Based on your analysis, if GFI functions as a catalyst for venture capital and government investments, each dollar donated to GFI would likely generate multiplier effects through leveraged funding. This suggests that donations to GFI may be more cost-effective than direct-impact donations to THL.
I think GFI has claimed this in the past, and given their role of large coordinator of the area Iβm inclined to believe their conterfactual importance. However the problem is that without a downstream model of how dollars convert into averted animal suffering, it is quite hard to prioritise between theories of change.
Based on your analysis, if GFI functions as a catalyst for venture capital and government investments, each dollar donated to GFI would likely generate multiplier effects through leveraged funding. This suggests that donations to GFI may be more cost-effective than direct-impact donations to THL.
I think GFI has claimed this in the past, and given their role of large coordinator of the area Iβm inclined to believe their conterfactual importance. However the problem is that without a downstream model of how dollars convert into averted animal suffering, it is quite hard to prioritise between theories of change.