David van Beveren
Bio
David van Beveren serves as the Grant Manager at Craigslist, and President & Founder of Vegan Hacktivists. He established Vegan Hacktivists in 2019 with the objective of addressing technology and data shortcomings in the animal protection movement, and has since supported over 250 organizations with free tech, data and consulting services.
As Grant Manager at Craigslist he facilitates granting several millions worth of funding towards vegan and plant-based initiatives— with an emphasis towards transforming the food system and combating factory farming. Prior to that, David led a software firm serving U.S. K-12 and higher education institutions that included UCLA, Princeton, and Duke University.
David's passion for technology, branding, capacity building, and meta fundraising, is only matched by his love for reading, watching anime, and playing the handpan.
How I can help others
If you're involved in any form of animal advocacy, please don't hesitate to contact me— I'd be happy to provide assistance whether it relates to technology, branding or fundraising.
Posts 3
Comments41
Nothing like that exists yet, but sounds like it would be valuable— adding to our list.
Thanks for the suggestion Fai, appreciate it!
Just stopping by to add my +1 to anyone reading this— AVA has been a much needed boost in fostering connections and collaborations within both of our spaces.
I was amazed by the size (and engagement) of the EA community there, so I highly encourage anyone interested to register for the upcoming event in D.C., there's a lot of value to be gained.
Hi Kieran, thanks for posting— it was an interesting and insightful read, and it's unfortunate that the fund is facing a wider gap and has fewer resources available compared to last year.
I have a few questions if you don't mind:
1) If I understand correctly, with $1 million currently available and $4.5 million worth of grants under evaluation, several promising applicants are likely to be declined. In instances where applications are rejected due to insufficient funds, does the fund ever share information about these declined proposals with other potential funders, so as not to miss out on any potentially promising interventions? Do these applicants typically remain active long enough without funding to reapply in the following year?
2) You flagged that the fund is (somewhat) tied to funders that invest in Cryptocurrency— are you able to share a rough % breakdown from funds received from Cryptocurrency sources versus more traditional funding sources? Would you attribute the anticipated variation in funding for the upcoming year to fluctuations in the Cryptocurrency market, or are there other unrelated factors primarily influencing this change?
3) Do any of AWF's larger donors provide restricted funding, where their contributions are earmarked for specific initiatives or causes? For instance, a donor who specifies that their donation should only be used for projects related to fish welfare, or those favoring abolitionist approaches over welfare-based methods. How common is this, if at all, and does it lead to any challenges or difficulties?
Thanks! I was really happy to hear that there was significant investment in invertebrate welfare over this past year— I hope that continues, and keep up the great work with the fund.
Ariel, thank you for taking the time to put this together. It's encouraging to see both constructive and meaningful conversations unfolding around a topic that I believe is essential if we're to see a shift in both OP and EA's FAW funding priorities.
Most points I had in mind have been covered by others in this thread already— but I wanted to extend my support either way.
I'm not the OP but according to this post, that should be perfectly fine— especially if you don't mention voting what-so-ever. The idea is that upvotes and downvotes occur naturally and internally by the reader with no outside influence (or as little as there can be).
Sharing is simply sharing, and we should encourage it.
Neat— thanks!