In your screenshot, you have $150 coming from your donation, and $30 coming from the bonus fund. Your favourite charity gets $90 and the effective charity gets $90. You could frame this as âyou are donating $75 to each and the bonus fund is donating $15 to eachâ, or you could frame it as âyou are donating $90 to your favourite charity and $60 to the effective charity, and the bonus fund is donating $30 to the effective charityâ. Thereâs no concrete difference between these in terms of who gets how much money, itâs pretty much a matter of interpretation.
I think the thing that leads Jeff (and me) to prefer the latter interpretation is that the bonus is adjusted based on the favourite /â effective split so that the amount of money that goes to the favourite charity never exceeds the amount of money coming from the donorâthat is, it is always at least possible to interpret the cashflows in a way that means the bonus fund gave nothing to the favourite charity.
Whatâs actually happening in the back end is what is laid out in the screenshot: The donorâs donation is split according to their chosen percentage, and then the bonus fund (which is an independent pool of money held by every.org) is disbursed to the favorite charity and the super-effective one.
Itâs interesting that you implement it that way, but I think the important thing is still the overall net cashflow, regardless of what actual transfers make it happen. The fact that you canât donate $X and get more than $X going to your favourite charity means I donât really feel like my donation is being meaningfully matched.
Itâs sort of analogous to if a shop says âif you buy this device, you get this peripheral with it for freeâ, but actually they have just set the price of the device to include the price of the peripheral. Itâs sort of difficult to say that their claim is actually wrong, but it doesnât feel like the most honest explanation of whatâs going on.
If thatâs what it takes for you to feel your donation is being meaningfully matched then itâs another reason this platform isnât the right choice for you. But thatâs a very specific requirement that our platform never claims to meet, and that plenty of folks donât share with you, as evidenced by existing donations through our platform. Many other donors are excited by the prospect of having both their donation to the favorite and super-effective charity receive a bonus. This is what happens on our platform, and is whatâs laid out as they step through the process. No one is donating under any misapprehension that after splitting their donation and receiving a bonus they get more than the total amount they donated given to their favorite charity.
We are not âbaitingâ people in with the promise to cause more dollars than they donate to go to their favorite charity and then âswitchingâ to a split and boost mechanism. Rather, the platform (as we lay out on our landing page, and repeat throughout) promises to allow you to help fix factory farming while supporting your favorite charity too, and to get your donations to both charities boosted. The platform isnât about getting more than the total amount you donated to go to your favorite charity (itâs about splitting and boosting your donation) so the fact that it doesnât do that is a feature and not a bug
Aidan, Ben (I assume) and I arenât commenting because we feel like weâre personally harmed by FarmKind. Instead, itâs that a core part of the EA movement is bringing clarity and transparency to charity, helping donors understand what the real impact of their donations is, and weâre concerned about an effort that seems to be going the other way.
That people are willing to donate through a platform isnât much evidence either way on whether itâs misleading: many donation appeals are seriously misleading while bringing in large amounts of money.
That people are willing to donate through a platform that clearly sign-posts that you donât get >$X donated to your favorite charity if you donate $X split between two charities IS evidence that many donors donât share Benâs expectation about how our bonus system should or does work. Thatâs all I suggested it was evidence for. Iâve only weighed in here to correct false or misleading claims made about how the platform works.
As for whether how the platform works is aligned with EA or not, or misleading or not, I havenât weighed in because Iâm sure itâs clear from our choice to launch this platform that we think this is a good thing to be doing, and that itâs our attempt at doing altruism effectively. Itâs reasonable to disagree and I understand and respect your disagreement. I have similar disagreements with many EAsâ approaches, decisions, cause area prioritisation, communications styles and so on. Once there arenât any remaining misunderstandings about how our platform works, all thatâs left is one of those kinds of disagreements. I donât have much to say about your position except that I respect it, I disagree and I thank you for sharing it. I considered your critique of Giving Multiplier prior to deciding to launch our platform and was grateful to come across this perspective before rather than after making the decision. So thank you again!
