As said by others here, I agree that the current strategy by Senterra Funders is too risk averse and giving to only these major funds really limits the impact this money could have for smaller less established organizations. It would be great if the community shifted to a more diverse portfolio of funds (including pooled funds and regraters). If the bottleneck is shifting from money to speed then the community should double down on less established granters who have the capacity to move the money on a timescale that matters. I agree that individual orgs shouldn’t be reaching out but I worry about the risk of all the funding ending up in a few obvious places that can’t spend it fast enough.
FWIW the main point I wanted to make in this post is that individuals should not be reaching out to Anthropic staff who don’t actively indicate they want to be pitched directly. Part of our strategy is to have a high-trust call to action, but this is mostly based on conversations we’ve had with Anthropic staff themselves.
I’m not particularly against newer funds coming on to the scene and agree with a lot of the comments in this post about the pros of doing so.
As a small nitpick some of these major funds do give a lot of smaller donations to smaller, less established organizations, so I wouldn’t say major funds = money goes to major orgs.
I would say in general major funds = money goes to major orgs, is there evidence against this? GiveWell for example gives most of its money to very big orgs. Even if the major orgs give some donations to smaller orgs, that’s usually a smlall percent of what they do.
I had in mind the EA Animal Welfare fund where small orgs is a reasonable part of its giving portfolio (I don’t have exact numbers off the top of my head)
As said by others here, I agree that the current strategy by Senterra Funders is too risk averse and giving to only these major funds really limits the impact this money could have for smaller less established organizations. It would be great if the community shifted to a more diverse portfolio of funds (including pooled funds and regraters). If the bottleneck is shifting from money to speed then the community should double down on less established granters who have the capacity to move the money on a timescale that matters. I agree that individual orgs shouldn’t be reaching out but I worry about the risk of all the funding ending up in a few obvious places that can’t spend it fast enough.
FWIW the main point I wanted to make in this post is that individuals should not be reaching out to Anthropic staff who don’t actively indicate they want to be pitched directly. Part of our strategy is to have a high-trust call to action, but this is mostly based on conversations we’ve had with Anthropic staff themselves.
I’m not particularly against newer funds coming on to the scene and agree with a lot of the comments in this post about the pros of doing so.
As a small nitpick some of these major funds do give a lot of smaller donations to smaller, less established organizations, so I wouldn’t say major funds = money goes to major orgs.
I would say in general major funds = money goes to major orgs, is there evidence against this? GiveWell for example gives most of its money to very big orgs. Even if the major orgs give some donations to smaller orgs, that’s usually a smlall percent of what they do.
I had in mind the EA Animal Welfare fund where small orgs is a reasonable part of its giving portfolio (I don’t have exact numbers off the top of my head)