I totally agree this is really scary. I know you are getting bulk downvoted but I think the average person concerned about the future the planet would be worried that such a large organization is effectively siphoning money into mystery projects while claiming to be a charity.
I didn’t downvote, but I was rather hurt by the implication that my work was con artistry. I spent some time trying to defend myself against the accusation, but realized pretty quickly that it was in practice basically impossible without pretty sophisticated audits and also a bunch of information that I in no way had access to.
I don’t for a moment think that you are a con artist. I suspect that (a) the amounts involved are all small, (b) you genuinely believe that all the grants are effective, (c) mostly you’re right but (d) occasionally, in ordinary human frailty, your judgment errs. If that’s right, then no real harm is done, but I have no way of verifying any of that, because you don’t (as far as I can see) disclose any information at all about the unreported grants.
I have to say also that you sound like you’re saying that you refuse to comply with the law, but as far as I can see, Effective Ventures does in fact comply with the law and publishes a list of its grantees (save for individuals and those receiving grants of less than £25k) within its Trustees’ Report. But that seems to create a different problem, because the post above ought to make clear that organisations seeking grants in excess of £25k will not be able to remain anonymous, because the grant will be dislosed in the annual accounts (although I believe there is a “serious prejudice” exception).
I don’t for a moment think that you are a con artist
Thanks, but maybe you’re being too generous here! :) I don’t think you should have 0% probability on this; I just think you should basically be at around base rates.
I suspect that (a) the amounts involved are all small, (b) you genuinely believe that all the grants are effective, (c) mostly you’re right but (d) occasionally, in ordinary human frailty, your judgment errs. If that’s right, then no real harm is done, but I have no way of verifying any of that, because you don’t (as far as I can see) disclose any information at all about the unreported grants.
Yep this sounds right. That’s why in the parent thread, I was suggesting other more legible places to donate to, for people who care a lot about this.
I have to say also that you sound like you’re saying that you refuse to comply with the law
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I apologize for any miscommunication. I don’t really handle operational details and I could be wrong about a bunch of stuff.
But that seems to create a different problem, because the post above ought to make clear that organisations seeking grants in excess of £25k will not be able to remain anonymous
I think we typically refer those grants to private funders. This may entail more uncertainty and delays and I apologize as a result.
I don’t know about how this aspect of law works, but does the Trustees’s report actually contain all the grants? Based on the May 2021 LTFF report, I would expect to see a e.g. significant grant made to the Cambridge Computer Science Department (or similar), but unless I am misreading, or it is labelled counter-intuitively, I don’t see it.
More importantly, I would expect almost-all of the secretive grants to be made to individuals, which sounds like they are excluded from the reporting anyway.
Doesn’t the fact that the information is not sufficiently available to prove that the organization is spending its money in legit ways disturbing to you?
No, I have many more important things to worry about, including but not limited to making good grants.
I assume but have not verified that Effective Ventures and our large funders have access to good auditors.
At the risk of saying the obvious, to be able to concretely demonstrate whether money is not “effectively siphoned”, you need to de-anonymize not just the grantees but (much more importantly) all the donors. This is not something most charities do publicly, and AFAICT is typically handled the normal way through having good accountants, auditors, a legal system, etc.
We are already much more public than the vast majority of institutions (for-profit or non-profit). I don’t think “every person who works part-time in a foundation needs to be able to trace exactly where every dollar comes from or goes every time some person on the internet asks for this” is a reasonable bar for “lower than baseline probability of being a con artist.”
Taking a step back, I think if this is something that you’re very concerned about, it’d be interesting to plan out how to investigate EA charities for fraud. I’m not sure how valuable this work will be, but at least it’s plausibly the type of thing that has a reasonably high EV. I assume a good first step is to talk to a representative sample of really good auditors.
Put another way, the thing that matters to me is that we actually do good in the world. This is where the bulk of where moral responsibilities lie. As I’ve said before (on a different topic in the grantmaking context):
Ultimately, nobody said that (consequentialist) morality had to be easy, or fair. It’s the moral patients that ultimately matter, not the feelings of the grantseekers or grantmakers. And if I sacrifice foregone opportunities to make highly impactful grants for the sake of a vague sense of procedural justice, or fairness, then I would be acting wrongly.
