I think the below statement is inaccurate...Whilst I agree OP is the large majority as you mention and the concentration of decision making within that could be a problem, you could have movement building project with budget over $1m a year not having funding from OP
Hence Will saying “probably”?
Or do you think that despite OP providing the large majority, EA just has so much money at the moment (once you add in your donations and perhaps others’) that a new $1m/yr+ movement-building project can probably get funding from a non-OP source?
Given the shortage of funding for existing EA organisations, there is clearly not a lot of money at the moment. But I think if there is a new $1m/yr+ movement building project with exceptional risk adjusted expected impact it could probably get funding from non-op sources, but that will be at least partially at the expense of existing projects.
Hence Will saying “probably”?
Or do you think that despite OP providing the large majority, EA just has so much money at the moment (once you add in your donations and perhaps others’) that a new $1m/yr+ movement-building project can probably get funding from a non-OP source?
Given the shortage of funding for existing EA organisations, there is clearly not a lot of money at the moment. But I think if there is a new $1m/yr+ movement building project with exceptional risk adjusted expected impact it could probably get funding from non-op sources, but that will be at least partially at the expense of existing projects.
“If a proposed $1m/yr+ project has exceptional expected impact, non-OP sources will probably stop funding existing projects and fund you”
sounds like a high enough bar to me that
“A proposed $1m/yr+ project probably needs funding from OP”
is not inaccurate?