What are some success stories of grantmakers beating the wider EA community?

I haven't looked closely, but from a fairly-but-not-completely uninformed perspective, Tim's allocation of part of his donor lottery winnings to the Czech Association for Effective Altruism looks prescient and potentially unusually counterfactually impactful.

I think credit should also go to those in the community who applied for and successfully won grants for projects that were not their own. Making sure a larger EA donor was aware of a particular project is one way to beat (in a very collaborative sense) the larger grant-makers. It is basically doing active grant making but at low risk and low personal ability to fund.

I know one example which is Chris Chambers work on Registered Reports. The giving opportunity was picked up on / created by Hauke Hildebrandt in a Lets Fund report. The application to fund it was made by Jacob Hilton (who had no connection to the issue but just though someone should do an application) and the grant was given by the EA Infrastructure Fund (details here).

If others have more examples of this would be great to hear.

I think the framing of good grantmaking as "spotting great opportunities early" is precisely how EA gets beat.

Fast Grants seems to have been hugely impactful for a fairly small amount of money, the trick is that the grantees weren't even asking, there was no institution to give no, and no cost-effectiveness estimate to run. It's a somewhat more entrepreneurial approach to grantmaking. It's not that EA thought it wasn't very promising, it's that EA didn't even see the opportunity.

I think it's worth noting that a ton of OpenPhil's portfolio would score really poorly along conventional EA metrics. They argue as much in this piece. So of course the community collectively gets credit because OpenPhil identifies as EA, but it's worth noting that their "hits based giving" approach divers substantially from more conventional EA-style (quantitative QALY/cost-effectiveness) analysis and asking what that should mean for the movement more generally.

Off the top of my head, I'm aware of some donors supporting the following organizations a few months before large funders did:

• Global Challenges Project (formerly Student Career Team)
• Rethink Priorities' longtermist and meta teams
• maybe Czech EA
• maybe AI Impacts
• Buying laptops or providing travel funding for promising individuals

I think some donors may just have gotten lucky. But I do think there's a small number of donors (maybe 10-30% of those who attempt?) who managed to 'beat' the broader funding ecosystem.

I spent two minutes making a list of projects that grantmakers donors funded that large funders (e.g. EA Funds) deliberately didn't fund. The list ended up being roughly twice as long as the above one (8 orgs + some smaller things).

4 years ago Our World In Data had problems getting funded after the Gates Foundation didn‘t extend their support. Apparently it worked out in the end (probably not due to the 50€ I chipped in back then, though).

From Max Roser‘s AMA:

We have some support from readers who donated to our work and that could keep us going for some time. Buy as I was mentioning elsewhere here, we have no longer term funding for the time after mid-November, but we are talking to two possible funders. But if these things shouldn't work out it would be a disaster for us yes.

I wrote OpenPhil about it back then but it didn‘t fall into any of their cause areas unfortunately.

Grants for UK policy work focused on the long-term. In particular the APPG for Future Generations and CLTR.

The bigger EA donors have typically been (and still are) incredibly sceptical of funding policy work and there has been almost no* funding in this space for smaller new projects. (the SAF Fund might change that, although funding rounds are infrequent). Big donors tend to be sceptical due to:

• Concern about the reputational risk of this work.
• Lack of expertise in donor organisations to vet such projects.

So, out of my personal donations one I am particularly proud of is probably offering initial funding to get the APPG for Future Generations growing and encouraging the people running it to hire and expand.  (I don’t know the full funding for these orgs but I believe, as well as my donation, that they were initially funded by donors who were enthusiastic about policy but outside the big EA grantmakers.)

I believe (but I am bias) that this was a great call and that UK policy work has gone shockingly well. The APPG for Future Generations and CLTR have lead to policy wins feeding into to the UK government making resilience a priority, improving the UK's ability to manage unexpected extreme risks, improving the UK's preparedness for future pandemics, and improving how UK policy makers consider the long-term.

(It is also notable that there has not been reputational problems and some conversations suggests that the risk-conscious approach taken by here may actually have reduced some reputational risks.)

*** Disclaimer: I work for the APPG. Views all my own but expect bias. ***

Early EA community building in London.

Back in 2015 there were no funds available for local community building, no funds from CEA or community grants or EA Funds etc. There was general scepticism about if it was worth funding such local work.

Kudos and many thanks go to Alex Gordon-Brown for initially suggesting that he could fund a local community organiser and to Kit Harris for initial funding and to many others in the London community for additional contributions.

This seems to have been a great call (although I might be bias as it was my job). Certainly since then there has been a massive scale up in resources for local community organisers all around the world. There has been a focus on community and in-person outreach as a particularly effective way to spread EA ideas without the message becoming garbled (i.e. it is more high fidelity). And of course the London community grew a lot. But it took individual donors actively pushing for this to happen, and funding it when others were sceptical, in order to lead the way. 

If you count seed funding as part of an incubation program I think Charity Entrepreneurship (CE) is probably the absolute king of "spotting great opportunities early".

Their earliest global poverty charities, Fortify Health and Suvita, incubated and seed funded by CE, went on to get GiveWell Incubation grants. Fish Welfare Initiative and Animal Advocacy Careers were incubated and seed funded by CE and have been funded by the EA Animal Welfare Fund. Happier Lives Institute was incubated and seed funded by CE and has now been funded by the Infrastructure Fund. I expect there are other examples and newer CE charities will do just as well.

If donors want to spot great opportunities early, being on the CE seed funding network (or even just donating to CE) seems a good way to do it. (If interested get in touch).

*** Disclaimer: I now work for CE. Views all my own but expect bias. ***
 

Not sure if this counts, but many small donors supported MIRI while GiveWell/OpenPhil were very skeptical.