I’m curious about the interplay between “Meta Charity Funders exists to fund projects that . . . are unlikely to be funded by other major funders in this space” and “[i]nsufficient alternative funding sources” in the long term as a common reason for rejection. One possible narrative under which a proposal could fit within both implied criteria is temporal—i.e., that (1) other major funders would not fund the proposal now, but (2) there is a reasonable probability that other major funders would fund in the future if it developed further and could show a longer/stronger organizational track record. Are there other narratives that you have in mind that could meet those implied criteria here? In comparison to some object-level work, it seems meta projects would be significantly less likely to receive non-EA funding, government grants, etc. down the road.
In particular, how does the “insufficient alternative funding sources” issue interact with the diversifying effect that seems to be a large part of the value that MCF brings to the table? Cf. “This lack of diversity means that potentially effective projects outside [OP/EA Funds] priorities often struggle to stay afloat or scale, and the beliefs of just a few grant-makers can massively shape the EA movement’s trajectory.”
Thanks to AIM and the donors for what they are doing in this space!
I’m curious about the interplay between “Meta Charity Funders exists to fund projects that . . . are unlikely to be funded by other major funders in this space” and “[i]nsufficient alternative funding sources” in the long term as a common reason for rejection. One possible narrative under which a proposal could fit within both implied criteria is temporal—i.e., that (1) other major funders would not fund the proposal now, but (2) there is a reasonable probability that other major funders would fund in the future if it developed further and could show a longer/stronger organizational track record. Are there other narratives that you have in mind that could meet those implied criteria here? In comparison to some object-level work, it seems meta projects would be significantly less likely to receive non-EA funding, government grants, etc. down the road.
In particular, how does the “insufficient alternative funding sources” issue interact with the diversifying effect that seems to be a large part of the value that MCF brings to the table? Cf. “This lack of diversity means that potentially effective projects outside [OP/EA Funds] priorities often struggle to stay afloat or scale, and the beliefs of just a few grant-makers can massively shape the EA movement’s trajectory.”
Thanks to AIM and the donors for what they are doing in this space!