I think this reasoning applies to the initial funding for new, neglected areas. It often appears like grantmakers are evaluating a project in absolute terms as to whether they think it is likely to succeed.
But exploration and discovery costs are often a pittance compared to potential impact of new ideas, and when the potential for exploitation of promising interventions is incorporated, we should definitely be more risk-seeking with the resources we deploy as a community.
The greatest EV fund distributor may very well be one with many duds and perhaps we should be wary of incentivizing funds that have a bunch of good outcomes. You hear on 80k and on many other sources that we should be risk-neutral re altruistic projects, but this neutrality depends on institutions that will enable new ideas.
I think this reasoning applies to the initial funding for new, neglected areas. It often appears like grantmakers are evaluating a project in absolute terms as to whether they think it is likely to succeed.
But exploration and discovery costs are often a pittance compared to potential impact of new ideas, and when the potential for exploitation of promising interventions is incorporated, we should definitely be more risk-seeking with the resources we deploy as a community.
The greatest EV fund distributor may very well be one with many duds and perhaps we should be wary of incentivizing funds that have a bunch of good outcomes. You hear on 80k and on many other sources that we should be risk-neutral re altruistic projects, but this neutrality depends on institutions that will enable new ideas.