they likely would have given it to other non-EAA animal charities
Thanks! It sounds like how counterfactual to consider this match is depends a lot on how much better you think ACEâs Recommended Charities are than the sorts of charities this funder tends to support. Which Iâm guessing isnât public information?
just left the money in their foundation for future donations
This is also important for assessing counterfactual impact, and is probably not something the funder knows either. If it would go to an ACE Recommended Charity in 2018 instead of 2017 thatâs pretty different than if it (a) wouldnât get donated for a long time or (b) would go to a much less valuable charity (see previous paragraph).
Overall, I think when an EA organization describes a match they offer as counterfactually valid they should link to details describing how theyâre reasoning that. For example âfunder wouldnât otherwise donate to any ACE recommended charity this yearâ, âfunder would otherwise donate to GiveWellâs recommendationsâ, or âfunder would otherwise spend the money on a yachtâ.
Thanks! It sounds like how counterfactual to consider this match is depends a lot on how much better you think ACEâs Recommended Charities are than the sorts of charities this funder tends to support. Which Iâm guessing isnât public information?
This is also important for assessing counterfactual impact, and is probably not something the funder knows either. If it would go to an ACE Recommended Charity in 2018 instead of 2017 thatâs pretty different than if it (a) wouldnât get donated for a long time or (b) would go to a much less valuable charity (see previous paragraph).
Overall, I think when an EA organization describes a match they offer as counterfactually valid they should link to details describing how theyâre reasoning that. For example âfunder wouldnât otherwise donate to any ACE recommended charity this yearâ, âfunder would otherwise donate to GiveWellâs recommendationsâ, or âfunder would otherwise spend the money on a yachtâ.