All of bob's Comments + Replies

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 f

The form was indeed outdated, and I agree that moving away from email would be a good thing.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

We have those as well. I am still a bit out of my depth here, but I believe the rules are stricter when it comes to cash transfers than when comes to providing education. The lawyer I consulted did not feel the agency's position was particularly coherent, though.

For associations like symphony orchestras, tax-exemption does exist but the process is completely different.

But if Basefund handles everything and the funders just feel like a detail that's happening behind the scenes, this would be less of a concern.

This will indeed be the case!

Nope, fixed.

Setting up a non-profit is relatively easy. Registering a non-profit as a tax-exempt charity is more challenging. Tax-exemption of charities is not something that is coordinated at the EU level, unfortunately.

To me, the bread fund version feels like a last resort on the order of asking relatives for help, while the 50% version feels like something you can rely on. Most people are risk averse with respect to their personal finances, and I think the (perceived) uncertainty of going through individual funders would feel significant to most people.

I definitely could see the optics being a problem.

We will cap at 50%, and I have edited the post to reflect that. Does that change anything for you? Does the number of available funders matter to you?

Donors will not co... (read more)

I'm confused why an approach involving a US and UK entity isn't being focused on, if it's at all promising.

Besides constraints on time and budget, the structure inspired by bread funds has a few large advantages detailed in the post.

Will this be tax deductible to an American or UK EA?

The original plan was to register the charity in the Netherlands and get initial funding from Dutch citizens. Then, if it appeared more funding was needed, we would apply for charity status in the US or the UK.

In the new plan, donations will not be taxed in the UK or US... (read more)

I agree that your proposal gets around most (maybe all?) of the issues I mentioned.

Ah, that's where we went wrong. I assumed you would have mentioned that if you thought so.

However, your proposal focuses on earning-to-givers who have already given a fair bit, this seems to be tackling a minority of the problem (maybe 20%?).

I agree, and it is quite challenging to determine the size of that minority. If anyone knows anyone who has been in this situation, please send me a message.

Hey, I wrote the article you refer to. I only intend to partially reimburse people who donated money to EA-related causes. Most problems you describe apply to a safety net for all effective altruists, which would be much more difficult. I'll quote a comment of mine:

By focusing exclusively on reimbursing donors in financial trouble, we avoid opening a can of worms. First of all, the risk of fraud is much lower. If EAs can only get back half of what they gave away, there is no way to use the fund to make money, unless they control a GiveWell-recommended ch

This is a commendable effort! However, it is unfortunate that detected fraud cases and actual fraud cases are conflated throughout the article.

$241,633 was lost to fraud this year — that’s about what we expect

We estimate 0.23% of those funds was lost to theft, bribes, and imposters.

By your own admission, the increase from 0.18% to 0.23% is mostly the result of improved detection. Such a large improvement in a one-year span suggests there is still a lot of low-hanging fruit. Because of that, fraud is probably much more common than reported here.

It i... (read more)

This post can be considered a response to that very comment! The main change is described here:

Note that both linked essays discuss a fund that only offers support to contributors. I no longer think that is desirable, and it will be very difficult to convince governments to grant such a construction tax-exempt status.

By expanding the scope to all donors to EA-related causes, contributors to the fund no longer gain an entitlement. This means that the fund will almost certainly be recognized as a charity, and donations will be tax-exempt.

As for the long silence, I only recently had the time to contemplate the change I made.

Agreed! I have applied to ACX Grants to set up a trial version. If anyone else is interested in funding this, send me a message.

Providing insurance is really hard, and insurance coverage is inherently limited. From the LessWrong article I linked:

This sounds a lot like insurance, and effective altruists could indeed insure themselves against a myriad of risks. Unfortunately, insurers will reject claims whenever possible, many risks cannot be easily insured, and insurance requires monthly payment, which requires a stable income. In other words, insurance is no replacement for a personal financial buffer. Insurance is useful to mitigate specific high-cost risks, but that's it.

(Addit