All of Jonas Vollmer's Comments + Replies

Effective Crypto | Future State

Thanks for the suggestions! I agree these would be improvements and we've been thinking along similar lines. We don't currently have the capacity to implement this and may only prioritize the project if there's another major bull run, but appreciate the concrete ideas!

4Ian Sagstetter8dThanks Jonas! I'm currently taking a break from full-time work to focus on Web3 projects. Happy to invest some time in this area to prepare for another bull run. Let me know what you think.
EA Funds has appointed new fund managers

Yes, we still do have that intention. We're currently thinly staffed, so I think it'll still take a while for us to publish a polished policy. For now, here's the current beta version of our internal Conflict of Interest policy:

Conflict of interest policy

We are still working on the conflict of interest policy. For now, please stick to the following:

  • Please follow these two high-level principles:
    • 1. Avoid perceived or actual conflicts of interest, as this can impair decision-making and permanently damage donor trust.
    • 2. Ensure all relevant information still ge
... (read more)
RyanCarey's Shortform

I'm interested in funding someone with a reasonable track record to work on this (if WikiHow permits funding). You can submit a very quick-and-dirty funding application here

Democratising Risk - or how EA deals with critics

+1, EA Funds (which I run) is interested in funding critiques of popular EA-relevant ideas.

Long-Term Future Fund: May 2021 grant recommendations

Based on the publicly available information on the SFF website, I guess the answer is 'no', but not sure.

AGI Safety Fundamentals curriculum and application

I vaguely remember seeing a website for that program, but can't find the link – is this post the most up-to-date resource, or is the website more up to date, and if the latter, do you have a link? Thank you!

4richard_ngo25dThis post (plus the linked curriculum) is the most up-to-date resource. There's also this website [https://www.eacambridge.org/agi-safety-fundamentals], but it's basically just a (less-up-to-date) version of the curriculum.
You can now apply to EA Funds anytime! (LTFF & EAIF only)

But FYI the fund pages still refer to the Feb/Jul/Nov grant schedule, so probably worth updating that when you have a chance.

Thanks, fixed!

Re: the balances on the fund web pages, it looks like the “fund payout” numbers only reflect grants that have been reported but not the interim grants since the last report, is that correct?

Correct.

Do the fund balances being displayed also exclude these unreported grants (which would lead to higher cash balances being displayed than the funds currently have available)?

No, they don't.

I can see that this is confusing. We ... (read more)

1AnonymousEAForumAccount22dThanks Jonas!
You can now apply to EA Funds anytime! (LTFF & EAIF only)

No, the EAIF and LTFF now have rolling applications: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/oz4ZWh6xpgFheJror/you-can-now-apply-to-ea-funds-anytime-ltff-and-eaif-only

There have been dozens of grants made since the last published reports, much more than over the same period last year, both in numbers and dollar amounts.

Both LTFF and EAIF have received large amounts of funding recently, some of which has already been processed, and some of which hasn't.

1AnonymousEAForumAccount1moThanks for clarifying Jonas. Glad to hear the funds have been making regular grants (which to me is much more important than whether they follow a specific schedule). But FYI the fund pages still refer to the Feb/Jul/Nov grant schedule, so probably worth updating that when you have a chance. Re: the balances on the fund web pages, it looks like the “fund payout” numbers only reflect grants that have been reported but not the interim grants since the last report, is that correct? Do the fund balances being displayed also exclude these unreported grants (which would lead to higher cash balances being displayed than the funds currently have available)? Just trying to make sure I understand what the numbers on the funds’ pages are meant to represent.
EA megaprojects continued

I didn't get a response so far and talked to some other grantmakers who didn't seem to know you, either – so I'm confused what's going on here.

Center on Long-Term Risk: 2021 Plans & 2020 Review

As a bigger and more established organization, CLR seems a better fit for larger funders who specialize in funding large organizations. In comparison, the LTFF is more focused on helping new projects get off the ground.

You can now apply to EA Funds anytime! (LTFF & EAIF only)

We will continue to publish payout reports ~3 times per year. There have been a number of delays with the more recent payout reports, but several funds expect to publish them within a few days/weeks.

