Agree that this seems useful! Hope these seem like they're getting to interesting possible disagreements.

• Any company from AIM's Founding to Give's first batch get into YC before EOY 2027?
• Any company from AIM's Founding to Give's first batch lead to an exit with donations >$1M before EOY 2036?
• >10% of companies (>12 months old) from AIM's Founding to Give get into YC before EOY 2030?
   

On the other hand, by filling the gap for 2024 we think there is over a 90% chance that we will be able to reach a sustainability tipping point i.e. have a viable income stream for at least 1 FTE and therefore avoid similar threats in the future. 

Is your claim that for funding of 2025, you will have ≥1 FTE funding (120k >loty / 29k USD) ready at the end of 2024 – excluding Open Philanthropy, EA Infrastructure Fund, and Meta Charity Funders? Or does the statement permit grants from those sources? 

5. [...] Wouldn't it be better to give them the money and letting them choose the best charity that's gone unfunded from their applicant pool?

FWIW, I don't think this Meta Charity Funders' model. I think they let funders join rather than donate to a pool. As far as I understand, after joining you access communal resources to best decide on grants – but the decision itself of where to donate remains with yourself as original funder.

This looks great, thank you for doing work to increase excitement about effective giving further!

For those interested, I created a Manifold market for the Donation Election, where people can add their own charities and bets on how the funds will be distributed.

It seems obvious to me that numerous stakeholders-- including organization leaders, donors of all sizes, group leaders, and entrepreneurs-- would all benefit from having an accurate understanding of EA’s growth trajectory. And it seems just as obvious that it would be tremendously inefficient for each of those parties to conduct their own analysis. It would be in everyone’s interest to receive a regular (every 3-6 months?) update from a reliable analyst. This wouldn’t be expensive (it wouldn’t require anything close to a full-time job initially, though the frequency and/or depth of the analyses could be scaled up if people saw value in doing so). As public goods go, this should be an easy one to provide.

Quick vibe-check from Rethink Priorities: Could people react with Agree or Disagree if you think EA Infrastructure Fund (as an example) paying for the Surveys & Data Analysis team of Rethink Priorities to do this (say, for a trial period of one year), would be money well spent?

I understand it depends on scope and price, but as a general direction this information would be useful. We agree this seems important, have done similar work before for other organizations, and would be happy to take on such a project.

(I think the links in the summary are linking to a collaborative edit version of this doc, rather than the places you want it to)

Love this! Seems like a great push (importantly, in a constructive and thoughtful way) for many that might otherwise feel frustrated with their current situation. Will definitely share this from time to time :))

Thanks for sharing this Linch, I found it a useful complement to the marginal grant thresholds post, which I recommend for those who enjoyed this post.

Thanks Joel for your thoughtful comment, which I'd like to build on.

I was thinking about how we can get funders to make calculated bets on those that have been discarded elsewhere, and get rewarded when they proved others right. Isn't AI Safety Impact Markets trying to solve some of the issues with adverse selection through that kind of mechanism? Sorry for the lack of depth, but I think others can weigh in better.

What are your thoughts, for you personally, around...
I) Time spent 
II) Joy of use 
III) Value of information gained
of Manifold vs Metaculus?

Great listen, I enjoyed this a lot!

Kudos to Luisa who does a really good job of acting as a "Watson", asking the followup questions that listeners might have. Several times in this podcast I was happy with her summaries or clarifying questions, even if I suspect she already knew the answers many of those times.