My preferred proposal would involve a conceptual division of funder responsibilities (though the same person might do both):
Provision of reliable income, to ensure that people can afford to work independently without worrying about financial issues, in exchange for some fraction of total output. I think that this fraction should probably be negotiated explicitly, as a way of helping us figure out how important money is and how reasonable it is to work independently. This step is profit-motivated, and can be split across several people.
Evaluation of outputs, and either resale of those outputs or internal recognition of altruistic gains.
[1] can be continued or eventually discontinued based on the results of [2]. The separation allows people well-positioned to evaluate work to be separate from those who have enough funding to support it. It also helps provide more explicit accountability, and to support better decisions about whether it’s worth doing [1].
I and the impact purchase are potentially willing to participate in either half of this arrangement (or both), but I will continue to make evaluations which are noisy, transparent, and on the low side (and hence which are liable to be offensive).
Edit: after watching the EA Global livestream of Kerry Vaughan’s talk about what he plans for the future of the effective altruism community as the director of EA Ventures, it’s my impression he would be very open to being part of a partnership like the one you’re proposing, Paul. I strongly encourage you to reach out to Kerry Vaughan.
Approach EA Ventures about vetting and normalizing direct funding. This could be one institution itself that doesn’t receive funding from the direct funding market, which could generate trust in EA Ventures as an evaluator. It could also serve as a light version of Givewell or GWWC responsible for assessing the viability of individuals. EA Ventures could make clear in reports their assessments are their own opinions, and other donors and donees are by all means free to make their open funding arrangements.
Consider reaching out to EA Ventures to be the second half of the arrangement.
My preferred proposal would involve a conceptual division of funder responsibilities (though the same person might do both):
Provision of reliable income, to ensure that people can afford to work independently without worrying about financial issues, in exchange for some fraction of total output. I think that this fraction should probably be negotiated explicitly, as a way of helping us figure out how important money is and how reasonable it is to work independently. This step is profit-motivated, and can be split across several people.
Evaluation of outputs, and either resale of those outputs or internal recognition of altruistic gains.
[1] can be continued or eventually discontinued based on the results of [2]. The separation allows people well-positioned to evaluate work to be separate from those who have enough funding to support it. It also helps provide more explicit accountability, and to support better decisions about whether it’s worth doing [1].
I and the impact purchase are potentially willing to participate in either half of this arrangement (or both), but I will continue to make evaluations which are noisy, transparent, and on the low side (and hence which are liable to be offensive).
Edit: after watching the EA Global livestream of Kerry Vaughan’s talk about what he plans for the future of the effective altruism community as the director of EA Ventures, it’s my impression he would be very open to being part of a partnership like the one you’re proposing, Paul. I strongly encourage you to reach out to Kerry Vaughan.
I made a similar suggestion here.
Consider reaching out to EA Ventures to be the second half of the arrangement.