IDK 160% annualized sounds a bit implausible. Surely in that world someone would be acting differently (e.g. recurring donors would roll some budget forward or take out a loan)?
Presumably the first step towards someone acting differently would be the LTFF/EAIF (perhaps somewhat desperately) alerting potential donors about the situation, which is exactly what’s happening now, with this post and a few others that have recently been posted.
I would be curious to hear from someone on the recipient side who would genuinely prefer $10k in hand to $14k in three months’ time.
FWIW, (with rare exceptions) it’s not that more funding would allow us to give the same recipients larger grants, but instead that more funding would allow us to fund more grants, and marginal grants now are (according to Caleb’s math) ~40% more valuable per dollar than what he expects from the marginal grant in a few months. In principle, grantees could be given the promise of (larger) delayed payment for grants instead of payment up front, but I think there are a whole host of problems with heading down that path.
Presumably the first step towards someone acting differently would be the LTFF/EAIF (perhaps somewhat desperately) alerting potential donors about the situation, which is exactly what’s happening now, with this post and a few others that have recently been posted.
FWIW, (with rare exceptions) it’s not that more funding would allow us to give the same recipients larger grants, but instead that more funding would allow us to fund more grants, and marginal grants now are (according to Caleb’s math) ~40% more valuable per dollar than what he expects from the marginal grant in a few months. In principle, grantees could be given the promise of (larger) delayed payment for grants instead of payment up front, but I think there are a whole host of problems with heading down that path.