On your first point, your way of describing things may or may not be clearer, but it’s not accurate. See my response to Ben Milwood about how the money flows. You may see the two scenarios as being the same in effect, but in that case our comms are equally accurate in describing the effect and more accurate in describing the money flows. We’ve chosen what we believe to be the most clear, intuitive and compelling way to explain things.
On the first part of your second point, yes—some bonus funding money would have otherwise been given to help animals (like anyone convinced by this post), while other bonus funding money (and so far the majority) wouldn’t have. So it is not the case that all bonus funds would otherwise go to help animals, which your original critique suggested was the case. That’s what I wanted to correct the claim.
Regarding your more limited claim, I don’t agree that “every dollar donated to the bonus pool is one that will be paid out to effective animal charities regardless of how other donors behave” because dollars in the fund very literally get paid out to favorite charities that needn’t be super-effective or support animals.
Plus, when thinking about the counterfactual impact of the bonus system, I think what’s relevant is what would have happened to those dollars if the fund didn’t exist—not just what would have happened to them once already in the bonus fund. As explained, many donations to the bonus fund would not have been donated at all were it not for the fund or would not have gone to effective animal charities. And were it not for regulator donors generating demand for bonus funding, we could not fundraise for the bonus fund. The two groups of donors incentivise one another to donate and lead to more total donations to effective farmed animal charities than if the system did not exist. We explain this in our comms. I believe that how our system works is in keeping with the spirit of even the most naive interpretation, in that, whether you’re a regular or bonus donor, your participation in the system leads to more money being donated than would have occurred otherwise.
It’s fair enough that you would have chosen to communicate things differently in our position. Thank you for giving the system some thought and voicing your perspective on how you would choose to communicate things! It’s helpful for us to consider such perspectives as we continuously improve our platform.
Maybe it would be most productive to focus on this limited point:
I don’t agree that “every dollar donated to the bonus pool is one that will be paid out to effective animal charities regardless of how other donors behave” because dollars in the fund very literally get paid out to favorite charities that needn’t be super-effective or support animals.
Lets say I came to you with an offer. I have a pot of money with $100 in it. If you do nothing I’m going to donate it to ACE at the end of the day. If you’re willing to donate $50 to ACE, however, then I’m willing to give you $25 from the pot and only the remaining $75 from the pot will go to ACE.
(This offer is not intended to be fully analogous to the FarmKind situation, but to be a simplified version where your “very literally get paid out” defense still applies.)
The net flow of money if you don’t take the offer is: $100 leaves the pot, ACE gets $100. The net flow if you do take the offer is: $100 leaves the pot, $25 leaves your bank account, ACE gets $125.
Do you think that in the simplified case it’s fair for me to say that I don’t agree that “every dollar in the pot will be paid out to ACE regardless of how you behave” because $25 from the pot will very literally be transferred to your bank account?
Similarly, it seems to me that the most straightforward way to describe the flows of money if you take the offer is “The pot will transfer $100 to ACE regardless, and you will additionally transfer $25”. My original presentation of the offer, with the idea that some money goes from the pot to your bank account, is adding additional complexity that only serves to make the situation more confusing and potentially convince people to take the offer because they haven’t fully thought the situation through.
I agree with your interpretation of this case (except for what the most straightforward way to describe it is), but you seem to be missing the broader point about the interplay between supply and demand for matching funding which means that both groups play a causal role in increasing donations to the favorite and super-effective charities alike. I understand you think the way we’ve communicated this is misleading, not in the spirit of EA or otherwise wrong. This is a valuable perspective, for which I thank you, but we respectfully disagree.
I hope what we do now agree on is that, regarding your comment “the site gives the impression that part of the bonus goes to the favorite charity, but that isn’t usefully true”, it IS true that part of the bonus goes to the favorite charity.
That’s all the time I have to spend on this topic. I hope to have clarified some of the facts about how the platform works.
I’m taking your response to be saying that “part of the pot goes to your bank account” is a fair way to characterize my example offer, but if I’ve misinterpreted your response let me know?
No I don’t think “part of the pot goes to your account” is a fair way to characterize your offer. I think you may have edited your comment as I was responding to it.
It’s clear we agree on what would have otherwise happened to the money already in the bonus fund at the time of a regular donation. I don’t think we need a hypothetical example to dig into that any further. It’s also clear what we disagree on (please see other comments so I don’t have to state it again). I don’t aim to change your mind on those points, and so I’ll leave things there :)
Hmm, then I’m still confused about why you think this is a fair way to characterize what FarmKind is doing, but not what my offer does. I’m trying to break it down by looking at a simplified case, which is why I think the hypothetical helps?
