The cost-effectiveness of this [small $100] grant should be basically the same as the final $1,000 that Open Philanthropy donated.
The counter argument that comes to mind (I have no idea if it’s true) :
If Open Philanthropy donate to a longtermist cause, won’t Open Phil donate all the money that this org needs (before it hits significant diminishing returns)? Is there still room for more funding?
This is the problem with the idea of ‘room for funding’. There is no single amount of funding a charity ‘needs’. In reality there’s just a diminishing return curve. Additional donations tend to have a little less impact, but this effect is very small when we’re talking about donations that are small relative to the charity’s budget (if there’s only one charity you want to support), or small relative to the EA community as a whole if you take a community perspective.
You said:
The counter argument that comes to mind (I have no idea if it’s true) :
If Open Philanthropy donate to a longtermist cause, won’t Open Phil donate all the money that this org needs (before it hits significant diminishing returns)? Is there still room for more funding?
I don’t know
This is the problem with the idea of ‘room for funding’. There is no single amount of funding a charity ‘needs’. In reality there’s just a diminishing return curve. Additional donations tend to have a little less impact, but this effect is very small when we’re talking about donations that are small relative to the charity’s budget (if there’s only one charity you want to support), or small relative to the EA community as a whole if you take a community perspective.