I like this idea, though to boost your signal I’d switch the “donor coalitions” for “donor crews,” in reference to the Microsolidarity movement, which I hope will collide with the EA community soon enough.
In a nutshell, Microsolidarity argues for (1) a theory of social groups with more categories—those below—and (2) more organizational plans to consider different strategies for different categories. Therefore, I’d describe your strategy as experimenting with “donor crews” as opposed to the much more common “donor selves” where donors choose charities alone or “donor crowds” where everyone settles on donating to GiveWell or some other common aggregator. I think there is wide-open space for EA strategies revolving around crews
I like this idea, though to boost your signal I’d switch the “donor coalitions” for “donor crews,” in reference to the Microsolidarity movement, which I hope will collide with the EA community soon enough.
In a nutshell, Microsolidarity argues for (1) a theory of social groups with more categories—those below—and (2) more organizational plans to consider different strategies for different categories. Therefore, I’d describe your strategy as experimenting with “donor crews” as opposed to the much more common “donor selves” where donors choose charities alone or “donor crowds” where everyone settles on donating to GiveWell or some other common aggregator. I think there is wide-open space for EA strategies revolving around crews
Self (1 person)
Dyad (2 people)
Crew (3-8)
Congregation (30-200)
Crowd (200+)