It’s a good point the existing GiveWell nonprofits are very small in terms of staff. They don’t seem like startups at this point though because they’ve already had millions of dollars of funding (well over $10m for the top three) - I think revenue is more relevant than staff number—and they already have a clearly established model. Being focused on an already proven intervention is also a significant difference to most startups.
What I meant is that if the Open Phil team started funding brand new projects doing new interventions, then I guess they’d use pretty similar criteria; except Open Phil would put more emphasis on cause selection; and YC would put more emphasis on tech.
‘(i) put more emphasis on funding evidence-backed interventions’ is a very significant difference. I’d also say another major one is considerations of cost-effectiveness, which don’t seem to factor in for YC nearly to the extent of GW.
I’m lumping these together.
It is a significant difference, I agree. Though like I say, it’s most relevant in international development, which Open Phil is expanding out of.
Also I should be clear that two groups could have similar criteria but apply them in very different ways e.g. GiveWell seem more sceptical, so would need more evidence that a program works.
It’s a good point the existing GiveWell nonprofits are very small in terms of staff. They don’t seem like startups at this point though because they’ve already had millions of dollars of funding (well over $10m for the top three) - I think revenue is more relevant than staff number—and they already have a clearly established model. Being focused on an already proven intervention is also a significant difference to most startups.
What I meant is that if the Open Phil team started funding brand new projects doing new interventions, then I guess they’d use pretty similar criteria; except Open Phil would put more emphasis on cause selection; and YC would put more emphasis on tech.
I’m lumping these together.
It is a significant difference, I agree. Though like I say, it’s most relevant in international development, which Open Phil is expanding out of.
Also I should be clear that two groups could have similar criteria but apply them in very different ways e.g. GiveWell seem more sceptical, so would need more evidence that a program works.