> āIām not sure if this was done very intentionally, or thatās more a representation of who applied, but overall, Iām more net-optimistic about investments in larger projects. [...] Now, especially with the recent changes at OP, it seems like some significant animal cause areas (invertebrate welfare) will likely be overlooked by other funders. Iād expect that going forward, there should be significant opportunities for other funders to be active here, and Iād expect much of the gain would come from funding larger projects. ā
This represents who applied at the time, how developed some of the projects are, and how uncertain their outcomes are. We would often fund āan experimental, new projectā for 6 months for a pilot, then for 1 year, and if it is proven, we would provide a larger-scale grant. Sometimes a project of this type also āgraduatesā to a larger funder like Open Phil and thatās why you do not see them here. EA AWFās comparative advantage is often in funding small and medium-scale projects and I think it makes sense to serve this role in the project development pipeline. That being said, there are some grantees that have a strong track record in areas where EA AWF has a comparative advantage and we provide larger grants ($150-$400k). Those typically include projects in wild animals, invertebrate-related work and research on neglected species, although not exclusively. We plan to continue and hopefully scale our grantmaking in those areas given the Good Ventiured update.
Additionally, there were also instances where we would like to provide a larger amount to top applicants, but thought that the value of the marginal grant was higher than more funding for top applicants. If we had more funding, we would have provided both and in the past, have communicated that EA AWF has significant RFMF. This is still the case.
> EA AWFās comparative advantage is often in funding small and medium-scale projects and I think it makes sense to serve this role in the project development pipeline.
Yea, Iām curious how true that is. This assumes that OP does a job thatās hard-to-beat for the larger projects, among all sub-causes of animal welfare. Also, it seems unhealthy to me for OP to be such an overwhelming donor to some of these groups (I assume it is for Animals, similar to other some of longtermism/āEA).
Again, I donāt place a huge amount of confidence here, but I think among the worlds where a big mistake is being made, this seems like a more likely case to me.
Thanks Ozzie!
> āIām not sure if this was done very intentionally, or thatās more a representation of who applied, but overall, Iām more net-optimistic about investments in larger projects.
[...]
Now, especially with the recent changes at OP, it seems like some significant animal cause areas (invertebrate welfare) will likely be overlooked by other funders. Iād expect that going forward, there should be significant opportunities for other funders to be active here, and Iād expect much of the gain would come from funding larger projects. ā
This represents who applied at the time, how developed some of the projects are, and how uncertain their outcomes are. We would often fund āan experimental, new projectā for 6 months for a pilot, then for 1 year, and if it is proven, we would provide a larger-scale grant. Sometimes a project of this type also āgraduatesā to a larger funder like Open Phil and thatās why you do not see them here. EA AWFās comparative advantage is often in funding small and medium-scale projects and I think it makes sense to serve this role in the project development pipeline.
That being said, there are some grantees that have a strong track record in areas where EA AWF has a comparative advantage and we provide larger grants ($150-$400k). Those typically include projects in wild animals, invertebrate-related work and research on neglected species, although not exclusively. We plan to continue and hopefully scale our grantmaking in those areas given the Good Ventiured update.
Additionally, there were also instances where we would like to provide a larger amount to top applicants, but thought that the value of the marginal grant was higher than more funding for top applicants. If we had more funding, we would have provided both and in the past, have communicated that EA AWF has significant RFMF. This is still the case.
Thanks!
> EA AWFās comparative advantage is often in funding small and medium-scale projects and I think it makes sense to serve this role in the project development pipeline.
Yea, Iām curious how true that is. This assumes that OP does a job thatās hard-to-beat for the larger projects, among all sub-causes of animal welfare. Also, it seems unhealthy to me for OP to be such an overwhelming donor to some of these groups (I assume it is for Animals, similar to other some of longtermism/āEA).
Again, I donāt place a huge amount of confidence here, but I think among the worlds where a big mistake is being made, this seems like a more likely case to me.