7AnonymousEAForumAccount1moJonas, just to clarify, could you confirm that the non-global health funds have been making grants on the planned Feb/July/November schedule even if some of the reports haven’t been published yet? I ask because the Infrastructure Fund shows a zero balance as of the end of Nov (suggesting a Nov grant round took place) but the Animal Fund and LTFF show non-zero balances that suggest no grants have been made since the last published grant reports (Jul and Apr respectively). For example, LTFF shows a balance of ~$2.5m as of the end of nov, which is the same as the difference between the cumulative $3.6m the fund had raised in 2021 through the end of nov, and the cumulative $1.1m the fund had raised through the end of April (date of the last grant report). If the LTFF had a July (or November) grant round, I’d expect a lower current balance.
What are some success stories of grantmakers beating the wider EA community?

I think Fast Grants may not be great on a longtermist worldview (though it might still be good in terms of capacity-building, hmm), and there are few competent EA grantmakers with a neartermist, human-centric worldview.

What are some success stories of grantmakers beating the wider EA community?

Off the top of my head, I'm aware of some donors supporting the following organizations a few months before large funders did:

  • Global Challenges Project (formerly Student Career Team)
  • Rethink Priorities' longtermist and meta teams
  • maybe Czech EA
  • maybe AI Impacts
  • Buying laptops or providing travel funding for promising individuals

I think some donors may just have gotten lucky. But I do think there's a small number of donors (maybe 10-30% of those who attempt?) who managed to 'beat' the broader funding ecosystem.

I spent two minutes making a list of projects that ... (read more)

EA megaprojects continued

I'm very interested in some of these ideas. If anyone would like to build a pilot version of one of these projects, EA Funds is interested in receiving your application and might fund good pilots with an initial $30k–$500k. Apply here.

(You can also email me at jonas@effectivealtruismfunds.org, though I prefer getting applications over getting emails.)

I didn't get a response so far and talked to some other grantmakers who didn't seem to know you, either – so I'm confused what's going on here.

Effective Altruism: The First Decade (Forum Review)

Here's a somewhat random and non-exhaustive selection of (in my view) excellent content that's not on the Forum (disclosure: a lot is by CLR, the org I used to co-run):

... (read more)
3tessa1moFYI for anyone else who might crosspost Brian Tomasik posts: I learned thanks to TianyiQ's crosspost of The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering [https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JMsJhxRbTnPuADdCi/brian-tomasik-the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering] that he doesn't like crossposting [https://briantomasik.com/writing-style/#Why_I_dont_like_crossposting] since it makes updating the content of posts more difficult. I have updated my crossposts from him to only include the summary paragraphs and a table of contents (with a caveat that the contents are as of the time of cross-posting).

Thanks for taking the time to put together this list, this is great! I found that a few of these were on the forum already:

... (read more)
Effective Altruism: The First Decade (Forum Review)

I'm noticing that the EA Forum contains a lot of 'meta-level' content (i.e. discussions about the community, announcements, and similar), but a lot of object-level content (e.g. research reports, other forms of intellectual progress, or reports about successful EA projects) has been posted elsewhere. 

I mainly want to upvote object-level content (and in fact have long felt pretty unhappy with the Forum's emphasis of meta-level content). But I don't really have time to crosspost more content myself. If someone wanted to do this, I'd be excited.

I'm willing to do a few more crossposts― are there pieces of object-level content that you'd really like to see crossposted?

6Aaron Gertler2moThe Forum team has crossposted some of the best object-level content (e.g. most of Open Phil's blog, almost all FHI papers). However, there's far too much relevant object-level info scattered across far too many sources for us to capture everything. We appreciate all the users who take the time to share things they found valuable!
Effective Altruism: The First Decade (Forum Review)

I noticed that when I go to the voting dashboard, I can't see this post listed there – is that a bug?

2Aaron Gertler2moThanks for this report — we're looking into it.
Announcing EffectiveCrypto.org, powered by EA Funds

Out of all the suggestions, this seemed the least bad one. If you have a better suggestion, we might rename it!

2Stefan_Schubert2moI think it's pretty good. I don't think it's that big of a problem that it may be a bit initially confusing. It's nice that "effective crypto" (like "effective thesis") ties to effective altruism. "Impactful" doesn't do that.
A Red-Team Against the Impact of Small Donations

Though is that case, is the upshot that I should donate to EA Funds, or that I should tell EA Funds to refer weird grant applicants to me?

