EA seems constrained by specific types of talent and management capacity, and the longtermist and EA meta space has a hard time spending money usefully
In this environment, funders need to work proactively to create new opportunities (e.g., by getting new, high-value organizations off the ground that can absorb money and hire people)
Proactively creating such opportunities is typically referred to as “active grantmaking”
I think active grantmaking benefits a lot from resource pooling, specialization, and coordination, and less from diversification [edit: I think active grantmaking relies on diverse, creative ideas, but can be implemented within a single organization]
Likewise, in an ecosystem that’s overall saturated with funding, it’s quite likely that net-harmful projects receive funding; preventing this requires coordination, and diversification can be bad in such a situation
Given the above, I think funder coordination and specialization will have large benefits, and think the costs of funder diversification will often outweigh the benefits
However, I think the optimum for the EA ecosystem might still be to have 3-5 large donors instead of the status quo of 1-3 funders (depending on how you count them)
I think small and medium donors will continue to play an important role by funding projects they have local/unique information about and funding them (instead of giving to EA Funds)
(Thanks to some advisors who recently helped me think about this.)
> the optimum for the EA ecosystem might still be to have 3-5 large donors instead of the status quo of 1-3 funders
Agree on that. One additional thought that came to mind is that if there are indeed 3-5 large donors but they (unkowningly) rely on the views of the same expert for grants in a certain field (e.g. climate advocacy), then Peter’s concerns still apply.
If you have time to elaborate (no worries if not), then I’d be curious about the minimum number of field experts that are consulted when making EA Funds grant decisions. I understand that this is also costly as it takes time for those experts to understand and evaluate new approaches, so I don’t know what the optimum here should be. Maybe ask 2-3 experts for every new project, and in case they disagree, ask 1-2 more experts?
There’s no strict ‘minimum number’—sometimes the grant is clearly above or below our bar and we don’t consult anyone, and sometimes we’re really uncertain or in disagreement, and we end up consulting lots of people (I think some grants have had 5+).
I will also say that each fund is somewhat intentionally composed of fund managers with somewhat varying viewpoints who trust different sets of experts, and the voting structure is such that if any individual fund manager is really excited about an application, it generally gets funded. As a result, I think in practice, there’s more diversity in what gets funded than you might expect from a single grantmaking body, and there’s less risk that you won’t get funded just because a particular person dislikes you.
I’d add that fund managers seem aware of it being bad if everyone relies on the opinion of a single person/advisor, and generally seem to think carefully about it.
Again, some fairly quick, off-the-cuff thoughts (if they sound wrong, it’s possible that I communicated poorly):
Avoiding duplication of effort. E.g., lots of grantees apply to multiple funders simultaneously, and in Q4 2020, 3 grants were approved both by LTFF and SAF/SFF, creating substantial unnecessary overhead.
Syncing up on whether grants are net negative. E.g., we may think that grant A is overall worth funding, but has a risk of being net-negative, so would err on the side of not making it (to avoid acting unilaterally). If we talk to other grantmakers and they agree with our assessment after careful investigation of the risks, we can still go ahead and make the grant. Similarly, we may think grant B doesn’t have such a risk, but by talking to another grantmaker, we may learn about an issue we were previously unaware of, and may decide not to make the grant.
Similar to the above, syncing up on grants in general (i.e. which ones are good use of resources, or what the main weaknesses of existing organizations are).
Joining forces on active grantmaking. E.g., another funder may have some promising ideas but not enough time to implement them all. EA Funds may have some spare resources and a comparative advantage for working on a particular one of those ideas, so can go ahead and implement them, receiving input/mentorship from the other funder we wouldn’t otherwise have received.
Generally giving each other feedback on their approach and prioritization. E.g., we may decide to pursue an active grantmaking project that seems like poor use of resources, and other grantmakers may make us aware of that fact.
