You’re right to flag the risks of introducing pay gates. I agree it would be a mistake to charge for things that are currently core to how people first engage, especially given how many people first get involved in their 20s when finances are tight.

I think the case for a supporter membership model rests on keeping those core engagement paths free (intro courses, certain events, 1-1 advice, etc.), while offering membership as an optional way for people to express support, get modest perks, and help fund infrastructure.

I also think the contrast you draw between the two (mountaineering clubs = self-benefit, EA = other-benefit) is too simplistic. Most people who get involved in EA do so because they want to become more effective at helping others. That’s a deeply personal goal. They benefit from gaining clarity, support, and a community aligned with their values. EA resources serve them, not just the ultimate beneficiaries.

Likewise, mountaineering clubs aren’t purely self-serving either — they invest in safety standards, trail access, training, and other mountaineering public goods that benefit non-members and future members. 

In both cases, people pay to be part of something they value, which helps them grow and contribute more, and then the thing they value ends up growing as well.

I think you might be overestimating how much the NKBV offers as part of the basic membership. Most of their trips and courses, etc., are paid add-ons. What the €50 fee actually gets you is fairly lightweight: a magazine, eligibility to join trips (not free), discounted access to mountain huts (because the NKBV helps fund them), inclusion in their group insurance policy, and a 10% discount with a Dutch outdoor brand.

That’s not nothing, but it’s modest and it shows that people will pay for affiliation, identity, and access to a community infrastructure, even if the tangible perks are limited.

The EA equivalent could be things like discounted or early access to EAG(x) events, member-only discussion groups, or eligibility to complete advanced courses offered by national EA associations. If multiple countries coordinated, pooled membership fees could help subsidise international EA public goods such as the Forum, EAG(x) events, group support infrastructure, etc.

I think the key point is this: the NKBV shows that people are willing to pay for affiliation, even if the direct perks are modest, as long as the organisation feels valuable to their identity and goals. EA can plausibly do the same.

You’re right that EA’s current meta budget works out to far more than €50 per “involved person” - but that average includes the highly engaged core: people attending conferences, receiving 1-1 support, travel grants, and significant staff time.

A low-touch “supporter” tier is a different product entirely. If you ask someone for €50/year just to back the mission, receive a newsletter, and gain access to certain events, the marginal cost is minimal: card fees, a CRM entry, an occasional email, maybe a €5 welcome sticker. Even doubling every line item puts the cost at €10–20, leaving €30–40 net per person.

We could keep the high-cost, high-impact activities funded by major donors, while using a supporter tier as a lightweight way for sympathisers to express commitment and reduce funding concentration risk.

If I were to bet on what's happened here, I'd bet it's something to do with Thomas leaving. 

Looking at his LinkedIn and his Forum history, he seems very well connected in the field of AI safety.

I suspect it was easy to get funding because people knew and trusted him.  

EA community building relies heavily on a few large donors. This creates risk.

One way to reduce that risk is to broaden the funding base. Membership models might help.^[1]

Many people assume EA will only ever appeal to a small slice of the population, and so this funding would never amount to anything significant. However, I think people often underestimate how large a “small slice” can be.

Take the Dutch mountaineering association. A mountaineering club in one of the flattest countries on Earth doesn’t exactly scream mass appeal.

So, how many members do you think it has?

Around 80,000. That alone brings in roughly €4 million in membership contributions - about 70% of its total annual income.^[2]

Even niche communities can fund themselves if enough people are engaged.

1. ^{^}

   For now I'm putting to one side the question of whether having a membership model would distort community building incentives.

2. ^{^}

   These figures are taken from their multi-year plan, available here.

Congrats on your first Forum post - really glad you shared it. 

One quick suggestion: I’d frame this more as an intervention idea than a cause area. It seems to fall under broader categories like “improving human wellbeing” or “global mental health”.

I’d also question the likely cost-effectiveness of interventions here, at least in the near term. As you note, the problem is most acute in high-income countries, places where the marginal impact of philanthropic interventions tends to be lower. That said, as smartphone access grows and incomes rise in the Global South, these harms could become much more widespread, so this may well be a growing global issue over time.

You might find this post on violence against women and girls a helpful reference. It’s another example of someone exploring a neglected social issue and trying to assess it in EA terms (scale, neglectedness, cost-effectiveness, etc.). I think a similarly structured dive into the screen addiction issue - perhaps comparing potential interventions and DALY burden - could be a great next step.

Thanks again for posting and I hope you keep going!

Ah that's great info! Would be useful to get similar numbers for EAGx events. I know the overall acceptance rate is quite high, but don't know how it is for students who are applying for their regional EAGx. 

Same. That's why I'm glad CEA seems to agree with us about the need for a focus on sustainable growth. 

Ah, got you. I think I agree. I only shared the EOSP data since Chris seemed to think it was relevant. 

For what it’s worth, my current take is that top-of-funnel growth has slowed in recent years, but bottom-of-funnel growth is holding up well — likely thanks to strong top-of-funnel numbers in earlier years and decent retention.

This view is mostly based on data from the Netherlands.

We’re fairly confident that intro course completions in NL surged in 2022, but have been declining since. Data collection isn’t perfect, but these are our approximate figures:

• 2021: 45
• 2022: 402
• 2023: 298
• 2024: 190

These numbers include completions from uni groups, the national intro course, and the virtual programme.

Meanwhile, bottom-of-funnel metrics — e.g. GWWC pledges — are looking strong:

We haven't publicly shared our strategy for 2025 yet, but long story short, we're focusing on top-of-funnel growth. 

I should hope they're influencing those outcomes, otherwise they're wasting resources! ;) 

But I guess you're saying something like, 'We can't infer much about the health of EA based on this evidence because this is an area where people are actively trying to grow numbers, so naturally it's improving'. But this argument feels circular. If that's the standard, it would be pretty hard to provide evidence that meets your bar. Unless your claim is something like, 'A healthy movement doesn't need to actively try and grow itself because it'll just naturally grow'? 

Or maybe I'm completely misunderstanding you?