Sorry you are getting downvoted. You might want to emphasize what you say in your link:
”I view this drop as an experiment. My opinion is that smaller donors may need more to feel appreciated. While giving has a positive benefit on a person’s psychology, it’s easy to feel disconnected when you don’t see the benefits of your donations.”
I think this is good for information value and potentially as an actual intervention. I’ve spoken to people in the community I respect about doing something like this (actually, funding an EA artist to create materials relevant to the charity’s mission, to be sold as NFTs, eg, a portrait of an imaginary person who is helped by your donation, a picture of a utopia), and all found it interesting and worth exploring further. That said, I hadn’t thought about it from a standpoint of making donors feel more appreciated. I thought of it as more a marketing and virality opportunity among a community of people who are quite well off (because a picture is worth a thousand words).
[Edit: 3] Caveats:
1. Probably want to be sure it isn’t traced back to the EA movement* as an official intervention because NFTs get a lot of crap, especially from classical environmentalists for their carbon output (from what I hear, I actually don’t know about this). EA already struggles with elitist appearance, and articles about NFTs are kinda clickbaity right now.
2. Unless this is a really passive activity (which it probably is for you), I’m not sure this is best use of time for an EA. (I still think could be rather good use of time for an artist uninterested in doing non-art interventions though).
3. I don’t know why you picked GiveDirectly, and tbh that might be a bit of why you were downvoted too? It is explicitly seen as the baseline for effective charity, eg, what our “last dollars” will go to once all the better interventions have been funded. Other charities are calculated as multipliers of it. Eg, AMF is seen as something like 10x** as effective if you want to stick with global poverty and health. StrongMinds was recently evaluated to be about 12x as effective as GD. And that isn’t counting non-human, policy, and longtermist areas (though replaceability of donations is a whole can of worms, so I get why they aren’t ideal for a project like this). [Edit: I realize that not all charities have crypto wallets, but if the difference in impact is so large, perhaps messaging another charity to encourage them to get set up would be a good use of time]
*I actually think this is less of a risk with actual art. It is more human, and art makes people’s hearts soften. ** Actually I think it’s higher but a quick google is showing 10x
Sorry you are getting downvoted. You might want to emphasize what you say in your link:
”I view this drop as an experiment. My opinion is that smaller donors may need more to feel appreciated. While giving has a positive benefit on a person’s psychology, it’s easy to feel disconnected when you don’t see the benefits of your donations.”
I think this is good for information value and potentially as an actual intervention. I’ve spoken to people in the community I respect about doing something like this (actually, funding an EA artist to create materials relevant to the charity’s mission, to be sold as NFTs, eg, a portrait of an imaginary person who is helped by your donation, a picture of a utopia), and all found it interesting and worth exploring further. That said, I hadn’t thought about it from a standpoint of making donors feel more appreciated. I thought of it as more a marketing and virality opportunity among a community of people who are quite well off (because a picture is worth a thousand words).
[Edit: 3] Caveats:
1. Probably want to be sure it isn’t traced back to the EA movement* as an official intervention because NFTs get a lot of crap, especially from classical environmentalists for their carbon output (from what I hear, I actually don’t know about this). EA already struggles with elitist appearance, and articles about NFTs are kinda clickbaity right now.
2. Unless this is a really passive activity (which it probably is for you), I’m not sure this is best use of time for an EA. (I still think could be rather good use of time for an artist uninterested in doing non-art interventions though).
3. I don’t know why you picked GiveDirectly, and tbh that might be a bit of why you were downvoted too? It is explicitly seen as the baseline for effective charity, eg, what our “last dollars” will go to once all the better interventions have been funded. Other charities are calculated as multipliers of it. Eg, AMF is seen as something like 10x** as effective if you want to stick with global poverty and health. StrongMinds was recently evaluated to be about 12x as effective as GD. And that isn’t counting non-human, policy, and longtermist areas (though replaceability of donations is a whole can of worms, so I get why they aren’t ideal for a project like this). [Edit: I realize that not all charities have crypto wallets, but if the difference in impact is so large, perhaps messaging another charity to encourage them to get set up would be a good use of time]
*I actually think this is less of a risk with actual art. It is more human, and art makes people’s hearts soften.
** Actually I think it’s higher but a quick google is showing 10x