I would strongly support the ability of the fund to make anonymous grants, despite the decreased transparency, with suitable outside review—as happened in this case.
First, for a graduate student, I understand that it isn’t necessarily positive to be publicly known as being well funded. (This applies far less to people doing research, for who funding is a stronger signal.) Second, I think that while transparency on the part of funders is very important, respective individuals’ privacy is an important norm, and allows people who are doing valuable work but might otherwise only want to apply for less public grants, likely focused on other topics, or to seek non-research employment, to ask for money to work on longtermist projects.
Potential COI disclosure: I have applied to the fund for future funding, and have received one grant from them in the past. (I have no interest in personally receiving anonymous funding.)
I would strongly support the ability of the fund to make anonymous grants, despite the decreased transparency, with suitable outside review—as happened in this case.
First, for a graduate student, I understand that it isn’t necessarily positive to be publicly known as being well funded. (This applies far less to people doing research, for who funding is a stronger signal.) Second, I think that while transparency on the part of funders is very important, respective individuals’ privacy is an important norm, and allows people who are doing valuable work but might otherwise only want to apply for less public grants, likely focused on other topics, or to seek non-research employment, to ask for money to work on longtermist projects.
Potential COI disclosure: I have applied to the fund for future funding, and have received one grant from them in the past. (I have no interest in personally receiving anonymous funding.)