Owen Cotton-Barrett and I have thought about this for a while and have mostly arrived at the solution that beneficiaries who collaborated on a project need to hash this out with each other. So make a contract, like in a for-profit startup, who owns how much of the impact of the project. I think that capable charity entrepreneurs are a scarce resource as well, so that we should try hard to foster them. So that’s probably where a large chunk of the impact is.
When it comes to the incentive structures: We – mostly Matt Brooks and I but the rest of the team will be around – will hold a talk on the risks from perverse incentives in our system at the Funding the Commons II conference tomorrow. Afterwards I can also link the video recording here. My big write-up, which is more comprehensive than the presentation but unfinished, is linked from the other proposal proposal.
That said …
I personally think that’s a good thing at the present time, but I also know people who argue that we should be taking better advantage of economies of scale in existing organizations. There is probably a point at which there is too much entrepreneurship, and it’s worth figuring out what that point is before investing heavily in this idea.
I don’t quite understand… More funding for donors → more donors → more money to charities → higher scale, right? So this system would enable charities to hire more so people can specialize etc., not the opposite?
Owen Cotton-Barrett and I have thought about this for a while and have mostly arrived at the solution that beneficiaries who collaborated on a project need to hash this out with each other. So make a contract, like in a for-profit startup, who owns how much of the impact of the project. I think that capable charity entrepreneurs are a scarce resource as well, so that we should try hard to foster them. So that’s probably where a large chunk of the impact is.
When it comes to the incentive structures: We – mostly Matt Brooks and I but the rest of the team will be around – will hold a talk on the risks from perverse incentives in our system at the Funding the Commons II conference tomorrow. Afterwards I can also link the video recording here. My big write-up, which is more comprehensive than the presentation but unfinished, is linked from the other proposal proposal.
That said …
I don’t quite understand… More funding for donors → more donors → more money to charities → higher scale, right? So this system would enable charities to hire more so people can specialize etc., not the opposite?
Thanks!