Would the EAIF be interested in a) post hoc funding of previous salary/other expenses or b) impact certificates that account for risk taken?
Some context: When I was thinking of running SF/Bay Area EA full-time*, one thing that was fairly annoying for me is that funders (correctly) were uninterested in funding me until there was demonstrated success/impact, or at least decent proxies for such. This intuition was correct, however from my perspective the risk allocation seemed asymmetric. If I did a poor job, then I eat all the costs. If I did a phenomenally good job, the best I could hope for (from a funding perspective) was a promise of continued funding for the future and maybe back payments for past work.
In the for-profit world, if you disagree with the judgement of funders, press on, and later turn out to be right, you get a greater share of the equity etc. Nothing equivalent seemed to be true within EA’s credit allocation.
It seems like if you disagree with the judgment of funders, the best you can hope to do is break even. Of course, a) I read not being funded as some signal that people didn’t think me/my project was sufficiently promising and b) maybe some funders would actually prefer, for downside risk reasons, a lower number of unpromising EA projects of that calibre in the world. But at least in my case, I explicitly asked quite a few people about my project, and basically nobody said I should desist because the downside risks were too high. ** So it seems weird to be in a situation where founders of unfunded (but ex post good) projects bear all the risks but can at best hope for typical rewards.
*I’ve since decided to test my fit for research and a few other things. I currently think my comparative advantage is pretty far from direct community building, though I can imagine changing my mind again in 3 years.
**I expect all these signals to be even more confusing for people who want to work in areas less central than the SF Bay Area, or who know less funders than I do.
I haven’t thought a ton about the implications of this, but my initial reaction also is to generally be open to this.
So if you’re reading this and are wondering if it could be worth it to submit an application for funding for past expenses, then I think the answer is we’d at least consider it and so potentially yes.
If you’re reading this and it really matters to you what the EAIF’s policy on this is going forward (e.g., if it’s decision-relevant for some project you might start soon), you might want to check with me before going ahead. I’m not sure I’ll be able to say anything more definitive, but it’s at least possible. And to be clear, so far all that we have are the personal views of two EAIF managers not a considered opinion or policy of all fund managers or the fund as a whole or anything like that.
I am not sure. I think it’s pretty likely I would want to fund after risk adjustment. I think that if you are considering trying to get funded this way, you should consider reaching out to me first.
I’m also in favor of EA Funds doing generous back payments for successful projects. In general, I feel interested in setting up prize programs at EA Funds (though it’s not a top priority).
One issue is that it’s harder to demonstrate to regulators that back payments serve a charitable purpose. However, I’m confident that we can find workarounds for that.
Would the EAIF be interested in a) post hoc funding of previous salary/other expenses or b) impact certificates that account for risk taken?
Some context: When I was thinking of running SF/Bay Area EA full-time*, one thing that was fairly annoying for me is that funders (correctly) were uninterested in funding me until there was demonstrated success/impact, or at least decent proxies for such. This intuition was correct, however from my perspective the risk allocation seemed asymmetric. If I did a poor job, then I eat all the costs. If I did a phenomenally good job, the best I could hope for (from a funding perspective) was a promise of continued funding for the future and maybe back payments for past work.
In the for-profit world, if you disagree with the judgement of funders, press on, and later turn out to be right, you get a greater share of the equity etc. Nothing equivalent seemed to be true within EA’s credit allocation.
It seems like if you disagree with the judgment of funders, the best you can hope to do is break even. Of course, a) I read not being funded as some signal that people didn’t think me/my project was sufficiently promising and b) maybe some funders would actually prefer, for downside risk reasons, a lower number of unpromising EA projects of that calibre in the world. But at least in my case, I explicitly asked quite a few people about my project, and basically nobody said I should desist because the downside risks were too high. ** So it seems weird to be in a situation where founders of unfunded (but ex post good) projects bear all the risks but can at best hope for typical rewards.
*I’ve since decided to test my fit for research and a few other things. I currently think my comparative advantage is pretty far from direct community building, though I can imagine changing my mind again in 3 years.
**I expect all these signals to be even more confusing for people who want to work in areas less central than the SF Bay Area, or who know less funders than I do.
I would personally be pretty down for funding reimbursements for past expenses.
I haven’t thought a ton about the implications of this, but my initial reaction also is to generally be open to this.
So if you’re reading this and are wondering if it could be worth it to submit an application for funding for past expenses, then I think the answer is we’d at least consider it and so potentially yes.
If you’re reading this and it really matters to you what the EAIF’s policy on this is going forward (e.g., if it’s decision-relevant for some project you might start soon), you might want to check with me before going ahead. I’m not sure I’ll be able to say anything more definitive, but it’s at least possible. And to be clear, so far all that we have are the personal views of two EAIF managers not a considered opinion or policy of all fund managers or the fund as a whole or anything like that.
I would also be in favor of the LTFF doing this.
That’s great to hear! But to be clear, not for risk adjustment? Or are you just not sure on that point?
I am not sure. I think it’s pretty likely I would want to fund after risk adjustment. I think that if you are considering trying to get funded this way, you should consider reaching out to me first.
I’m also in favor of EA Funds doing generous back payments for successful projects. In general, I feel interested in setting up prize programs at EA Funds (though it’s not a top priority).
One issue is that it’s harder to demonstrate to regulators that back payments serve a charitable purpose. However, I’m confident that we can find workarounds for that.