People are not going to get the experience of making consequential decisions with $50, particularly if they’re funding individuals and small projects (as opposed to established charities with fairly smooth marginal utility curves like AMF).
That said, I’m sympathetic to the same argument for $5k or 10k.
Yeah, I think Rachel also herself feels a bit imposter-syndrome-y about her budget allocation and might end up delegating part of her remainder to another regrantor.
I just disagree with everyone here (Anon/Tyler/Linch/Rachel). $10k pays for like 1-2 months of salary post-tax, which is like… a single regrant. I’d claim “feedback loops from intense dogfooding is why the Manifold Markets user experience is notably better than similar EA efforts” coupled with “the user experience of EA grantmaking has been awful to date, and we think we can do better” (excepting the parts that involved Linch funding us, we love you Linch). Not just software UX but the end-to-end feeling of what being a grantee is like, speed of response, quantity of feedback, etc.
I’m also pretty inclined to dismiss “optics are bad” arguments. I again invite anyone to judge, on the object level, 1) how do Rachel’s grants look? 2) how does the Manifund site UX feel? 3) how does her code look?. And as always, if you think you can make better regrants than us, audition for the role!
I just disagree with everyone here (Anon/Tyler/Linch/Rachel). $10k pays for like 1-2 months of salary post-tax, which is like… a single regrant.
Fair. I don’t have a good sense of what grant size your applicants ask for, particularly on the lower end. In my own experience as a grantmaker, my own grants have had maybe 2.5 orders of magnitude of variation.
I’d claim “feedback loops from intense dogfooding is why the Manifold Markets user experience is notably better than similar EA efforts” coupled with “the user experience of EA grantmaking has been awful to date, and we think we can do better”
I definitely agree with the second part. I feel like many grantmakers in EA seem to treat grantmaking as roughly their third or fourth most important priority, which I think does not compromise judgement quality too much but does not bode well for other important desiderata like “are grantees happy with the process” and “are donors happy with the level of communication.”
Too soon to tell with the first part; I feel like there are many projects both in and out of EA that seemed to do really well in the initial rush of hype and manic energy, and then kind of splutter out afterwards. Hopefully you guys will improve upon future iterations however!
(excepting the parts that involved Linch funding us, we love you Linch)
It would seem almost if not equally effective to dogfood the UX as well with a $10K allotment, making each grant 20 percent of the amount one would have allocated at 50K. (Incidentally, I like this idea as a sort of work trial for candidate grantmakers more generally.)
If a 20⁄80 real vs play money split wouldn’t elicit realistic user behavior, what are the implications of that for your other project (Manifold)?
I don’t have an opinion on anyone’s suitability as a grantmaker; I’m just not convinced dogfooding is a rationale for handing out 50K (or that code/UX quality are relevant to assessing handing out that sum).
IMHO seems possible to be rigorous with imaginary money, as some are with prediction markets or fantasy football. Particularly so if the exercise feels critical to the success of the platform.
I think the site looks great btw, just pushing back on this :)
I agree in the context of what I call deciding between different “established charities with fairly smooth marginal utility curves,” which I think is more analogous to prediction markets or fantasy football or (for that matter) picking fake stocks.
But as someone who in the past has applied for funding for projects (though not on Manifund), if someone said, “hey we have 50k (or 500k) to allocate and we want to ask the following questions about your project,” I’d be pretty willing to either reply to their emails or go on a call.
If on the other hand they said “we have $50 (or $50k virtual dollars) to allocate between 5 projects and I want you to ask the following questions about your project as a way to test our product” maybe I’d still be willing to talk to them. However, in this scenario, a) it’s pretty unambiguous that I’m doing them a favor[1] and b) while I’ll try to keep my presentation the same, in practice this is likely to bias my decisions somewhat.[2]
Now I know some startup advisors recommend doing mockup testing without telling users that your product is incomplete, but a) I think this is kind of scummy in the context of applying for funding, and b) would-be EA grantmakers in the past have justifiably gotten flak for this exact behavior.
In some cases for the better! Eg one advantage I’ve found as a “researcher” role at Rethink Priorities is that people seem more likely to give me honest assessments and criticisms than when I put on my “funder” hat. But regardless of whether being a mock grantmaker is better epistemically than being a real grantmaker, you are still not going through a real use case if you’re planning to build out your product for real grantmakers.
FWIW: I want to offer a strong dissenting voice that I do not like how this has been handled in this comment section. Saying something isn’t intended to be harsh and mean doesn’t make it not harsh and mean. You can point out things that concern you without singling out individual people and I think the average person would have found this incredibly hurtful and off-putting.
Apologies, I usually try to respond to claims on the object level or occasionally try to enforce epistemic norms, and don’t usually bother enforcing politeness/niceness norms (in part because I think this is not my comparative advantage). I do frequently try to reach out privately if I notice people say hurtful things or people might be hurt due to the relevant situation. I agree that Anonymous EA Forum user’s comment may come across as unnecessarily aggressive to many readers[1] and perhaps it was wrong for me to reply without noting that. I thought Elizabeth’s comment was quite good in that context.
Oh uh I assume KMF intended to address Anonymous EA Forum user, but clicked “reply” in the wrong place; “harsh and mean” are quotes from Anon’s post. (I have a hard time seeing how her comment applies to anything you said).
Oh I don’t interpret her as saying that my comments are mean by themselves, but that maybe the whole discussion was mean or at least insensitive. Eg my comments helped “platform” AEAFu.
