Holden specifically put forward the claim that this kind of influence matching is a type of non-illusory matching. He even suggests the very concept that Giving Multiplier is doing
Holden wrote āthe matcher makes a legitimate commitment to give only if others do, in an attempt to influence their givingā. Thatās not whatās happening here: the matchers are donating regardless of whether others do. Additionally, Iām quite pessimistic about people being able to make legitimate commitments in this regard, since predicting what you would otherwise do with the funds is typically very difficult.
(I also think glossing Holdenās āperhaps ā¦ you should fight backā as āyou should fight backā gives the wrong impression.)
Holden wrote āthe matcher makes a legitimate commitment to give only if others do, in an attempt to influence their givingā. Thatās not whatās happening here: the matchers are donating regardless of whether others do. Additionally, Iām quite pessimistic about people being able to make legitimate commitments in this regard, since predicting what you would otherwise do with the funds is typically very difficult.
(I also think glossing Holdenās āperhaps ā¦ you should fight backā as āyou should fight backā gives the wrong impression.)