Gains from trade: Yep, pretty much! I suppose it’s sort of roughly proportional to the gains from trade in most real-world cases. If someone is a utility monster with regard to the tidiness of their own walled garden, then a lot of altruists will find it useful to invest heavily into anything that could help them make their garden more tidy. But no one else cares about that one way or another, so there are no gains from trade, but any effective tidying intervention should probably still be valued positively.
Matt already asked about the NPX question. Maybe I don’t understand “other funding principle.” Do you mean the principle from an investment into a different, unrelated project?
And yes, that sounds like a succinct summary! Regarding 1: The certificate can be issued at any time, depending a bit on the specifics of the project.
ok, that makes sense. So like maybe if the monster offers to supply flowers then that is trade but if just increase its wellbeing then investment. (ish?)
I was confused by the graphic: I misread ‘make a pledge’ as invest funding. Then, it would read as if impact is achieved, invest the funding but if impact is not achieved you lost the money and you have to invest more for which the ‘redeploy’ euphemism is used. But—since pledge means only invest if impact is achieved, then it is invest only if impact is achieved and if not, then there can be another contract that pays for impact.
Oh, I see, thanks. Possibly, understanding this a bit.
Monster: Hmm, the monster is who produces the happiness that the utilitarians want to foster. Or what do you mean?
Pledge: Oh, I see! I’ve read their whitepaper. It’s very clearly written and also consistently uses investment only for the for-profit thing and donation or donation pledge for retro-funding. :-)
Gains from trade: Yep, pretty much! I suppose it’s sort of roughly proportional to the gains from trade in most real-world cases. If someone is a utility monster with regard to the tidiness of their own walled garden, then a lot of altruists will find it useful to invest heavily into anything that could help them make their garden more tidy. But no one else cares about that one way or another, so there are no gains from trade, but any effective tidying intervention should probably still be valued positively.
Matt already asked about the NPX question. Maybe I don’t understand “other funding principle.” Do you mean the principle from an investment into a different, unrelated project?
And yes, that sounds like a succinct summary! Regarding 1: The certificate can be issued at any time, depending a bit on the specifics of the project.
ok, that makes sense. So like maybe if the monster offers to supply flowers then that is trade but if just increase its wellbeing then investment. (ish?)
I was confused by the graphic: I misread ‘make a pledge’ as invest funding. Then, it would read as if impact is achieved, invest the funding but if impact is not achieved you lost the money and you have to invest more for which the ‘redeploy’ euphemism is used. But—since pledge means only invest if impact is achieved, then it is invest only if impact is achieved and if not, then there can be another contract that pays for impact.
Oh, I see, thanks. Possibly, understanding this a bit.
Monster: Hmm, the monster is who produces the happiness that the utilitarians want to foster. Or what do you mean?
Pledge: Oh, I see! I’ve read their whitepaper. It’s very clearly written and also consistently uses investment only for the for-profit thing and donation or donation pledge for retro-funding. :-)