I think a norm of seeking non-EA funding first for EA projects would be a good thing (but it might already be a thing, Iām not sure)
I think that might be a good thing. And I think a norm of considering seeking non-EA funding first or at least at some point would definitely be a good thing (maybe that norm is already widespread; not sure).
But I think there would be downsides to a norm of seeking non-EA funding unrelated to the counterfactual use of the money. In particular:
This might take up more staff time
In my limited experience, seeking funding from non-EAs for EA-aligned projects can take much longer, due to things like perhaps-unnecessarily rigid application processes and a need to explain things much more thoroughly and in ways one isnāt used to (since EA funders often already have somewhat similar goals, similar ways of thinking, are more likely to know about your org/āstaff, etc., and that isnāt true for non-EA funders)
This might reduce one good source of feedback (i.e., feedback from EA funders might be more valuable than that from non-EA funders)
This might create more distorted incentives, e.g. incentivising doing a version of a project thatās a bit less valuable than another version but is easier to understand or more appealing for non-EAs
(Of course, those points are just possible generalisations. There will also be at least some cases in which particular non-EA funders would give better feedback and create better incentives for a particular project than EA funders would.)
Of course ānon-EA fundingā will vary a lot in its counterfactual value. But roughly speaking I think that if you are pulling in money from places where it wouldnāt have been so good, then on the implicit impact markets story you should get a fraction of the credit for that fundraising. Whether or not thatās worth pursuing will vary case-to-case.
Basically I agree with Michael that itās worth considering but not always worth doing. Another way of looking at whatās happening is that starting a project which might appeal to other donors creates a non-transferrable fundraising opportunity. Such opportunities should be evaluated, and sometimes pursued.
I think that might be a good thing. And I think a norm of considering seeking non-EA funding first or at least at some point would definitely be a good thing (maybe that norm is already widespread; not sure).
But I think there would be downsides to a norm of seeking non-EA funding unrelated to the counterfactual use of the money. In particular:
This might take up more staff time
In my limited experience, seeking funding from non-EAs for EA-aligned projects can take much longer, due to things like perhaps-unnecessarily rigid application processes and a need to explain things much more thoroughly and in ways one isnāt used to (since EA funders often already have somewhat similar goals, similar ways of thinking, are more likely to know about your org/āstaff, etc., and that isnāt true for non-EA funders)
This might reduce one good source of feedback (i.e., feedback from EA funders might be more valuable than that from non-EA funders)
This might create more distorted incentives, e.g. incentivising doing a version of a project thatās a bit less valuable than another version but is easier to understand or more appealing for non-EAs
(Of course, those points are just possible generalisations. There will also be at least some cases in which particular non-EA funders would give better feedback and create better incentives for a particular project than EA funders would.)
Of course ānon-EA fundingā will vary a lot in its counterfactual value. But roughly speaking I think that if you are pulling in money from places where it wouldnāt have been so good, then on the implicit impact markets story you should get a fraction of the credit for that fundraising. Whether or not thatās worth pursuing will vary case-to-case.
Basically I agree with Michael that itās worth considering but not always worth doing. Another way of looking at whatās happening is that starting a project which might appeal to other donors creates a non-transferrable fundraising opportunity. Such opportunities should be evaluated, and sometimes pursued.