Maybe it would be most productive to focus on this limited point:
I donāt agree that āevery dollar donated to the bonus pool is one that will be paid out to effective animal charities regardless of how other donors behaveā because dollars in the fund very literally get paid out to favorite charities that neednāt 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 Iām going to donate it to ACE at the end of the day. If youāre willing to donate $50 to ACE, however, then Iām 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 āvery literally get paid outā defense still applies.)
The net flow of money if you donāt 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 itās fair for me to say that I donāt agree that āevery dollar in the pot will be paid out to ACE regardless of how you behaveā 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 āThe pot will transfer $100 to ACE regardless, and you will additionally transfer $25ā. 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 havenāt 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 weāve 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 āthe site gives the impression that part of the bonus goes to the favorite charity, but that isnāt usefully trueā, it IS true that part of the bonus goes to the favorite charity.
Thatās all the time I have to spend on this topic. I hope to have clarified some of the facts about how the platform works.
Iām taking your response to be saying that āpart of the pot goes to your bank accountā is a fair way to characterize my example offer, but if Iāve misinterpreted your response let me know?
No I donāt think āpart of the pot goes to your accountā is a fair way to characterize your offer. I think you may have edited your comment as I was responding to it.
Itās 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 donāt think we need a hypothetical example to dig into that any further. Itās also clear what we disagree on (please see other comments so I donāt have to state it again). I donāt aim to change your mind on those points, and so Iāll leave things there :)
Hmm, then Iām still confused about why you think this is a fair way to characterize what FarmKind is doing, but not what my offer does. Iām 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.... Iām pretty sure the Do you think that in the simplified case it's fair for me to say... was in there from the beginning.)
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 Iām going to donate it to ACE at the end of the day. If youāre willing to donate $50 to ACE, however, then Iām 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 āvery literally get paid outā defense still applies.)
The net flow of money if you donāt 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 itās fair for me to say that I donāt agree that āevery dollar in the pot will be paid out to ACE regardless of how you behaveā 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 āThe pot will transfer $100 to ACE regardless, and you will additionally transfer $25ā. 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 havenāt 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 weāve 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 āthe site gives the impression that part of the bonus goes to the favorite charity, but that isnāt usefully trueā, it IS true that part of the bonus goes to the favorite charity.
Thatās 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!
Iām taking your response to be saying that āpart of the pot goes to your bank accountā is a fair way to characterize my example offer, but if Iāve misinterpreted your response let me know?
No I donāt think āpart of the pot goes to your accountā is a fair way to characterize your offer. I think you may have edited your comment as I was responding to it.
Itās 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 donāt think we need a hypothetical example to dig into that any further. Itās also clear what we disagree on (please see other comments so I donāt have to state it again). I donāt aim to change your mind on those points, and so Iāll leave things there :)
Hmm, then Iām still confused about why you think this is a fair way to characterize what FarmKind is doing, but not what my offer does. Iām 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.... Iām pretty sure theDo you think that in the simplified case it's fair for me to say...was in there from the beginning.)