After reading this post I’m still a bit confused as to why you doubt GFI specifically is a cost-effective target for donations relative to alternatives. Maybe you can try putting it in really simple terms in the comments? :)
I don’t doubt it is cost effective (ACE have said it is). What I am saying is that its financial needs are likely met, for instance Lewis Bollard says about GFI in relation to EA Funds “I’m also excited about the Good Food Institute’s work in this space, but I think that big funders (including Open Phil) will fill GFI’s funding needs in the medium term.”
So I’m saying there isn’t much value in considering it as a viable donation opportunity if its needs are met. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be funded, instead I am saying what could happen when we start to look elsewhere.
After reading this post I’m still a bit confused as to why you doubt GFI specifically is a cost-effective target for donations relative to alternatives. Maybe you can try putting it in really simple terms in the comments? :)
I don’t doubt it is cost effective (ACE have said it is). What I am saying is that its financial needs are likely met, for instance Lewis Bollard says about GFI in relation to EA Funds “I’m also excited about the Good Food Institute’s work in this space, but I think that big funders (including Open Phil) will fill GFI’s funding needs in the medium term.”
So I’m saying there isn’t much value in considering it as a viable donation opportunity if its needs are met. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be funded, instead I am saying what could happen when we start to look elsewhere.