1. The US legal definition of hardship is more stringent than ours, and we can only assist people who experience US-level hardship because we operate under a US charity. No choice there. I think pointing people to legal definitions won't help.
2. Extending the eligibility period is less of a utilitarian choice than something deontological/oriented at community building. We believe we have a duty to help EAs who'd be able to support themselves if they hadn't given away their money. Besides that, we hope current and potential EAs will see that we're looking out for each other, which will make the EA community a more attractive place to be in. There's also an argument to be made that getting donors back on their feet might get them to donate again, and it could stop them from leaving EA altogether.
3. Interesting point

The form was indeed outdated, and I agree that moving away from email would be a good thing.

This is something we'd like to expand to, but it's much harder to define "EA volunteer" than "donor to effective charities". Once donor assistance is running smoothly, we'll likely give volunteer assistance a try.

Thanks for letting us know, fixed!

I personally think the inflation section is just as important. People won't make a long-term bet denominated in USD with an expected ROI lower than inflation. This also affects markets that aren't 95% lopsided.

So, maybe, focusing on stronger cases?

Yes, and seminal cases.