, based on own-price and cross-price elasticities. * When calibrated for the United States, this model predicts a decrease in the consumption of all animal products considered (beef, chicken, pork, and farmed fish). Therefore, the modelled carbon tax is actually good for animal welfare, assuming that animals live net-negative lives. * A slaughter tax (a
MarieF🔸
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Summary * After >2 years at Hi-Med, I have decided to step down from my role. * This allows me to complete my medical residency for long-term career resilience, whilst still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. It also allows me to donate more again. * Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director; the application deadline is 26 January 2025. * I will join Hi-Med’s governing board once we have appointed the next Executive Director. Before the role When I graduated from medical school in 2017, I had already started to give 10% of my income to effective charities, but I was unsure as to how I could best use my medical degree to make this world a better place. After dipping my toe into nonprofit fundraising (with Doctors Without Borders) and working in a medical career-related start-up to upskill, a talk given by Dixon Chibanda at EAG London 2018 deeply inspired me. I formed a rough plan to later found an organisation that would teach Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-specific psychotherapeutic techniques to lay people to make evidence-based treatment of PTSD scalable. I started my medical residency in psychosomatic medicine in 2019, working for a specialised clinic for PTSD treatment until 2021, then rotated to child and adolescent psychiatry for a year and was half a year into the continuation of my specialisation training at a third hospital, when Akhil Bansal, whom I met at a recent EAG in London, reached out and encouraged me to apply for the ED position at Hi-Med - an organisation that I knew through my participation in their introductory fellowship (an academic paper about the outcomes of this first cohort can be found here). I seized the opportunity, applied, was offered the position, and started working full-time in November 2022.  During the role I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to lead High Impact Medicine for the past two years. My learning curve was steep - there were so many new things to
Sarah Cheng
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
TL;DR: The EA Opportunity Board is back up and running! Check it out here, and subscribe to the bi-weekly newsletter here. It’s now owned by the CEA Online Team. EA Opportunities is a project aimed at helping people find part-time and volunteer opportunities to build skills or contribute to impactful work. Their core products are the Opportunity Board and the associated bi-weekly newsletter, plus related promos across social media and Slack automations. It was started and run by students and young professionals for a long time, and has had multiple iterations over the years. The project has been on pause for most of 2024 and the student who was running it no longer has capacity, so the CEA Online Team is taking it over to ensure that it continues to operate. I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has run this project over the three years that it’s been operating, including Sabrina C, Emma W, @michel, @Jacob Graber, and Varun. From talking with some of them and reading through their docs, I can tell that it means a lot to them, and they have some grand visions for how the project could grow in the future. I’m happy that we are in a position to take on this project on short notice and keep it afloat, and I’m excited for either our team or someone else to push it further in the future. Our plans We plan to spend some time evaluating the project in early 2025. We have some evidence that it has helped people find impactful opportunities and stay motivated to do good, but we do not yet have a clear sense of the cost-effectiveness of running it[1]. We are optimistic enough about it that we will at least keep it running through the end of 2025, but we are not currently committing to owning it in the longer term. The Online Team runs various other projects, such as this Forum, the EA Newsletter, and effectivealtruism.org. I think the likeliest outcome is for us to prioritize our current projects (which all reach a larger audience) over EA Opportunities, which
Relevant opportunities