Note that SFF explicitly does not identify as an EA Funder. I think there are of course still social ties here, and I donât want to police peopleâs internal categories, but it seems like a relevant thing to bring up. I remember Critch clarifying this at some point in a comment somewhere, but I canât find it, but I am reasonably confident that Critch and Jaan would both say something like âSFF is not an âEA funderâ, please do not try to hold us to EA standardsâ if explicitly asked.
I think what to do here is a bit messy, since of course SFF is similar to EA funders in important ways, but I think the specific way it is being invoked here, where funding by SFF tries to somehow police people as therefore being members of a community, is something that SFF has reasonable right to object to, and as far as I know, does indeed object to.
Interpret data semantics as desired. At least I linked data my claims were based on upon, especially considering original claims still seem untrue regardless if SFF is considered EA:
most of our funding comes from venture capital sources
Yep, I wasnât intending to disagree with all the stuff you said. Overall your complaint seems quite reasonable to me, I just had one local comment (which did seem relevant to the overall conclusion).
To preface, I donât think this point is load-bearing/âcruxy to the question of âis Manifold EA?â or âis Manifold a large player in the EA space?â, which itself is also something of a side point.
I was referring specifically to Manifold Markets as the we in âWeâve received some EA funding, but most of our funding comes from venture capital sources.ââright afterwards I agree that Manifund (aka Manifold for Charity) is an EA org.
Manifold Markets has received ~2.9M in investment and ~1.5M in grants, which were the figures I had in mind when I said âmost of our funding comes from VCâ. One complicating factor is that of the investment, 1M came from a FTX Future Fund regrant, structured as an equity investment through Alameda Research. Does that count as EA funding or VC? Idk, I think that counts in both categories, but if you characterize that as exclusively EA funding I agree it would be fair to say âManifold has received more in EA funding than in venture capitalâ.
To my knowledge, Manifold for Charity grants did not only fund Manifund; Manifold for Charity grants seemingly funded Manifoldâs currency donation platform too
Once debating if: * Manifold for Charity should be excluded * Survival and Flourishing Fund (SFF) funding is EA * FTX Future Fund funding is EA
The original comment feels reductive and Iâd rather data be linked upfront rather than feeling dragged into revealing data and motte-and-bailey-esque threads
I agree the comment is reductive; many sentences are, due to the fractal nature of information. I generally wrote trying to balance correctness with informativeness with âactually publishing the damn post, rather than being maximally defensiveâ.
In any case, I appreciate that you linked to our finances, and that you like how we publish our numbers openly to the world!
Appreciate Manifoldâs quantitative transparency because Manifoldâs qualitatively misleading. Public data may be slightly outdated but seeing ~$2.4M EA funding to Manifold for Charity and ~$2.4M EA funding and <$2M in non-EA VC funding to Manifold:
https://ââwww.notion.so/ââmanifoldmarkets/ââManifold-Finances-0f9a14a16afe4375b67e21471ce456b0#d13406b6b26a43178d09609135aa38c6
Grants are funding, and Manifold seems mostly EA-funded, even excluding Manifold for Charity
Note that SFF explicitly does not identify as an EA Funder. I think there are of course still social ties here, and I donât want to police peopleâs internal categories, but it seems like a relevant thing to bring up. I remember Critch clarifying this at some point in a comment somewhere, but I canât find it, but I am reasonably confident that Critch and Jaan would both say something like âSFF is not an âEA funderâ, please do not try to hold us to EA standardsâ if explicitly asked.
I think what to do here is a bit messy, since of course SFF is similar to EA funders in important ways, but I think the specific way it is being invoked here, where funding by SFF tries to somehow police people as therefore being members of a community, is something that SFF has reasonable right to object to, and as far as I know, does indeed object to.
Interpret data semantics as desired. At least I linked data my claims were based on upon, especially considering original claims still seem untrue regardless if SFF is considered EA:
Yep, I wasnât intending to disagree with all the stuff you said. Overall your complaint seems quite reasonable to me, I just had one local comment (which did seem relevant to the overall conclusion).
To preface, I donât think this point is load-bearing/âcruxy to the question of âis Manifold EA?â or âis Manifold a large player in the EA space?â, which itself is also something of a side point.
I was referring specifically to Manifold Markets as the we in âWeâve received some EA funding, but most of our funding comes from venture capital sources.ââright afterwards I agree that Manifund (aka Manifold for Charity) is an EA org.
Manifold Markets has received ~2.9M in investment and ~1.5M in grants, which were the figures I had in mind when I said âmost of our funding comes from VCâ. One complicating factor is that of the investment, 1M came from a FTX Future Fund regrant, structured as an equity investment through Alameda Research. Does that count as EA funding or VC? Idk, I think that counts in both categories, but if you characterize that as exclusively EA funding I agree it would be fair to say âManifold has received more in EA funding than in venture capitalâ.
To my knowledge, Manifold for Charity grants did not only fund Manifund; Manifold for Charity grants seemingly funded Manifoldâs currency donation platform too
Once debating if:
* Manifold for Charity should be excluded
* Survival and Flourishing Fund (SFF) funding is EA
* FTX Future Fund funding is EA
The original comment feels reductive and Iâd rather data be linked upfront rather than feeling dragged into revealing data and motte-and-bailey-esque threads
I agree the comment is reductive; many sentences are, due to the fractal nature of information. I generally wrote trying to balance correctness with informativeness with âactually publishing the damn post, rather than being maximally defensiveâ.
In any case, I appreciate that you linked to our finances, and that you like how we publish our numbers openly to the world!
This feels important to me and I hope we get a reply