If you're a <$500k/y donor, donate to EA Funds; otherwise tell EA Funds to refer weird grant applications to you (especially if you're neartermist – I don't think we're currently constrained by longtermist/meta donors who are open to weird ideas).

Regarding Charter Cities, I don't think EA Funds would be worried about funding them. However, I haven't yet encountered human-centric (as opposed to animal-inclusive) nearte... (read more)

A Red-Team Against the Impact of Small Donations

This doesn't seem like it is common knowledge. 

To me, it feels like I (and other grantmakers) have been saying this over and over again (on the Forum, on Facebook, in Dank EA Memes, etc.), and yet people keep believing it's hard to fund weird things. I'm confused by this.

Also, "weird things that make sense" does kind of screen off a bunch of ideas which make sense to potential applicants, but not to fund managers. 

Sure, but that argument applies to individual donors in the same way. (You might say that having more diverse decision-makers helps, but I'm pretty skeptical and think this will instead just lower the bar for funding.)

A Red-Team Against the Impact of Small Donations

Yeah, I agree. (Also, I think it's a lot harder / near-impossible to sustain such high returns on a $100b portfolio than on a $1b portfolio.)

A Red-Team Against the Impact of Small Donations

Markets are made efficient by really smart people with deep expertise. Many EAs fit that description, and have historically achieved such returns doing trades/investments with a solid argument and without taking crazy risks. 

Examples include: crypto arbitrage opportunities like these (without exposure to crypto markets), the Covid short, early crypto investments (high-risk, but returns were often >100x, implying very favorable risk-adjusted returns), prediction markets, meat alternatives.

Overall, most EA funders outperformed the market over the las... (read more)

A Red-Team Against the Impact of Small Donations

Strong upvote, I think the "GiveDirectly of longtermism" is investing* the money and deploying it to CEPI-like (but more impactful) opportunities later on. 

* Donors should invest it in ways that return ≥15% annually (and plausibly 30-100% on smaller amounts, with current crypto arbitrage opportunities). If you don't know how to do this yourself, funging with a large EA donor may achieve this.

(Made a minor edit)

The claim that large EA donors are likely to return ≥15% annually, and plausibly 30%-100%, is incredibly optimistic. Why would we expect large EA donors to get so much higher returns on investment than everyone else, and why would such profitable opportunities still be funding-constrained? This is not a case where EA is aiming for something different from others; everyone is trying to maximize their monetary ROI with their investments.

5AppliedDivinityStudies2moBut the more you think everyone else is doing that, the more important it is to give now right? Just as an absurd example, say the $46b EA-related funds grows 100% YoY for 10 years, then we wake up in 2031 with $46 trillion. If anything remotely like that is actually true, we'll feel pretty dumb for not giving to CEPI now.
A Red-Team Against the Impact of Small Donations

I want to mildly push back on the "fund weird things" idea. I'm not aware of EA Funds grants having been rejected due to being weird. I think EA Funds is excited about funding weird things that make sense, and we find it easy to refer them to private donors. It's possible that there are good weird ideas that never cross our desk, but that's again an informational reason rather than weirdness.

Edit: The above applies primarily to longtermism and meta. If you're a large (>$500k/y) neartermist donor who is interested in funding weird things, please reach out to us (though note that we have had few to none weird grant ideas in these areas).

This doesn't seem like it is common knowledge. Also, "weird things that make sense" does kind of screen off a bunch of ideas which make sense to potential applicants, but not to fund managers. 

It's possible that there are good weird ideas that never cross our desk, but that's again an informational reason rather than weirdness.

This is not the state of the world I would expect to observe if the LTF was getting a lot of weird ideas. In that  case, I'd expect some weird ideas to be funded, and some really weird ideas to not get funded.

I agree EA is really good as funding weird things, but every in-group has something they consider weird. A better way of phrasing that might have been "fund things that might create PR risk for OpenPhil".

See this comment from the Rethink Priorities Report on Charter Cities:

Finally, the laboratories of governance model may add to the neocolonialist critique of charter cities. Charter cities are not only risky, they are also controversial. Charter cities are likely to be financed by rich-country investors but built in low-income countries. If rich develope

... (read more)
Disentangling "Improving Institutional Decision-Making"

I've been skeptical of much of the IIDM work I've seen to date. By contrast, from a quick skim, this piece seemed pretty good to me because it has more detailed models of how IIDM may or may not be useful, and is opinionated in a few non-obvious but correct-seeming ways. I liked this a lot – thanks for publishing!

