The reasoning here is asymmetric: you should also note that if Givewell raises more than $12.5 million, that means they’re doing something really well, and should be rewarded. Conversely, if Givewell raises less than $12.5 million, growth is less optional because it will start cutting into more critical operations.
Moreover, it’s important to remember that incentives for Givewell recommended charities are not necessarily incentives for Givewell and vice versa.
I’m indicating explicit confidence in GiveWell’s work and its top charities, and my support of the work, by showcasing my willingness to donate a relatively nontrivial amount of money to them.
This is the same for a direct donation, though. Actually it’s probably true for a greater extent if one made a concrete donation.
I am providing clear information about the level of growth that I believe is important for GiveWell and its recipient organizations, below which I would be concerned enough to pitch in.
This amount depends on the quantity of money granted from Good Ventures, though. Also, shouldn’t Givewell’s information on funding gaps already be covering this issue?
By being clear upfront about the conditions, I can plan more clearly for the future fund outlay. It also leaves me with less wiggle room to change the conditions later.
Yes, although a robust donation or commitment would be better in both respects. Depends on what kind of donation strategy you want to compare this to.
I am spreading the meme that the amount we donate to charities should be based on how much they’d otherwise raise, and that it’s possible to do so in a way that does not create perverse incentives for other donors.
It seems like your idea is built on the premises that charity markets are inefficient and that you can predict which way this inefficiency will go based on the amount of money the charity raises. I’m inclined to accept the first premise but not the second.
I can imagine the possibility that EA charities as a group would benefit from insurance against individual ones failing to meet their funding goals, but I think that problem would be best met either with a centralized fund or organization, or with people simply looking directly for underfunded causes rather than planning based on donation amounts. (Also what would you do with the money if you don’t spend it on Givewell?)
The reasoning here is asymmetric: you should also note that if Givewell raises more than $12.5 million, that means they’re doing something really well, and should be rewarded. Conversely, if Givewell raises less than $12.5 million, growth is less optional because it will start cutting into more critical operations.
The point here is that there are two competing effects that go in opposite directions: (a) I don’t want to spend money if I believe they are already raising enough to “survive”, (b) I don’t want to reward failure to raise money. The relative strength of these effects varies, with (a) getting stronger as the money moved goes up, versus (b) getting weaker. The upside-down quadratic is a first attempt at formalizing both intuitions. It’s not necessarily the only formulation but it’s good enough.
This is the same for a direct donation, though. Actually it’s probably true for a greater extent if one made a concrete donation.
That is true holding the amount of money donated constant, i.e., a direct donation of $6,250 means more than a conditional commitment to donate $6,250. But I think a conditional commitment to donate up to $6,250 means more than a direct donation of $300 even if the EV of amount donated is $300.
This amount depends on the quantity of money granted from Good Ventures, though. Also, shouldn’t Givewell’s information on funding gaps already be covering this issue?
This is taking GiveWell’s information on funding gaps at prima facie value, but I’ve already indicated that I haven’t had the time to review their top charity recommendations and found their reviews inadequate on these fronts. My estimate of funding gaps is more based on the idea “below what level would people think that GiveWell has failed?” Since GiveWell basically has Good Ventures money almost for free, it’s the non-Good Ventures money moved that is actually of significance as far as judging GiveWell’s growth and influence.
That is true holding the amount of money donated constant, i.e., a direct donation of $6,250 means more than a conditional commitment to donate $6,250. But I think a conditional commitment to donate up to $6,250 means more than a direct donation of $300 even if the EV of amount donated is $300.
The risk-adjusted personal cost can be more than $300 too.
The reasoning here is asymmetric: you should also note that if Givewell raises more than $12.5 million, that means they’re doing something really well, and should be rewarded. Conversely, if Givewell raises less than $12.5 million, growth is less optional because it will start cutting into more critical operations.
Moreover, it’s important to remember that incentives for Givewell recommended charities are not necessarily incentives for Givewell and vice versa.
This is the same for a direct donation, though. Actually it’s probably true for a greater extent if one made a concrete donation.
This amount depends on the quantity of money granted from Good Ventures, though. Also, shouldn’t Givewell’s information on funding gaps already be covering this issue?
Yes, although a robust donation or commitment would be better in both respects. Depends on what kind of donation strategy you want to compare this to.
It seems like your idea is built on the premises that charity markets are inefficient and that you can predict which way this inefficiency will go based on the amount of money the charity raises. I’m inclined to accept the first premise but not the second.
I can imagine the possibility that EA charities as a group would benefit from insurance against individual ones failing to meet their funding goals, but I think that problem would be best met either with a centralized fund or organization, or with people simply looking directly for underfunded causes rather than planning based on donation amounts. (Also what would you do with the money if you don’t spend it on Givewell?)
Thank you, you make some really important points.
The point here is that there are two competing effects that go in opposite directions: (a) I don’t want to spend money if I believe they are already raising enough to “survive”, (b) I don’t want to reward failure to raise money. The relative strength of these effects varies, with (a) getting stronger as the money moved goes up, versus (b) getting weaker. The upside-down quadratic is a first attempt at formalizing both intuitions. It’s not necessarily the only formulation but it’s good enough.
That is true holding the amount of money donated constant, i.e., a direct donation of $6,250 means more than a conditional commitment to donate $6,250. But I think a conditional commitment to donate up to $6,250 means more than a direct donation of $300 even if the EV of amount donated is $300.
This is taking GiveWell’s information on funding gaps at prima facie value, but I’ve already indicated that I haven’t had the time to review their top charity recommendations and found their reviews inadequate on these fronts. My estimate of funding gaps is more based on the idea “below what level would people think that GiveWell has failed?” Since GiveWell basically has Good Ventures money almost for free, it’s the non-Good Ventures money moved that is actually of significance as far as judging GiveWell’s growth and influence.
The risk-adjusted personal cost can be more than $300 too.