I’m sure you really care a lot about this, and I’m sure a bunch of random people online implying you might be part of something shady is upsetting to you. I have no doubt you are doing your best to help the world, which is incredible.
But do you see how after things like FTX people might be hesitant to donate to funds that don’t disclose where the money goes? I understand the motives to make this decision were probably good, but there has to be a better way.
I totally agree this is really scary. I know you are getting bulk downvoted but I think the average person concerned about the future the planet would be worried that such a large organization is effectively siphoning money into mystery projects while claiming to be a charity.
I didn’t downvote, but I was rather hurt by the implication that my work was con artistry. I spent some time trying to defend myself against the accusation, but realized pretty quickly that it was in practice basically impossible without pretty sophisticated audits and also a bunch of information that I in no way had access to.
I don’t for a moment think that you are a con artist. I suspect that (a) the amounts involved are all small, (b) you genuinely believe that all the grants are effective, (c) mostly you’re right but (d) occasionally, in ordinary human frailty, your judgment errs. If that’s right, then no real harm is done, but I have no way of verifying any of that, because you don’t (as far as I can see) disclose any information at all about the unreported grants.
I have to say also that you sound like you’re saying that you refuse to comply with the law, but as far as I can see, Effective Ventures does in fact comply with the law and publishes a list of its grantees (save for individuals and those receiving grants of less than £25k) within its Trustees’ Report. But that seems to create a different problem, because the post above ought to make clear that organisations seeking grants in excess of £25k will not be able to remain anonymous, because the grant will be dislosed in the annual accounts (although I believe there is a “serious prejudice” exception).
Thanks for the reply!
Thanks, but maybe you’re being too generous here! :) I don’t think you should have 0% probability on this; I just think you should basically be at around base rates.
Yep this sounds right. That’s why in the parent thread, I was suggesting other more legible places to donate to, for people who care a lot about this.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I apologize for any miscommunication. I don’t really handle operational details and I could be wrong about a bunch of stuff.
I think we typically refer those grants to private funders. This may entail more uncertainty and delays and I apologize as a result.
(all views my own, not my employers’)
I don’t know about how this aspect of law works, but does the Trustees’s report actually contain all the grants? Based on the May 2021 LTFF report, I would expect to see a e.g. significant grant made to the Cambridge Computer Science Department (or similar), but unless I am misreading, or it is labelled counter-intuitively, I don’t see it.
More importantly, I would expect almost-all of the secretive grants to be made to individuals, which sounds like they are excluded from the reporting anyway.
Doesn’t the fact that the information is not sufficiently available to prove that the organization is spending its money in legit ways disturbing to you?
No, I have many more important things to worry about, including but not limited to making good grants.
I assume but have not verified that Effective Ventures and our large funders have access to good auditors.
At the risk of saying the obvious, to be able to concretely demonstrate whether money is not “effectively siphoned”, you need to de-anonymize not just the grantees but (much more importantly) all the donors. This is not something most charities do publicly, and AFAICT is typically handled the normal way through having good accountants, auditors, a legal system, etc.
We are already much more public than the vast majority of institutions (for-profit or non-profit). I don’t think “every person who works part-time in a foundation needs to be able to trace exactly where every dollar comes from or goes every time some person on the internet asks for this” is a reasonable bar for “lower than baseline probability of being a con artist.”
Taking a step back, I think if this is something that you’re very concerned about, it’d be interesting to plan out how to investigate EA charities for fraud. I’m not sure how valuable this work will be, but at least it’s plausibly the type of thing that has a reasonably high EV. I assume a good first step is to talk to a representative sample of really good auditors.
Put another way, the thing that matters to me is that we actually do good in the world. This is where the bulk of where moral responsibilities lie. As I’ve said before (on a different topic in the grantmaking context):
I’m sure you really care a lot about this, and I’m sure a bunch of random people online implying you might be part of something shady is upsetting to you. I have no doubt you are doing your best to help the world, which is incredible.
But do you see how after things like FTX people might be hesitant to donate to funds that don’t disclose where the money goes? I understand the motives to make this decision were probably good, but there has to be a better way.