I could imagine this being more useful if the EA Funds are administered by OPP staff in their non-official capacity
I think Nick’s administration of the EA Giving DAF is done in his non-official capacity. However, this can only go so far. If one of the fund managers donates to something very controversial that probably still harms OpenPhil even if they were funding the thing as private individuals.
We’ll need to have non-OpenPhil staff manage funds in the future to get the full benefits of diversification.
it does seem to me like you could costlessly get more of those advantages if the four funds were each co-run by a pair of people (one from OPP, one from elsewhere) so it’s less likely that any one individual or organization will suffer the fallout for controversial choices.
I like this idea. The only potential problem is that the more people you add to the fund, the more they need to reach consensus on where to donate. The need to reach consensus often results in safe options instead of interesting ones.
I’d be very interested in other ideas for how we can make it easier to donate to unusual or controversial options via the fund. Diversification is really critical to the long-term impact of this project.
I like this idea. The only potential problem is that the more people you add to the fund, the more they need to reach consensus on where to donate.
That’s true, though you could also give one individual more authority than the others—e.g., have the others function as advisers, but give the current manager the last word. This is already presumably going to happen informally, since no one makes their decisions in a vacuum; but formalizing it might diffuse perceived responsibility a bit. It might also encourage diversification a bit.
I think Nick’s administration of the EA Giving DAF is done in his non-official capacity. However, this can only go so far. If one of the fund managers donates to something very controversial that probably still harms OpenPhil even if they were funding the thing as private individuals.
We’ll need to have non-OpenPhil staff manage funds in the future to get the full benefits of diversification.
I like this idea. The only potential problem is that the more people you add to the fund, the more they need to reach consensus on where to donate. The need to reach consensus often results in safe options instead of interesting ones.
I’d be very interested in other ideas for how we can make it easier to donate to unusual or controversial options via the fund. Diversification is really critical to the long-term impact of this project.
That’s true, though you could also give one individual more authority than the others—e.g., have the others function as advisers, but give the current manager the last word. This is already presumably going to happen informally, since no one makes their decisions in a vacuum; but formalizing it might diffuse perceived responsibility a bit. It might also encourage diversification a bit.