Hi Marcus, I think this sounds like a great idea.
There are a number of communities that have been created across the EA space which bring together people with a professional affiliation (I see Aaron has mentioned REG, which is likely the most similar to your concept). I don't believe this has been done with pro athletes before.
I founded and run a group called SoGive which raises funds and does analysis on charities.
I would be happy to connect with you and support you if that would help; I'll send you a direct message on the EA Forum.
Thanks Soeren, this is a useful point to help to tease out the thinking more clearly:
I raised a similar question on the Effective Altruism fb group last year.
Notable responses included the comment from Howie Lempel which reiterated the points in the Open Phil article about how it seemed unlikely that someone watching the field would fail to notice if there was a sudden increase in capabilities.
Also Rob Wiblin commented to ask to make it clear that 80,000 hours doesn't necessarily endorse the view that nanotech/APM is as high a risk as that survey suggests.
SoGive offers volunteering opportunities doing charity analysis. If you're interested, get in touch with me via sanjay [at] sogive.org
I'm slightly confused about the long reflection.
I understand it involves "maybe <...> 10 billion people, debating and working on these issues for 10,000 years". And *only after that* can people consider actions which may have a long term impact on humanity.
How do we ensure that
(a) everyone gets involved with working on these issues? (presumably some people are just not interested in thinking about this? Getting people to work on things they're unsuited for seems unhelpful and unpleasant)
(b) Actions that could have a long term impact on humanity could be taken unilaterally. How could people be stopped from doing that?
I think a totalitarian worldwide government could achieve this, but I assume that's not what is intended
Not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but does anyone know where we could find more thinking on cash transfers and Dutch disease?
My short answer is:
Your main reason for setting up a charity is probably to provide tax incentives for your donors. So the best jurisdiction is probably the jurisdiction where your donors are.
However there are some exceptions where this doesn't apply. For example, you may be setting up a charity solely or primarily to access Google Ad grants.
If this is the case, then "shopping" for the jurisdiction with the least regulatory overhead would make sense. It would also need to consider whether the process requires someone with an address in that country.
I don't know the answer to this, and given that it's something of an edge case, I don't know of anyone having done this comparison.
Thank you for having the desire to encourage innovation. I'm confident that fellowships like these can be valuable.
From other such fellowships that I've seen, the successful ones typically have something that draws people to want to apply. This may include, for example, sponsorship from a high-profile individual.
I hope this helps. Good luck!
I think the benefits of fiscal sponsorship were fairly clear from your post.
" Are you referring to the DAF or FS side of things, or both? " Both
" My prior was that it would be fairly straightforward because there are UK DAFs in existence, and CEA does both DAF-like and FS-like things to a limited extent (sponsoring EA orgs and running EA funds). " This is a very reasonable, but incorrect line of thought. The Charity Commission is very clear about the fact that even if someone else has successfully applied for something in the past, it doesn't mean that someone else applying for exactly the same thing should be allowed it in the future.
" While CEA might have charitable purposes that seem restrictive, it doesn't seem like that's impacting their ability to try to do everything under the sun. " I don't think their purposes do seem restrictive. Under a careful reading, as I remember it, it's fairly clear that their objects are extremely broad. This was why my first bullet suggested that CEA could provide this service.
" You tried to create a trust to do this before, but it was rejected because the charitable objects were too broad? " No, sorry, I may not have been clear on this. The reason why I said that an unincorporated entity (i.e. a trust) could do this was that a trust *would* (I think!) get approved, even with broad objects. However an incorporated charity (a CIO, to use the jargon) was rejected for having too-broad objects, notwithstanding the long list of pre-existing precedents whose pattern I was following.
Note that using a trust has downsides. With a trust, I would recommend only funding individuals and non-charities with extreme caution.