Remember that EA principles suggest that you should donate to approximately onecharity (i.e. the current best one).
FWIW, all of the EA Funds except for the Global Health and Development one split their grants across multiple recipients, with many in the range $10K-20K, too. Looking at the most recent grants from the other 3 funds, I see 10 from the Animal Welfare fund, 13 from the Long-Term Future fund (mostly to individual EAs) and 9 from the Meta fund. Many of the groups receiving grants are pretty small, so the value of donations may vary a lot the more they get.
Yes, large donors more often reach diminishing returns on each recipient than do small donors. The one charity heuristic is mainly appropriate for people who are donating $50k per year or less.
You could just give to a fund, and indirectly, thatโs giving to several recipients. Maybe that should be thought of as giving to their bottom ranked recipients, though, and your donations would only causally contribute to a few of them.
FWIW, all of the EA Funds except for the Global Health and Development one split their grants across multiple recipients, with many in the range $10K-20K, too. Looking at the most recent grants from the other 3 funds, I see 10 from the Animal Welfare fund, 13 from the Long-Term Future fund (mostly to individual EAs) and 9 from the Meta fund. Many of the groups receiving grants are pretty small, so the value of donations may vary a lot the more they get.
Yes, large donors more often reach diminishing returns on each recipient than do small donors. The one charity heuristic is mainly appropriate for people who are donating $50k per year or less.
You could just give to a fund, and indirectly, thatโs giving to several recipients. Maybe that should be thought of as giving to their bottom ranked recipients, though, and your donations would only causally contribute to a few of them.