Like, if anyone feels like handing out prizes for good content, I'd recommend that this piece of work should receive a $10k prize (though perhaps I'd want to read it in full before fully recommending).

Should EA Global London 2021 have been expanded?

With that sentence, I only meant to suggest that I wouldn't want CEA to become more risk-averse due to this post (or similar future posts). I didn't mean to implicitly discourage thoughtful critiques like this one. Sorry if my comment read that way! I also agree with you that CEA should avoid repeating any mistakes that were made.

I've edited the previous comment to clarify.

Should EA Global London 2021 have been expanded?

I think it's great that CEA increased the event size on short notice. It's hard to anticipate everything in advance for complex projects like this one, and I think it's very cool that when CEA realized the potential mistake, it fixed the issue and expanded capacity in time.

I'd much rather have a CEA that gets important things broadly right and acts swiftly to fix any issues in time, than a CEA that overall gets less done due to risk aversion resulting from pushback from posts like this one*, or one that stubbornly sticks to early commitments rather than fl... (read more)

1willbradshaw2moMaybe – but if so that isn't at all how the change was presented to attendees: Note the lack of any indication that CEA made this change because COVID was less bad than they previously thought. Seems like that would have been pretty useful info to share with attendees.

I'd much rather have a CEA that gets important things broadly right and acts swiftly to fix any issues in time, than a CEA that overall gets less done due to risk aversion resulting from pushback from posts like this one, or one that stubbornly sticks to early commitments rather than flexibly adjusting its plans.

Emphasis mine. This reads to me like "it's bad to criticise organisations for mistakes you think they made, because that will make them more risk averse, and you'll be to blame". If that's a correct interpretation, it seems really bad to me.

I do in... (read more)

RyanCarey's Shortform

PPP-adjusted GDP seems less geopolitically relevant than nominal GDP, here's a nominal GDP table based on the same 2017 PwC report (source), the results are broadly similar:

Truthful AI

(Unimportant: Why is falsity raised to the fourth power?)

4Owen_Cotton-Barratt3moThe idea is that one statement which is definitely false seems a much more egregious violation of truthfulness than e.g. four statements each only 75% true. Raising it to a power >1 is a factor correcting for this. The choice of four is a best guess based on thinking through a few examples and how bad things seemed, but I'm sure it's not an optimal choice for the parameter.
MaxDalton's Shortform

I agree with those examples! 

(Maybe I feel somewhat skeptical about 'move slowly with high quality' ever being a good choice – it seems to me that the quality/speed tradeoff is often overstated, and there's actually not that much of a tradeoff.)

Move slowly with high quality makes more sense for people whose "product" is not optional, eg monopolies or public services.

You really don't want your water provider to upgrade quickly if it increases the chance you won't have water at all for a month.

9MaxDalton3moYeah, I am also skeptical of that, so maybe that's a bad example. I can conjure examples (e.g. shipping a physical product) where you want to move slower with very high quality, because it's hard to iterate. But I think that when you open up "move slower with high quality", it's going to normally look like rapid, messy iteration on what the product is, the production line etc.
Listen to more EA content with The Nonlinear Library

If someone deletes their original post, do you auto-remove it from the podcast as well? That would seem important to me.

9Kat Woods3moGood idea! I'll add that to the list of things to do.
Listen to more EA content with The Nonlinear Library
  • Once something is up on the internet, it's up forever. Taking it down post-facto doesn't actually undo the damage.

I think this isn't actually correct – I think it depends a lot on the type of content, how likely it is to get mirrored, the data format, etc. E.g. the old Leverage Research website is basically unavailable now (except for the front page I think), despite being text (which gets mirrored a lot more).

  • You only need one person to sue you for things to go quite badly wrong.

Whether it actually goes 'badly wrong' depends on the type of lawsuit, the se... (read more)

MaxDalton's Shortform

Interesting. Could you say more why you believe that there are clusters of traits that go well together? 

The main example that comes to my mind is that people have different personalities and preferences, so if your team clusters around a set of certain personality traits and preferences, that implies that some specific organizational design choices work better than others.