In your screenshot, you have $150 coming from your donation, and $30 coming from the bonus fund. Your favourite charity gets $90 and the effective charity gets $90. You could frame this as âyou are donating $75 to each and the bonus fund is donating $15 to eachâ, or you could frame it as âyou are donating $90 to your favourite charity and $60 to the effective charity, and the bonus fund is donating $30 to the effective charityâ. Thereâs no concrete difference between these in terms of who gets how much money, itâs pretty much a matter of interpretation.
I think the thing that leads Jeff (and me) to prefer the latter interpretation is that the bonus is adjusted based on the favourite /â effective split so that the amount of money that goes to the favourite charity never exceeds the amount of money coming from the donorâthat is, it is always at least possible to interpret the cashflows in a way that means the bonus fund gave nothing to the favourite charity.
Whatâs actually happening in the back end is what is laid out in the screenshot: The donorâs donation is split according to their chosen percentage, and then the bonus fund (which is an independent pool of money held by every.org) is disbursed to the favorite charity and the super-effective one.
Itâs interesting that you implement it that way, but I think the important thing is still the overall net cashflow, regardless of what actual transfers make it happen. The fact that you canât donate $X and get more than $X going to your favourite charity means I donât really feel like my donation is being meaningfully matched.
Itâs sort of analogous to if a shop says âif you buy this device, you get this peripheral with it for freeâ, but actually they have just set the price of the device to include the price of the peripheral. Itâs sort of difficult to say that their claim is actually wrong, but it doesnât feel like the most honest explanation of whatâs going on.
If thatâs what it takes for you to feel your donation is being meaningfully matched then itâs another reason this platform isnât the right choice for you. But thatâs a very specific requirement that our platform never claims to meet, and that plenty of folks donât share with you, as evidenced by existing donations through our platform. Many other donors are excited by the prospect of having both their donation to the favorite and super-effective charity receive a bonus. This is what happens on our platform, and is whatâs laid out as they step through the process. No one is donating under any misapprehension that after splitting their donation and receiving a bonus they get more than the total amount they donated given to their favorite charity.
We are not âbaitingâ people in with the promise to cause more dollars than they donate to go to their favorite charity and then âswitchingâ to a split and boost mechanism. Rather, the platform (as we lay out on our landing page, and repeat throughout) promises to allow you to help fix factory farming while supporting your favorite charity too, and to get your donations to both charities boosted. The platform isnât about getting more than the total amount you donated to go to your favorite charity (itâs about splitting and boosting your donation) so the fact that it doesnât do that is a feature and not a bug
Aidan, Ben (I assume) and I arenât commenting because we feel like weâre personally harmed by FarmKind. Instead, itâs that a core part of the EA movement is bringing clarity and transparency to charity, helping donors understand what the real impact of their donations is, and weâre concerned about an effort that seems to be going the other way.
That people are willing to donate through a platform isnât much evidence either way on whether itâs misleading: many donation appeals are seriously misleading while bringing in large amounts of money.
That people are willing to donate through a platform that clearly sign-posts that you donât get >$X donated to your favorite charity if you donate $X split between two charities IS evidence that many donors donât share Benâs expectation about how our bonus system should or does work. Thatâs all I suggested it was evidence for. Iâve only weighed in here to correct false or misleading claims made about how the platform works.
As for whether how the platform works is aligned with EA or not, or misleading or not, I havenât weighed in because Iâm sure itâs clear from our choice to launch this platform that we think this is a good thing to be doing, and that itâs our attempt at doing altruism effectively. Itâs reasonable to disagree and I understand and respect your disagreement. I have similar disagreements with many EAsâ approaches, decisions, cause area prioritisation, communications styles and so on. Once there arenât any remaining misunderstandings about how our platform works, all thatâs left is one of those kinds of disagreements. I donât have much to say about your position except that I respect it, I disagree and I thank you for sharing it. I considered your critique of Giving Multiplier prior to deciding to launch our platform and was grateful to come across this perspective before rather than after making the decision. So thank you again!