I think you're asking the right question. I've tried to answer that in my reply to Trappist here.

I see where you're coming from and you're right. My point was, the actions of billionaire tech CEOs (and CEOs in general) tend to be put under a microscope by the public and news media merely because they are CEOs of influential companies. So most CEOs try not to do anything that invites more criticism or controversy. It's true that EA tries to be 'boringly effective' and 'verifiably high impact'. However, as of now EA is still a very niche social movement and it is emphatically not a 'plain and boring philanthropic choice' in the same way as donating to your local place of worship or the local YMCA is.

Zuckerberg has been mocked mercilessly for stupid things like 'looking like an alien' and 'sweating during congressional testimony'. He gave a $75 million donation to a bay area hospital and got a building named after his Harvard-educated doctor wife -and he still got criticized. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative tried their best to toe the line and donate to 'woke' left wing causes and activists, and those activists once asked him to resign from his own charitable foundation. So now Zuckerberg is just doing zany-but-popular billionaire stuff like building a 7 foot tall statue of his wife or re-recording his favorite pop song. Of course I'm not saying that sort of thing is right or 'moral', but you can see Zuckerberg's point of view from his actions.

For that matter even Moskovitz sometimes gets the Zuckerberg treatment on this forum itself, and can't just be a donor giving hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Instead the guy has to politely tiptoe around people's sentiments while worrying about risks to both EA and his day job as CEO of another multi-billion dollar company. So I wonder if EA is really appealing as a philanthropic choice to other billionaires.

Basically I think EA should become a boring thing like the YMCA, to be more impactful. Philanthropic interest and funding tends to be a feast-or-famine thing (hah) for some reason. So I think EA needs to be popular first, and then the billionaire funding may very well follow afterwards.

I disagree. I think the entire reason Dustin Moskovitz was able to begin liquidating and diversifying his Facebook/Meta stock is because Zuckerberg is holding down the fort as CEO and controlling shareholder with 58% voting rights. Zuckerberg assumed the fiduciary duty of actually running Meta to maximize shareholder return and even strategically got married the day after the Facebook IPO-just to make it super clear who was going to be in charge of the company.  Dustin Moskovitz is also in a similar position at Asana. 

Contrast that to FTX where Bankman-Fried was giving away company and shareholder money before FTX ever made any profit or even went public, and consequently EA suffered reputational damage and FTX fund recipients faced lawsuits and clawbacks from FTX shareholders and deposit holders.

Basically I think it can be a ....slippery slope-fiduciary duty wise, at least- asking billionaires that have an active role in running their companies to aggressively divest their shares for the sake of philanthropy.

(edited for lucidity)

Maybe you could rename the LTFF as the Speculative Long Term Future Fund (SLTFF) or the Moonshot Fund. That is, make it clear that the LTFF is EA Funds' "Moonshot-focused" grantmaking arm. Here's a draft writeup you can use to replace the LTFF description:

From an EA point of view, the entire reason the LTFF exists is that some opportunities to impact the future, or impact a large portion of humanity, or both; are much more cost effective than traditional 'bednets' type opportunities.  But the tradeoff is uncertainty.  LTFF funds opportunities whose impact is much more uncertain. That is, LTFF tries to fund effective 'moonshots'. The problems with funding moonshots, however, are:

(a) the likelihood of any particular grantee actually succeeding - that is, succeeding at a scale so as to influence events on a humanity-wide scale, is pretty low. 

(b) Even if such funding opportunities exist, they are likely to need millions of dollars of funding, just because of the sheer logistics of making an impact at that scale.

However, that's not to say that such funding opportunities don't exist. Furthermore, even if humanity-scale impact costs millions of dollars, the LTFF can fund pilot projects that get picked up by bigger funders, and also fund individuals to contribute towards an ecosystem that can create humanity-scale impact.