Could you not dogfood just as easily with $50 (or fake money in a dev account)?
People are not going to get the experience of making consequential decisions with $50, particularly if they’re funding individuals and small projects (as opposed to established charities with fairly smooth marginal utility curves like AMF).
That said, I’m sympathetic to the same argument for $5k or 10k.
Yeah, I think Rachel also herself feels a bit imposter-syndrome-y about her budget allocation and might end up delegating part of her remainder to another regrantor.
I just disagree with everyone here (Anon/Tyler/Linch/Rachel). $10k pays for like 1-2 months of salary post-tax, which is like… a single regrant. I’d claim “feedback loops from intense dogfooding is why the Manifold Markets user experience is notably better than similar EA efforts” coupled with “the user experience of EA grantmaking has been awful to date, and we think we can do better” (excepting the parts that involved Linch funding us, we love you Linch). Not just software UX but the end-to-end feeling of what being a grantee is like, speed of response, quantity of feedback, etc.
I’m also pretty inclined to dismiss “optics are bad” arguments. I again invite anyone to judge, on the object level, 1) how do Rachel’s grants look? 2) how does the Manifund site UX feel? 3) how does her code look?. And as always, if you think you can make better regrants than us, audition for the role!
Fair. I don’t have a good sense of what grant size your applicants ask for, particularly on the lower end. In my own experience as a grantmaker, my own grants have had maybe 2.5 orders of magnitude of variation.
I definitely agree with the second part. I feel like many grantmakers in EA seem to treat grantmaking as roughly their third or fourth most important priority, which I think does not compromise judgement quality too much but does not bode well for other important desiderata like “are grantees happy with the process” and “are donors happy with the level of communication.”
Too soon to tell with the first part; I feel like there are many projects both in and out of EA that seemed to do really well in the initial rush of hype and manic energy, and then kind of splutter out afterwards. Hopefully you guys will improve upon future iterations however!
Oh don’t worry, I suck too. :)
It would seem almost if not equally effective to dogfood the UX as well with a $10K allotment, making each grant 20 percent of the amount one would have allocated at 50K. (Incidentally, I like this idea as a sort of work trial for candidate grantmakers more generally.)
If a 20⁄80 real vs play money split wouldn’t elicit realistic user behavior, what are the implications of that for your other project (Manifold)?
I don’t have an opinion on anyone’s suitability as a grantmaker; I’m just not convinced dogfooding is a rationale for handing out 50K (or that code/UX quality are relevant to assessing handing out that sum).
IMHO seems possible to be rigorous with imaginary money, as some are with prediction markets or fantasy football. Particularly so if the exercise feels critical to the success of the platform.
I think the site looks great btw, just pushing back on this :)
I agree in the context of what I call deciding between different “established charities with fairly smooth marginal utility curves,” which I think is more analogous to prediction markets or fantasy football or (for that matter) picking fake stocks.
But as someone who in the past has applied for funding for projects (though not on Manifund), if someone said, “hey we have 50k (or 500k) to allocate and we want to ask the following questions about your project,” I’d be pretty willing to either reply to their emails or go on a call.
If on the other hand they said “we have $50 (or $50k virtual dollars) to allocate between 5 projects and I want you to ask the following questions about your project as a way to test our product” maybe I’d still be willing to talk to them. However, in this scenario, a) it’s pretty unambiguous that I’m doing them a favor[1] and b) while I’ll try to keep my presentation the same, in practice this is likely to bias my decisions somewhat.[2]
Now I know some startup advisors recommend doing mockup testing without telling users that your product is incomplete, but a) I think this is kind of scummy in the context of applying for funding, and b) would-be EA grantmakers in the past have justifiably gotten flak for this exact behavior.
Or eg, making a calculated impact-maximizing decision for the greater good, if consequentialist ethics are a better model than contractual ethics.
In some cases for the better! Eg one advantage I’ve found as a “researcher” role at Rethink Priorities is that people seem more likely to give me honest assessments and criticisms than when I put on my “funder” hat. But regardless of whether being a mock grantmaker is better epistemically than being a real grantmaker, you are still not going through a real use case if you’re planning to build out your product for real grantmakers.
FWIW: I want to offer a strong dissenting voice that I do not like how this has been handled in this comment section. Saying something isn’t intended to be harsh and mean doesn’t make it not harsh and mean. You can point out things that concern you without singling out individual people and I think the average person would have found this incredibly hurtful and off-putting.
Apologies, I usually try to respond to claims on the object level or occasionally try to enforce epistemic norms, and don’t usually bother enforcing politeness/niceness norms (in part because I think this is not my comparative advantage). I do frequently try to reach out privately if I notice people say hurtful things or people might be hurt due to the relevant situation. I agree that Anonymous EA Forum user’s comment may come across as unnecessarily aggressive to many readers[1] and perhaps it was wrong for me to reply without noting that. I thought Elizabeth’s comment was quite good in that context.
If I were in Rachel’s situation, these comments might easily have led me to be quite insecure.
Oh uh I assume KMF intended to address Anonymous EA Forum user, but clicked “reply” in the wrong place; “harsh and mean” are quotes from Anon’s post. (I have a hard time seeing how her comment applies to anything you said).
Oh I don’t interpret her as saying that my comments are mean by themselves, but that maybe the whole discussion was mean or at least insensitive. Eg my comments helped “platform” AEAFu.
Sorry, Linch- Austin is totally right. I am just useless at the Forum :)