I saw four down-votes for this article when I opened it. Wow. This is really not encouraging, folks! Not that I wouldn't understand a critical perspective on this approach. But when someone sees a writing without any up-vote, then making down-votes has to me a taste of silencing, and nothing of engaging in a constructive debate (as also this is the first comment).
I value this write up and the constructive idea, as I relate especially with the impression that there are too many differed EA funding platforms, and too little transparency about what projects are out there, what is funded, and what isn't and why. All the different grants and funding opportunities happening on different times with different forum posts and different application forms linking each other into a bureaucratic labyrinth - to me it is hard to believe that this system is most effective or actually supporting the most effective initiatives. And with that I don't want to discourage all the valuable work that people put into trying to find the best possible structures to direct funding. I am sure that there are very good reasons that led to this development. But why so much down-vote of a constructive idea? Please people, share your intent behind this. Or try to be more constructive and encouraging about alternative, bold ideas, even if you don't believe in them. Otherwise brave, alternative ideas might die out.