Fair enough! Thanks for sharing this perspective as well. I guess that a rights-based animal charity evaluator would focus more on making change through legislation and litigation, failing to notice other approaches to improve animal welfare. However, there could be something that the current approach of EA orgs is missing more easily, which the rights-based lens would include.

Thank you! Looks like what I was looking for :)

So, to summarize: 
- Some animal rights activists have impractical attitudes (for creating change effectively, such as not using non-violent communication) and alienating attitudes towards non-rights-based interventions to improve animal welfare. You find value in promoting other approaches than that.
- You find good arguments for welfarist tradition. 
- On the other hand, being against animal rights doesn't cling right and talking for animal rights can be a good shortcut. 
- You believe there is an overlap with welfarist and rights-based ethical theories that should be appreciated. 
Did I understand you right? 

Thanks for the response! I didn't first think of different moral value systems which obviously have an impact on how people view the issue of animal suffering and well-being. I still think a 'rights' mindset can be a valuable extension of utilitarianism, for implementing the change we want to happen on an institutional/legislative level to improve animal welfare. I also think it is easier to imagine personhood for non-human animals when using a rights-based approach. They are not just beings that events are happening to, but individuals for whom the ability to live a full life using their capabilities is instrumental for their well-being. And there talking about rights can be useful. That's how I'd quickly sum up how I think about it :) 

Thanks for writing the post! I'm not an expert in the area and would be interested in learning more about the topic. 

Regarding R&D in the US, it reminds me of the Founders Pledge Climate Change Fund's strategy which focused on reducing energy poverty (at least some years ago. Their strategy might have changed based on their website.) 

In general, why are you focusing mainly on US development policies in the section "What would we need to do to make this work?" I understand it's one of the biggest players, but one could make arguments for policy work in other countries as well, e.g., citizens of small EU countries trying to impact the EU, as the representation and power relative to the population size can be high. 

When it comes to "should EA do this" I think of it as, would I recommend someone who is doing EA-focused career planning to pursue a career influencing long-distance development policy if they are a good fit for it? Even if this post doesn't result in new "EA orgs" getting founded I think it is valuable discussion as this might be read by people with an EA mindset considering pursuing development policy careers or working in the field. 

Fascinating! Thanks for sharing 

Congrats on organising such a successful conference! I'm impressed by how much interest there was in the event :) 

Uncertain of how big of a %-increase a $100m addition is for the animal advocacy movement. But definitely a lot higher than for global health. While animal advocacy is much more neglected I'm wondering how much more funding it can effectively absorb, or how fast the cost-effectiveness would decline. Given the scale of the problem probably not that fast? For global health, I believe this funding wouldn't have substantial decreasing marginal returns. (Some quick thoughts without having read others' comments)

I second that the recommendations could be more ambitious but mostly the calculator feels way too simple because life situations can vary so vastly between people within a country and income group. 

In the calculator, I fall below their 1% recommendation while living in Finland, but I believe I could donate 25% "without undue hardship". On the one hand, this is unrealistic or at least not financially smart in the long run for many with higher living costs. On the other hand, I have friends who I think would be fine donating an even larger share if they had the income I have.

So, the calculator is, in my opinion too simple to give any meaningful recommendation.

So exciting! Can community members donate to more than one project? I understood so from the post. And if they do, then there is probably some beautiful optimum(s?) of how much they should diversify, as a vote can be a lot more powerful than the size of the donation when it is matched. Maybe that math is explained in one of the links on quadratic funding. I haven't checked them out yet :)