Interesting view, but I have a different perspective based on my experience in the effective giving and AIM startup space. I havenât observed organisations being pushed toward premature scaling or unnecessary short-term funding growth. In fact, Iâve seen quite different dynamics at play often pushing in the opposite direction. Would be curious to hear specific examples from others where theyâve seen this pattern occur?
I would say my Kafessiz TĂźrkiye (Cage-free Turkey) cofounding experience followed this pattern, at least partially. Of course, these werenât the only reasons but I think things could have been different if funding schemes were different. As for Animal Advocacy Careers, I donât really have a senior position to talk authoritatively about this issue but my subjective view is that again, different decisions about hiring (and increasing size) might have happened if funding schemes were different.
I guess AIM startup space might be a bit different since in AIM there is a significant âeducationâ period that can teach founders to not to fall for âfounder mistakesâ. Another reason might be that AIM provide a good amount of seed funding that can provide a long runwayâsomething that other organisations donât have.
Looking at this again, I guess my observations are mainly focused on animal welfare spaceâwhich is something that I should have mentioned in the post (thanks for this). It may be that GHD funding is not like this.
But aside from that, the main argument of the post depends on the fact that most grants are annual or biannual which explains certain dynamics.
Interesting view, but I have a different perspective based on my experience in the effective giving and AIM startup space. I havenât observed organisations being pushed toward premature scaling or unnecessary short-term funding growth. In fact, Iâve seen quite different dynamics at play often pushing in the opposite direction. Would be curious to hear specific examples from others where theyâve seen this pattern occur?
Hi there!
I would say my Kafessiz TĂźrkiye (Cage-free Turkey) cofounding experience followed this pattern, at least partially. Of course, these werenât the only reasons but I think things could have been different if funding schemes were different. As for Animal Advocacy Careers, I donât really have a senior position to talk authoritatively about this issue but my subjective view is that again, different decisions about hiring (and increasing size) might have happened if funding schemes were different.
I guess AIM startup space might be a bit different since in AIM there is a significant âeducationâ period that can teach founders to not to fall for âfounder mistakesâ. Another reason might be that AIM provide a good amount of seed funding that can provide a long runwayâsomething that other organisations donât have.
Looking at this again, I guess my observations are mainly focused on animal welfare spaceâwhich is something that I should have mentioned in the post (thanks for this). It may be that GHD funding is not like this.
But aside from that, the main argument of the post depends on the fact that most grants are annual or biannual which explains certain dynamics.