However, since the OpenPhil program officers know what OpenPhil is funding it means that the funds should provide options that are at least as good as OpenPhil’s funding. (See Carl Shulman’s post on the subject.) The hope is that the “at least as good as OpenPhil” bar is higher than most donors can reach now, so the fund is among the most effective options for individual donors.
The article you link (quote below) suggests the opposite should be true—individual donors should be able to do at least better than OpenPhil.
Risk-neutral small donors should aim to make better charitable bets at the margin than giga-donors like the Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil) and Good Ventures using donor lotteries, and can do at least as well as giga-donors by letting themselves be funged
The article you link (quote below) suggests the opposite should be true—individual donors should be able to do at least better than OpenPhil.
We’re making it easier for individual donors to at least be funged since our fund managers will have better information than most individual donors.