I feel like it should be pretty obvious that almost all donation matchings that are advertised as such are at least a bit fake. The main exception I can think of is when the matcher is effectively indifferent between a wide range of charities that they might be matching to, eg employer donation matching (like Google’s) that match charities including but not limited to CEA, MIRI, AMF, and Make-A-Wish, or the implicit donation matching that the tax deduction in the US (and many other countries) give high earners.
Contrary to what Jeff says in this post, Giving Multiplier’s matching system offers donors additional value
[...] By participating in a virtuous circle of effective giving
I think the model of Giving Multiplier as an advertising gimmick that introduces donors to effective giving is a lot more plausible than the other reasons they give. As such, it does not seem obviously bad. Donor interests are aligned with EA interests here, as (I suspect) most of the long-term expected value of their donations comes from a small number of donors who learn about effective giving and get invested in it, which means from an EA perspective we’re incentivized to tell them truthful things about charities and providing useful information.
it should be pretty obvious that almost all donation matchings that are advertised as such are at least a bit fake
Obvious to who? Both Giving Multiplier and (last week) GiveWell are targeting matches to people new to effective giving. My guess is that if you interviewed people right after they donated in these matching campaigns and asked them whether they thought the match was real, they would say it was.
Also note that both GiveWell and Giving Multiplier are putting a lot of argument behind the position that their matches are real. (If they offered illusory matches and were upfront about them being illusory I would not have a problem)
Obvious to this forum, sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I think your post here laying out the issues is a good contribution. One way in which it’s good is if donors to Giving Multiplier later come across this post and learn more about our culture.
I feel like it should be pretty obvious that almost all donation matchings that are advertised as such are at least a bit fake. The main exception I can think of is when the matcher is effectively indifferent between a wide range of charities that they might be matching to, eg employer donation matching (like Google’s) that match charities including but not limited to CEA, MIRI, AMF, and Make-A-Wish, or the implicit donation matching that the tax deduction in the US (and many other countries) give high earners.
I think the model of Giving Multiplier as an advertising gimmick that introduces donors to effective giving is a lot more plausible than the other reasons they give. As such, it does not seem obviously bad. Donor interests are aligned with EA interests here, as (I suspect) most of the long-term expected value of their donations comes from a small number of donors who learn about effective giving and get invested in it, which means from an EA perspective we’re incentivized to tell them truthful things about charities and providing useful information.
Obvious to who? Both Giving Multiplier and (last week) GiveWell are targeting matches to people new to effective giving. My guess is that if you interviewed people right after they donated in these matching campaigns and asked them whether they thought the match was real, they would say it was.
Also note that both GiveWell and Giving Multiplier are putting a lot of argument behind the position that their matches are real. (If they offered illusory matches and were upfront about them being illusory I would not have a problem)
Obvious to this forum, sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I think your post here laying out the issues is a good contribution. One way in which it’s good is if donors to Giving Multiplier later come across this post and learn more about our culture.