Iâm going to have a crack at the rationale, itâs probably several things:
One for the Worldâs statistical recorded RoI from tracked donations /â pledges through their platform is less than that of other effective giving infrastructure opportunities. (Note: itâs still significantly above 1x, which is the bar one should care about if considering between this and AMF entirely from an effectiveness standpoint with zero reputation considerationsâhowever the portfolio average is about 6x I believe)
As I say in my comment, One for the World hits the issue that in-person engagement of large numbers of people giving small amounts is an absolute *nightmare* to track reliable statistics for. People will just give money without saying it was because of you (and why wouldnât they, really?) so the RoI is definitely an undercount, but we donât know by how much. This is compared to running more passive online platforms, where the RoI may well be an overcount (people pick your platform who would have otherwise picked a different platform). Or UHNW donations where you can reasonably track things even if they werenât through a platform.
Itâs my personal witnessing that OftW is really quite good at spreading the effective giving message, but people who respond really well to that can end up either choosing direct to charity, GiveWell, or Giving What We Can as their donation platform or bouncing through to other areas of the EA community. Thus the OftW enterprise is functioning as a leaky sieve of good things while struggling to achieve its core stated goal of large numbers of 1% pledgers through its own donation platform. I personally donât mind this at all but Iâm sure OftW are a little exasperated.
Itâs been recently noted that setting up an online donation platform in a new country that didnât previously have one is really quite a cost-effective strategy, and thereâs lots of absorbency for doing that for a whole bunch of different countries. This puts quite a lot of pressure on a CG grant pot of a fixed size.
I imagine that One for the World is possibly one of the only effective giving infrastructure organisations that could survive without money from CG, because a) its operating costs are small, something like $350k a year total, a fraction of the cost of e.g. Giving What We Can, b) it is cultivating a pretty large community of volunteers and supportive medium-high earners, many of whom are invested in its success. So there may be a degree of âcut it loose and see if it fliesâ going on.
Iâm going to have a crack at the rationale, itâs probably several things:
One for the Worldâs statistical recorded RoI from tracked donations /â pledges through their platform is less than that of other effective giving infrastructure opportunities. (Note: itâs still significantly above 1x, which is the bar one should care about if considering between this and AMF entirely from an effectiveness standpoint with zero reputation considerationsâhowever the portfolio average is about 6x I believe)
As I say in my comment, One for the World hits the issue that in-person engagement of large numbers of people giving small amounts is an absolute *nightmare* to track reliable statistics for. People will just give money without saying it was because of you (and why wouldnât they, really?) so the RoI is definitely an undercount, but we donât know by how much. This is compared to running more passive online platforms, where the RoI may well be an overcount (people pick your platform who would have otherwise picked a different platform). Or UHNW donations where you can reasonably track things even if they werenât through a platform.
Itâs my personal witnessing that OftW is really quite good at spreading the effective giving message, but people who respond really well to that can end up either choosing direct to charity, GiveWell, or Giving What We Can as their donation platform or bouncing through to other areas of the EA community. Thus the OftW enterprise is functioning as a leaky sieve of good things while struggling to achieve its core stated goal of large numbers of 1% pledgers through its own donation platform. I personally donât mind this at all but Iâm sure OftW are a little exasperated.
Itâs been recently noted that setting up an online donation platform in a new country that didnât previously have one is really quite a cost-effective strategy, and thereâs lots of absorbency for doing that for a whole bunch of different countries. This puts quite a lot of pressure on a CG grant pot of a fixed size.
I imagine that One for the World is possibly one of the only effective giving infrastructure organisations that could survive without money from CG, because a) its operating costs are small, something like $350k a year total, a fraction of the cost of e.g. Giving What We Can, b) it is cultivating a pretty large community of volunteers and supportive medium-high earners, many of whom are invested in its success. So there may be a degree of âcut it loose and see if it fliesâ going on.