(While I did edit my comment, it was to add the final paragraph, starting with Similarly.... I’m pretty sure the Do you think that in the simplified case it's fair for me to say... was in there from the beginning.)
On your first point, your way of describing things may or may not be clearer, but it’s not accurate. See my response to Ben Milwood about how the money flows. You may see the two scenarios as being the same in effect, but in that case our comms are equally accurate in describing the effect and more accurate in describing the money flows. We’ve chosen what we believe to be the most clear, intuitive and compelling way to explain things.
On the first part of your second point, yes—some bonus funding money would have otherwise been given to help animals (like anyone convinced by this post), while other bonus funding money (and so far the majority) wouldn’t have. So it is not the case that all bonus funds would otherwise go to help animals, which your original critique suggested was the case. That’s what I wanted to correct the claim.
Regarding your more limited claim, I don’t agree that “every dollar donated to the bonus pool is one that will be paid out to effective animal charities regardless of how other donors behave” because dollars in the fund very literally get paid out to favorite charities that needn’t be super-effective or support animals.
Plus, when thinking about the counterfactual impact of the bonus system, I think what’s relevant is what would have happened to those dollars if the fund didn’t exist—not just what would have happened to them once already in the bonus fund. As explained, many donations to the bonus fund would not have been donated at all were it not for the fund or would not have gone to effective animal charities. And were it not for regulator donors generating demand for bonus funding, we could not fundraise for the bonus fund. The two groups of donors incentivise one another to donate and lead to more total donations to effective farmed animal charities than if the system did not exist. We explain this in our comms. I believe that how our system works is in keeping with the spirit of even the most naive interpretation, in that, whether you’re a regular or bonus donor, your participation in the system leads to more money being donated than would have occurred otherwise.
It’s fair enough that you would have chosen to communicate things differently in our position. Thank you for giving the system some thought and voicing your perspective on how you would choose to communicate things! It’s helpful for us to consider such perspectives as we continuously improve our platform.
Maybe it would be most productive to focus on this limited point:
Lets say I came to you with an offer. I have a pot of money with $100 in it. If you do nothing I’m going to donate it to ACE at the end of the day. If you’re willing to donate $50 to ACE, however, then I’m willing to give you $25 from the pot and only the remaining $75 from the pot will go to ACE.
(This offer is not intended to be fully analogous to the FarmKind situation, but to be a simplified version where your “very literally get paid out” defense still applies.)
The net flow of money if you don’t take the offer is: $100 leaves the pot, ACE gets $100. The net flow if you do take the offer is: $100 leaves the pot, $25 leaves your bank account, ACE gets $125.
Do you think that in the simplified case it’s fair for me to say that I don’t agree that “every dollar in the pot will be paid out to ACE regardless of how you behave” because $25 from the pot will very literally be transferred to your bank account?
Similarly, it seems to me that the most straightforward way to describe the flows of money if you take the offer is “The pot will transfer $100 to ACE regardless, and you will additionally transfer $25”. My original presentation of the offer, with the idea that some money goes from the pot to your bank account, is adding additional complexity that only serves to make the situation more confusing and potentially convince people to take the offer because they haven’t fully thought the situation through.
I agree with your interpretation of this case (except for what the most straightforward way to describe it is), but you seem to be missing the broader point about the interplay between supply and demand for matching funding which means that both groups play a causal role in increasing donations to the favorite and super-effective charities alike. I understand you think the way we’ve communicated this is misleading, not in the spirit of EA or otherwise wrong. This is a valuable perspective, for which I thank you, but we respectfully disagree.
I hope what we do now agree on is that, regarding your comment “the site gives the impression that part of the bonus goes to the favorite charity, but that isn’t usefully true”, it IS true that part of the bonus goes to the favorite charity.
That’s all the time I have to spend on this topic. I hope to have clarified some of the facts about how the platform works.
Thanks for the responses!
I’m taking your response to be saying that “part of the pot goes to your bank account” is a fair way to characterize my example offer, but if I’ve misinterpreted your response let me know?
No I don’t think “part of the pot goes to your account” is a fair way to characterize your offer. I think you may have edited your comment as I was responding to it.
It’s clear we agree on what would have otherwise happened to the money already in the bonus fund at the time of a regular donation. I don’t think we need a hypothetical example to dig into that any further. It’s also clear what we disagree on (please see other comments so I don’t have to state it again). I don’t aim to change your mind on those points, and so I’ll leave things there :)
Hmm, then I’m still confused about why you think this is a fair way to characterize what FarmKind is doing, but not what my offer does. I’m trying to break it down by looking at a simplified case, which is why I think the hypothetical helps?
(While I did edit my comment, it was to add the final paragraph, starting with
Similarly.... I’m pretty sure theDo you think that in the simplified case it's fair for me to say...was in there from the beginning.)