Thanks, this makes sense. I also have the impression that E2G was deprioritised. In some cases, Iāve seen it actively spoken against (in the vein of āI guess that could be good, but it is almost no oneās most impactful optionā), mostly as pushback to the media impression that EA=E2G. I also see the point that more diversified funding seems good on the margin- to give organisations more autonomy and security.
One thing that isnāt mentioned in this piece is the risks that come from relying on a broader base of donors. If the EA community would need to be much, much larger in order to support the current organisations with more diversified funding, how would this change the way the organisations acted? In order to keep a wider range of funders happy, would there be pressures to appeal to a common denominator? Would it in fact become harder to service and maintain relations with a wider range of donors? I presume that the ideal is closer to the portfolio you sketch for an organisation like RP in this comment.
Thanks, this makes sense. I also have the impression that E2G was deprioritised. In some cases, Iāve seen it actively spoken against (in the vein of āI guess that could be good, but it is almost no oneās most impactful optionā), mostly as pushback to the media impression that EA=E2G. I also see the point that more diversified funding seems good on the margin- to give organisations more autonomy and security.
One thing that isnāt mentioned in this piece is the risks that come from relying on a broader base of donors. If the EA community would need to be much, much larger in order to support the current organisations with more diversified funding, how would this change the way the organisations acted? In order to keep a wider range of funders happy, would there be pressures to appeal to a common denominator? Would it in fact become harder to service and maintain relations with a wider range of donors? I presume that the ideal is closer to the portfolio you sketch for an organisation like RP in this comment.