tl;dr We’re absolutely more restricted by having great grant applications than by money. So yes, if you have projects that you think are great for improving the long-term future, please apply!
(I joined LTFF in January 2022. I was not involved in any of the grants in the above payout report).
Yeah, ~50% acceptance rate for things that aren’t desk-rejects seems pretty normal for the distribution of grant applications that LTFF draws from. See this from Eli at Open Phil on their Longtermist Community Building grants:
We’ve received 94 applications overall, of which about 24 didn’t seem to be related to effective altruism or longtermism at all.
Started evaluating one but the applicant withdrew, I believe (this application was handled by a colleague).
Which is just under 50% acceptance rate (25/53) for non-desk-rejects.
Broadly speaking, I think the different core longtermist EA funding agencies don’t have wildly different bars, especially for relatively small-scale grants that LTFF is likely to see. Acceptance rates have more to do with the distribution of applicants than the details of specific funding mechanisms.
So if you or other people have projects that you think are great (or at least decent for the longterm future, please apply!!!
(speaking for my own understanding of the situation. I don’t handle desk rejects)
Usually, things that don’t seem that related to or motivated by improving the long-term future at all, e.g. animal shelters, global poverty stuff, criminal justice reform, and things that are even less related. AFAIK there’s no formal policy but for people reading this on the forum, I think you should think of desk rejects as mostly irrelevant to your own application chances.
tl;dr We’re absolutely more restricted by having great grant applications than by money. So yes, if you have projects that you think are great for improving the long-term future, please apply!
(I joined LTFF in January 2022. I was not involved in any of the grants in the above payout report).
Yeah, ~50% acceptance rate for things that aren’t desk-rejects seems pretty normal for the distribution of grant applications that LTFF draws from. See this from Eli at Open Phil on their Longtermist Community Building grants:
Which is just under 50% acceptance rate (25/53) for non-desk-rejects.
Broadly speaking, I think the different core longtermist EA funding agencies don’t have wildly different bars, especially for relatively small-scale grants that LTFF is likely to see. Acceptance rates have more to do with the distribution of applicants than the details of specific funding mechanisms.
So if you or other people have projects that you think are great (or at least decent for the longterm future, please apply!!!
Is there a description of the desk-reject policy and/or statistics on how many applications were desk rejected?
(speaking for my own understanding of the situation. I don’t handle desk rejects)
Usually, things that don’t seem that related to or motivated by improving the long-term future at all, e.g. animal shelters, global poverty stuff, criminal justice reform, and things that are even less related. AFAIK there’s no formal policy but for people reading this on the forum, I think you should think of desk rejects as mostly irrelevant to your own application chances.
Thanks for the breakdown Linch