I think this dynamic has sometimes applied in the past.
However, Open Philanthropy are now often providing 66%, and sometimes 100%, so I didn’t want to mention this as a significant benefit.
There might still be some leverage in some cases, but less than 1:1. Overall, I think a clearer way to think about this is in terms of the value of having a diversified donor base, which I mention in the final section.
There might still be some leverage in some cases, but less than 1:1.
If they have a rule of providing 66% of a charity’s budget, surely donations are even more leveraged? $1 to the charity unlocks $2.
Of course, this assumes that additional small donations to the charity will counter-factually unlock further donations from OpenPhil, which is making some strong assumptions about their decision-making
That’s fair—the issue is there’s a countervailing force in that OP might just fill 100% of their budget themselves if it seems valuable enough. My overall guess is that you probably get less than 1:1 leverage most of the time.
I think this dynamic has sometimes applied in the past.
However, Open Philanthropy are now often providing 66%, and sometimes 100%, so I didn’t want to mention this as a significant benefit.
There might still be some leverage in some cases, but less than 1:1. Overall, I think a clearer way to think about this is in terms of the value of having a diversified donor base, which I mention in the final section.
If they have a rule of providing 66% of a charity’s budget, surely donations are even more leveraged? $1 to the charity unlocks $2.
Of course, this assumes that additional small donations to the charity will counter-factually unlock further donations from OpenPhil, which is making some strong assumptions about their decision-making
That’s fair—the issue is there’s a countervailing force in that OP might just fill 100% of their budget themselves if it seems valuable enough. My overall guess is that you probably get less than 1:1 leverage most of the time.