But I'd feel more reluctant to say things like "move fast and break things works well with hiring quickly"; I find it hard to see any obvious hills based on the variables you mentioned.

I would have said something more like: Which strategy is best will depend on the specifics of what you're trying to do (market, product, goals). 

4MaxDalton3moSure, I should have given examples from the start! I also agree that some of this is about adapting to the market etc. Also, I think that your point about personality traits /preferences covers a fair few examples: e.g. some orgs choose to have a critical feedback culture, and hire people who respond well to very critical feedback (e.g. Bridgewater). Some other examples: "Hire aligned people" goes well with "have relatively loose HR policies (expenses, budgets etc.)"; "Hire unaligned people and incentivise them with money" goes better with "have somewhat tighter HR policies (firing, expenses etc.)". I think there are companies that have done well with each approach. "Pay at the very top of the market" maybe goes well with "set very high standards and fire quickly"; "pay in the middle of the market" goes well with having somewhat lower standards. My impression is that Netflix is trying particularly hard to be in the first bucket here, and then there are other tech companies that are less extremely in that bucket. I think "Move fast and break things" goes well with "have very short iteration cycles, so that you quickly fix the things you broke" (e.g. Facebook), and "move slowly with high quality" goes better with a more waterfall-based approach to development (maybe older/more established tech companies, as well as a bunch of others). This example is clearly partly about the product you're building, but I could imagine competitors in some markets choosing different paths here.
Apply to EA Funds now

These dates are now out of date, you can now apply anytime. Please refer to our website for up-to-date information.


 

How are resources in EA allocated across issues?

I'd guess that the labor should be valued at significantly more than $100k per person-year. Your calculation suggests that 64% of EA resources spent are funding and 36% are labour, but given that we're talent-constrained, I would guess that the labor should be valued at something closer to $400k/y, suggesting a split of 31%/69% between funding and talent, respectively. (Or put differently, I'd guess >20 people pursuing direct work could make >$10 million per year if they tried earning to give, and they're presumably working on things more valuable th... (read more)

2Benjamin_Todd4moI agree that figure is really uncertain. Another issue is that the mean is driven by the tails. For that reason, I mostly prefer to look at funding and the percentage of people separately, rather than the combined figure - though I thought I should provide the combined figure as well. On the specifics: That seems plausible, though jtbc the relevant reference class is the 7,000 most engaged EAs rather than the people currently doing (or about to start doing) direct work. I think that group might in expectation donate several fold-less than the narrower reference class.
What we learned from a year incubating longtermist entrepreneurship

Regarding a YC incubator model, I think the main issue is just that people rarely generate sufficiently well-targeted and ambitious startup ideas. I really don't think we need another dozen donation apps or fundraising orgs, but that's what people often come up with. I think we'd want something that does more to help people develop better ideas. (Perhaps that's what you had in mind as well.)

1An1lam4moHonestly I wasn't too sure what the biggest issue was but what you described seems reasonable to me!
What we learned from a year incubating longtermist entrepreneurship

FWIW, as someone who previously warned about risk of accidental harm, I personally mostly agree with this comment. I think what I care more is "option value to shut projects down if they turn out to be harmful" than preventing damage in the first place (with the exception of projects that have very large negative effects from the very beginning).

2xccf4moI think offering funding & advice causes more people to work with you, and the closer they are working with you, the larger the influence your opinion is likely to have on the question of whether they should shut down their project.
EffectiveAltruismData.com: A Website for Aggregating and Visualising EA Data

Very exciting! In case funding would help with further developing this project, consider applying here, our process is designed to be fast and easy.

Edit: Ah, I can see that you mention this in your post - we're looking forward to receiving your application!

University EA Groups Should Form Regional Groups

I commented on a draft of this post. I haven't re-read it in full, so I don't know to what degree my comments were incorporated. Based on a quick glance it seems they weren't, so I thought I'd copy the main comments I left on that draft. My main point is that I think inserting regional groups into the funding landscape would likely worsen rather than improve the funding situation. I still think regional groups seem promising for other reasons.

Some of my comments (copy-paste, quickly written):

[Regarding applying for funding:] At a high level, my guess would

... (read more)
How to best address Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI)?

