I’d guess that a lot of non-longtermist, non-EA-meta charities are more more likely to be funding constrained and less likely to be topped up by FTX. I also suspect FTX isn’t taking up all the opportunities for organizations to spend money, even for the ones it supports.
I suspect organizations with a research focus, such as Sentience Institute, ALLFED, and other answers on this post, are often happy to hire more researcher time with marginal donations.
Organizations that do marketing probably have room to spend more there, such as 80,000 Hours and Giving What We Can. GWWC wrote earlier this year that they were looking for funding (I’m not sure what the status of that is).
I believe the Center for Election Science is looking for more funding since approval voting has a lot of room to grow in the US—it sounds like their goal is to scale campaigns with more funding.
I’d guess that a lot of non-longtermist, non-EA-meta charities are more more likely to be funding constrained and less likely to be topped up by FTX. I also suspect FTX isn’t taking up all the opportunities for organizations to spend money, even for the ones it supports.
I suspect organizations with a research focus, such as Sentience Institute, ALLFED, and other answers on this post, are often happy to hire more researcher time with marginal donations.
Organizations that do marketing probably have room to spend more there, such as 80,000 Hours and Giving What We Can. GWWC wrote earlier this year that they were looking for funding (I’m not sure what the status of that is).
I believe the Center for Election Science is looking for more funding since approval voting has a lot of room to grow in the US—it sounds like their goal is to scale campaigns with more funding.
I’m not sure how much room they have, but probably Effective Institutions Project.