One possible concern with this idea is that the project would probably take a lot of funding to launch. With Open Phil’s financial distancing from EA Funds, my guess is that EAIF may often not be in the ideal position to be an early funder of a seven-figure-a-year project, by which I mean one that comes on board earlier than individual major funders.
I can envision some cases in which EAIF might be a better fit for seed funding, such as cases where funding would allow further development or preliminary testing of a big-project proposal to the point it could be better evaluated by funders who can consistently offer mid-six figures plus a year. It’s unclear how well that would describe something like the FHI/West proposal, though.
I could easily be wrong (or there could already be enough major funder interest to alleviate the first paragraph concern), and a broader discussion about EAIF’s comparative advantages / disadvantages for various project characteristics might be helpful in any event.
One possible concern with this idea is that the project would probably take a lot of funding to launch. With Open Phil’s financial distancing from EA Funds, my guess is that EAIF may often not be in the ideal position to be an early funder of a seven-figure-a-year project, by which I mean one that comes on board earlier than individual major funders.
I can envision some cases in which EAIF might be a better fit for seed funding, such as cases where funding would allow further development or preliminary testing of a big-project proposal to the point it could be better evaluated by funders who can consistently offer mid-six figures plus a year. It’s unclear how well that would describe something like the FHI/West proposal, though.
I could easily be wrong (or there could already be enough major funder interest to alleviate the first paragraph concern), and a broader discussion about EAIF’s comparative advantages / disadvantages for various project characteristics might be helpful in any event.