Some quick thoughts:
EA seems constrained by specific types of talent and management capacity, and the longtermist and EA meta space has a hard time spending money usefully
In this environment, funders need to work proactively to create new opportunities (e.g., by getting new, high-value organizations off the ground that can absorb money and hire people)
Proactively creating such opportunities is typically referred to as “active grantmaking”
I think active grantmaking benefits a lot from resource pooling, specialization, and coordination, and less from diversification [edit: I think active grantmaking relies on diverse, creative ideas, but can be implemented within a single organization]
Likewise, in an ecosystem that’s overall saturated with funding, it’s quite likely that net-harmful projects receive funding; preventing this requires coordination, and diversification can be bad in such a situation
Given the above, I think funder coordination and specialization will have large benefits, and think the costs of funder diversification will often outweigh the benefits
However, I think the optimum for the EA ecosystem might still be to have 3-5 large donors instead of the status quo of 1-3 funders (depending on how you count them)
I think small and medium donors will continue to play an important role by funding projects they have local/unique information about and funding them (instead of giving to EA Funds)
(Thanks to some advisors who recently helped me think about this.)
Thanks for elaborating!
> the optimum for the EA ecosystem might still be to have 3-5 large donors instead of the status quo of 1-3 funders
Agree on that. One additional thought that came to mind is that if there are indeed 3-5 large donors but they (unkowningly) rely on the views of the same expert for grants in a certain field (e.g. climate advocacy), then Peter’s concerns still apply.
If you have time to elaborate (no worries if not), then I’d be curious about the minimum number of field experts that are consulted when making EA Funds grant decisions. I understand that this is also costly as it takes time for those experts to understand and evaluate new approaches, so I don’t know what the optimum here should be. Maybe ask 2-3 experts for every new project, and in case they disagree, ask 1-2 more experts?
There’s no strict ‘minimum number’—sometimes the grant is clearly above or below our bar and we don’t consult anyone, and sometimes we’re really uncertain or in disagreement, and we end up consulting lots of people (I think some grants have had 5+).
I will also say that each fund is somewhat intentionally composed of fund managers with somewhat varying viewpoints who trust different sets of experts, and the voting structure is such that if any individual fund manager is really excited about an application, it generally gets funded. As a result, I think in practice, there’s more diversity in what gets funded than you might expect from a single grantmaking body, and there’s less risk that you won’t get funded just because a particular person dislikes you.
What Asya said.
I’d add that fund managers seem aware of it being bad if everyone relies on the opinion of a single person/advisor, and generally seem to think carefully about it.
That’s great to hear—I did not know that
Thanks for elaborating! Your process seems robustly good, and I appreciate the extra emphasis on diverse viewpoints & experts.
I have a clarification question: How do you define coordination in this context? Could you give a few concrete examples of coordination?
Again, some fairly quick, off-the-cuff thoughts (if they sound wrong, it’s possible that I communicated poorly):
Avoiding duplication of effort. E.g., lots of grantees apply to multiple funders simultaneously, and in Q4 2020, 3 grants were approved both by LTFF and SAF/SFF, creating substantial unnecessary overhead.
Syncing up on whether grants are net negative. E.g., we may think that grant A is overall worth funding, but has a risk of being net-negative, so would err on the side of not making it (to avoid acting unilaterally). If we talk to other grantmakers and they agree with our assessment after careful investigation of the risks, we can still go ahead and make the grant. Similarly, we may think grant B doesn’t have such a risk, but by talking to another grantmaker, we may learn about an issue we were previously unaware of, and may decide not to make the grant.
Similar to the above, syncing up on grants in general (i.e. which ones are good use of resources, or what the main weaknesses of existing organizations are).
Joining forces on active grantmaking. E.g., another funder may have some promising ideas but not enough time to implement them all. EA Funds may have some spare resources and a comparative advantage for working on a particular one of those ideas, so can go ahead and implement them, receiving input/mentorship from the other funder we wouldn’t otherwise have received.
Generally giving each other feedback on their approach and prioritization. E.g., we may decide to pursue an active grantmaking project that seems like poor use of resources, and other grantmakers may make us aware of that fact.
Thanks, this was very helpful!