Some further recommendations:

  • Keep using your hands, acknowledging it may be (partly) psychosomatic, and not worrying too much about it. A friend told me they saw a surgeon for RSI and the surgeon recommended to keep using the hands as normally and not worry too much, and that helped in their case.
  • Reducing phone usage; not using the phone in bed while lying down; not playing games on my phone.
Get 100s of EA books for your student group

In 80K's The Precipice mailing experiment, 15% of recipients reported reading the book in full after a month, and ~7% of people reported reading at least half.

I'm also aware of some anecdotal cases where books seemed pretty good - e.g., I know of a very promising person who got highly involved with longtermism within a few months primarily based on reading The Precipice.

The South Korea case study is pretty damning, though. I wonder if things would look better if there had been a small number of promising people who help onboard newly interested ones (or wh... (read more)

Get 100s of EA books for your student group

To me it sounds like you're underestimating the value of handing out books: I think books are great because you can get someone to engage with EA ideas for ~10 hours, without it taking up any of your precious time.

As you said, I think books can be combined with mailing lists. (If there was a tradeoff, I would estimate they're similarly good: You can either get a ~20% probability of getting someone to engage for ~10h via a book, or a ~5%(? most people don't read newsletters) probability of getting someone to engage for ~40h via a mailing list. And while I'd... (read more)

9Benjamin_Todd5moI think I disagree with those fermis for engagement time. My prior is that in general, people are happier to watch videos than to read online articles, and they're happier to read online articles than to read books. The total time per year spent reading books is pretty tiny. (Eg I think all time spent reading DGB is about 100k hours, which is only ~1yr of the 80k podcast or GiveWell's site.) I expect that if you sign someone up to a newsletter and give them a book at the same time, they're much more likely to read a bunch of links from the newsletter than they are to read the book. With our newsletter, the open rate is typically 20-30%, and it's usually higher for the first couple of emails someone gets. About 20% of subs read most of the emails, which go out ~3 times per month. The half life is several years (e.g. 1.5% unsubscribe per month gives you a half life of over 3yr). I don't think our figures are especially good vs. other newsletters. If you give someone a book, I expect the chance they finish it is under 10%, rather than 20%. The other point is about follow up. I think book with no follow up might be almost no value. A case study is South Korea. DGB had top tier media coverage and sold around 30k copies, but I've never heard of any key EAs resulting from that. (Though hopefully if we set up south korean orgs now we'd have an easier time.) The explanation could be almost no-one becomes a committed EA just from reading – lots of one-on-one discussions are basically necessary. And it takes several years for most people. There are lots of ways to achieve this follow up. If a book is given out in the context of a local group, maybe that's enough. But my thinking is that if you sign someone up to a newsletter (or other subscription), you've already (partly) automated the process. As well as sending them more articles, you can send them events, job adverts, invites to one-on-ones etc. I'm confident it's more reliable than hoping they reach out again
What are the EA movement's most notable accomplishments?

Strictly speaking, a lot of the examples are outputs or outcomes, not impacts, and some readers may not like that. It could be good to make that more explicit at the top.

I also want to suggest using more imagery, graphs, etc. – more like visual storytelling and less like just a list of bullet points.

4TheUtilityMonster5moIf I define impact as change and outcome as a result, then isn't every occurrence of an impact an outcome? Are you defining those words differently?
Open Phil EA/LT Survey 2020: Introduction & Summary of Takeaways

I think it's really cool that you're making this available publicly, thanks a lot for doing this!

6MarkusAnderljung5moCame here to say the same thing :)
Mission Hedgers Want to Hedge Quantity, Not Price

Great points, thanks for raising them!

One potential takeaway could be that we may want to set up the financial products we'd like to use for hedging ourselves – e.g., by setting up prediction markets for the quantity of oil consumption. (Perhaps FTX would be up for it, though it won't be easy to get liquidity.)

8Larks5moHistorically it has been hard to get similar products off the ground. Virtually every human has native exposures to housing prices and the overall level of GDP in their country, but for some reason virtually no-one is interested in actually trading them. According to bloomberg on most days literally zero contracts trade for even the front-month Case-Shiller housing composite future. It's possible there might be some natural short interest for oil quantity contracts from e.g. pipelines, whose revenue is determined by the volume of oil sent through them? But this would likely be quite local, and I think you would struggle to find interest in the global quantity.
Load More