It’s still a yellow flag in my book. A would-be grantee org would be delegating its responsibility to assess the donor for suitability to Manifund. I don’t think Manifund keeps its high degree of risk tolerance a secret (and I get the sense that it is relatively high even by EA standards). I also think it is well-understood that Manifund gives little weight to optics/PR/etc. And it’s hard for a young charity (or other org) to say no to a really big chunk of mone, which might further increase risk tolerance over and above the Manifund folks having a higher risk tolerance out of the gate.
So the would-be grantee is giving up the opportunity to evaluate donor-associated risks using its own criteria. We can’t evaluate the actual level of risks from Manifund’s major donors, but its high risk tolerance + very low optics weighting means that the risk could be high indeed. That warrants the yellow flag in my book.
OK, I don’t believe that this is a yellow flag about, eg, Manifund’s judgement. But I can agree this should be a yellow flag when considering whether to accept Manifund’s money.
(fwiw, I think I’m much less risk tolerant than Manifund, and disagree with several decisions they’ve made, but have zero issues with taking money from this donor)
I read Patrick as saying that he didn’t see evidence of the “level of professionalism” that he would find necessary to “partake in a Manifund project with . . . an anonymous donor.” In other words, donor anonymity requires a higher level of confidence in Manifund than would be the case with a known source of funds. I don’t read anyone as saying that taking funds from a donor whose identity is not publicly known is a strike against Manifund’s judgment.
Yes, thank you for putting it this way, that was what I want to convey. For example I would be more comfortable with taking a grant funded by an anonymous donation to Open Phil as they has a history of value judgments and due diligence concerning grants and seem to be a well-run organisation in general.
It’s still a yellow flag in my book. A would-be grantee org would be delegating its responsibility to assess the donor for suitability to Manifund. I don’t think Manifund keeps its high degree of risk tolerance a secret (and I get the sense that it is relatively high even by EA standards). I also think it is well-understood that Manifund gives little weight to optics/PR/etc. And it’s hard for a young charity (or other org) to say no to a really big chunk of mone, which might further increase risk tolerance over and above the Manifund folks having a higher risk tolerance out of the gate.
So the would-be grantee is giving up the opportunity to evaluate donor-associated risks using its own criteria. We can’t evaluate the actual level of risks from Manifund’s major donors, but its high risk tolerance + very low optics weighting means that the risk could be high indeed. That warrants the yellow flag in my book.
OK, I don’t believe that this is a yellow flag about, eg, Manifund’s judgement. But I can agree this should be a yellow flag when considering whether to accept Manifund’s money.
(fwiw, I think I’m much less risk tolerant than Manifund, and disagree with several decisions they’ve made, but have zero issues with taking money from this donor)
I read Patrick as saying that he didn’t see evidence of the “level of professionalism” that he would find necessary to “partake in a Manifund project with . . . an anonymous donor.” In other words, donor anonymity requires a higher level of confidence in Manifund than would be the case with a known source of funds. I don’t read anyone as saying that taking funds from a donor whose identity is not publicly known is a strike against Manifund’s judgment.
Yes, thank you for putting it this way, that was what I want to convey. For example I would be more comfortable with taking a grant funded by an anonymous donation to Open Phil as they has a history of value judgments and due diligence concerning grants and seem to be a well-run organisation in general.
Sure, this seems reasonable