You should talk to @Brad West 

Strongly upvoted. I'd love to see more work like this: well-powered, preregistered, and directly answering an important question.

2 points I'd raise:

1. We're really bad at predicting how a change would affect our happiness. We overwhelmingly overestimate the impact. If you know this, schlep won't seem as bigger sacrifice

2. I think we, as a community, need to incentivise schlepping by granting it more social status and discriminating towards people who do it.

Some great things about this post:

1. Concise and concrete; is quick to understand precisely what you did and why
2. Scout mindset; just presents the data without shilling for an idea
3. Directly relevant to doing good effectively

I'd love to see this exact experiment done on a larger scale with more robust outcome data. Kudos to the author. I hope they post more stuff like this.

I think this a cool idea that should be tried. If net-negative, it can be undone fairly easily by simply deleting the website. I'm up for being a beta user.

Upvoted. It's great when people put their requests on the forum so they can be scrutinized thoroughly by the community.

I know nothing about community building. Regardless, here are some things I think would make your case stronger to the average reader:

1. Listing some notable Polish EAs, especially if your outreach brought them into the movement. You've mentioned some organisations, but it's costly for the reader to figure out who exactly you're referring to and what your role was.
2. There are some places where vagueness could be concealing strength/weakness. For example, you've referred to your slack participants doubling. This could be from two people to four or from 10000 to 20000. 
3. It seems as though you're pursuing five strategies at once as a fairly small organisation. This is generally a bad idea, because doing one thing well is hard as it is. Can you elaborate on why you think such a broad focus is called for? (e.g. perhaps they are synergistic, or other similar orgs have had success with this approach)
4. It's not clear why your plans for 2024 have been made. Can you comment a little on each and why you feel they are high EV?
5. I suppose your major competitor for this type of funding is Meta Charity Funders themselves. Why should the reader donate to you rather than to them? After all, they are supposedly the experts on what meta charities deserve funding. 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?

The size of the effect makes me wonder if there's something multiplicative going on. If two independent bad things co-occuring will kill you, then reducing the likelihood of both those things by 30% would reduce the resulting deaths by 51%.

$1^2-{0.7}^2$ = 0.51

It was three things that needed to co-occur, then 30% reductions would yield a 66% reduction in resulting deaths.

$1^3-{0.7}^3=0.66$

I think this would generalise somewhat to a more complicated causal landscape, so long as a sizable proportion of the deaths are caused by these multiplicative interactions. This could perhaps explain why the reduction in deaths amount to more than the sum of their parts?

Examples of relevant bad things:

- Malnutrition
- Parental illness
- Disease
- Hard times with money
- Doctor burnout / Limited hospital capacity

Very nicely written!

That being said, here are some changes I'd like to see in who we hire / invite:

- Someone who went to Oxford despite being born poor is likely much smarter than their richer peers; familial social economic status should be considered..
- Greater focus on people who've sacrificed more. It's a costly signal of value-alignment
- Prioritise people are cannot have achieved their position through office politics / bullshiting / being carried by their teams e.g. soloprenuers >> management consultant.