Well i think thatâs the point of the post to debate this! And i think there are relevant trade offs in regards to maintaining the impact of the organisations which are seeking to diversify funds that arenât usually considered so maybe âfar more counterfactuallyâ seems too strong.
I think thereâs an important nuance here regarding what truly constitutes a âhealthy sanity checkâ when it comes to funding. Simply having a non-EA funder interested in your project doesnât necessarily validate its impact. For instance, if a funderâs motivation is based on personal affinity, like finding the team charming or being impressed by the organization for non-impact reasons, this might not confirm that the project is the best use of resources.
To me, a real sanity check comes from the support of funders who prioritize impact and apply a high bar to their investments. If a highly discerning funder with a strong emphasis on impact independently chooses to support the project, regardless of whether you accept their funding or not, thatâs a stronger endorsement than diversification for its own sake.
Yes I would probably agree with all that. I think the endorsement is stronger from an EA donor and thatâs great, but the end value of the money itself seems more likely to be far stronger from a non aligned donor.
Well i think thatâs the point of the post to debate this! And i think there are relevant trade offs in regards to maintaining the impact of the organisations which are seeking to diversify funds that arenât usually considered so maybe âfar more counterfactuallyâ seems too strong.
I think thereâs an important nuance here regarding what truly constitutes a âhealthy sanity checkâ when it comes to funding. Simply having a non-EA funder interested in your project doesnât necessarily validate its impact. For instance, if a funderâs motivation is based on personal affinity, like finding the team charming or being impressed by the organization for non-impact reasons, this might not confirm that the project is the best use of resources.
To me, a real sanity check comes from the support of funders who prioritize impact and apply a high bar to their investments. If a highly discerning funder with a strong emphasis on impact independently chooses to support the project, regardless of whether you accept their funding or not, thatâs a stronger endorsement than diversification for its own sake.
Yes I would probably agree with all that. I think the endorsement is stronger from an EA donor and thatâs great, but the end value of the money itself seems more likely to be far stronger from a non aligned donor.