As far as I'm aware, coefficient giving may slightly adjust which global health causes they support based on how neglected those are, but it's less than a 1:1 effect, and the size of the global health funding pool at CG is fairly fixed. And there are a bunch of people dying each year, especially given the foreign aid cuts, who would not die if there was more money given to global health stuff, including GiveWell top charities (if nothing else, GiveDirectly seems super hard to saturated). So I don't really see much cause for despondency here, your donations can do a lot of good! (other than the fact that the world is like this being terrible). I think it would be accurate to say that GiveWell top charities are not obviously the most impactful thing to fund on the margin, but that is very different from not being impactful or not being neglected.

Concretely, I recommend funding the GiveWell all grants fund, which they can allocate to wherever it would do the most good in global health, including higher risk things. Given the foreign aid cuts there's likely a bunch of important but smaller and time sensitive opportunities, and as a non expert in global health, I'm happy to defer to GiveWell's recommendations here, in the same way that I used to be happy to give to their top charities, or am happy to invest my savings in index funds.

And yeah funding your own direct work seems totally fine to me

Note that Dominic Cummings, one of the then most powerful men in the UK, [credits the rationality community] (https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1373333437319372804) for convincing him that the UK needed to change its coronavirus policy (which I personally am very grateful for!). So it seems unlikely to have been that obvious

ETA: because I think lots of the dollars from individual donors in the EA giving space come from people with 1:1 or better employer matches, like Google or Anthropic

Google's donation match is $10k per person, and I would guess a bunch of donations from Googlers are unmatched

What do you mean by giving to Manifund's regranting program? It's not one place to donate to. It's a bunch of different people who get regranting budgets. You can give to one of those people, but how the money gets used depends a ton on who, which seems important

If you're looking for something x risk related then I think something like the Longview emerging challenges fund is better https://www.longview.org/fund/emerging-challenges-fund/

Seems reasonable, thanks! I feel generally more aligned with Coefficient/OP's judgement than Good Ventures', so seems fine by me

Thanks a lot for this post! I was not planning on going to EAGx India for unrelated reasons, but if I had been, this would probably have been enough to convince me to cancel

Are you able to share why you've been endorsed by OP/Coefficient, to the point that they are recommending you to other donors, but they haven't been able to fill your funding gap via Good Ventures?

I was surprised to see that you are US tax deductible (via every) but not UK tax deductible, given that you are a uk-based charity. I assume this is downstream of different levels of non-profit bureaucracy in the different countries? I would recommend explicitly flagging this early in the post as this is a deal breaking factor for many medium sized donors and if this was a constraint for me, I would have filtered exactly incorrectly

Are you happy to receive donations from AGI company employees?

Thanks for writing this! I strongly agree re work trials, unstructured interviews, informal references, and info being useful despite conflicts of interest