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, I’m 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 isn’t used to (since EA funders often already have somewhat similar goals, similar ways of thinking, are more likely to know about your org/staff, etc., and that isn’t 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 that’s 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 “non-EA funding” will vary a lot in its counterfactual value. But roughly speaking I think that if you are pulling in money from places where it wouldn’t 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 that’s worth pursuing will vary case-to-case.
Basically I agree with Michael that it’s worth considering but not always worth doing. Another way of looking at what’s 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 isn’t used to (since EA funders often already have somewhat similar goals, similar ways of thinking, are more likely to know about your org/staff, etc., and that isn’t 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 that’s 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 “non-EA funding” will vary a lot in its counterfactual value. But roughly speaking I think that if you are pulling in money from places where it wouldn’t 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 that’s worth pursuing will vary case-to-case.
Basically I agree with Michael that it’s worth considering but not always worth doing. Another way of looking at what’s 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.