It helps people who did good (for free? for achieving something they expected would be impactful and get a retro grant?) have more resources
Regarding the downsides:
I agree
But everything has downsides. The question is not if there are downsides, the question is how does that situation compare to the alternative, which seems to be “people who do really good impactful stuff almost never get funding, and this is a well known fact”.
For funders: Distributing cash upon results being shown is a lot easier than vetting and modelling who and what will succeed, not to mention involves better incentives. For doers: Barrier to entry is much lower, I just need to do the thing (that i probably enjoy), not this additional labor of getting a permissionful grant (which i will not enjoy).
For many doings, doers might require upfront payment or gaurantees. However, in very many cases, probabalistic recognition and payment is sufficient.
I have no strong opinions on whether this is a good or a bad idea, all things considered. But:
I feel uneasy about retrofunding as an idea.
Retrofunding feels more like ‘so-called philanthropists giving money to their pals’ than ‘high-impact EA philanthropy’.
Retrofunding also feels particularly bad for optics.
If you have an argument for why I should feel different, I’d appreciate if you explain the argument rather than downvoting.
I think there is value:
It creates incentives
It helps people who did good (for free? for achieving something they expected would be impactful and get a retro grant?) have more resources
Regarding the downsides:
I agree
But everything has downsides. The question is not if there are downsides, the question is how does that situation compare to the alternative, which seems to be “people who do really good impactful stuff almost never get funding, and this is a well known fact”.
Permissionless economies are much more efficient.
For funders: Distributing cash upon results being shown is a lot easier than vetting and modelling who and what will succeed, not to mention involves better incentives.
For doers: Barrier to entry is much lower, I just need to do the thing (that i probably enjoy), not this additional labor of getting a permissionful grant (which i will not enjoy).
For many doings, doers might require upfront payment or gaurantees. However, in very many cases, probabalistic recognition and payment is sufficient.