[I respect your desire to conclude participation in this thread, so what follows is an attempt to identify potential cruxes rather than persuade anyone.]
I think we may have different implicit models of what is likely to happen when there are too many orgs / projects in an area are chasing too few dollars.
The following types of statements would update me toward a more pro-disruption position:
At least in the medium-run, relatively more impactful organizations will be able to return to healthy operating status despite the funding famine. Less impactful organizations will die off.
There is a relatively strong correlation between impact and an organization’s ability to survive the funding famine. This could be true because donors are fairly good at measuring impact and willing to move their funding around accordingly.
The funding famine will be of relatively short duration. This not only gives a quality upstart a greater upside, it also reduces the odds that the famine will stunt its natural growth pattern.
The leading organization (or most organizations) in the subfield are not that compelling, and it is likely that the disruptor will pull funding from those organizations and/or grow the subfield’s pie.
In contrast, I mostly have assumptions that make me less excited about disruption:
Rather than a dichotomy between healthy organizations/projects and collapsing ones, the ecosystem is likely to remain above its healthy carrying capacity with many organizations/projects in a weakened or even semi-starved state.
There is only a moderate correlation between impact and an organization’s ability to survive the funding famine. This could be true because donor relationships are fairly sticky, or because some organizations are more famine-resistant in a way that is loosely correlated with their impact.
The funding famine will be of relatively longer duration. A quality upstart org is at high risk of losing momentum because the famine will prevent it from getting the resources it needs. And the limited funding caps its upside.
This one I have no clear opinion on:
It is likely that the disruptor will pull significant funding away from organizations in adjacent subfields that are pretty effective (e.g., you might think more speculative farmed animal welfare [like shrimp] and wild animal welfare compete for some of the same dollars).
[I respect your desire to conclude participation in this thread, so what follows is an attempt to identify potential cruxes rather than persuade anyone.]
I think we may have different implicit models of what is likely to happen when there are too many orgs / projects in an area are chasing too few dollars.
The following types of statements would update me toward a more pro-disruption position:
At least in the medium-run, relatively more impactful organizations will be able to return to healthy operating status despite the funding famine. Less impactful organizations will die off.
There is a relatively strong correlation between impact and an organization’s ability to survive the funding famine. This could be true because donors are fairly good at measuring impact and willing to move their funding around accordingly.
The funding famine will be of relatively short duration. This not only gives a quality upstart a greater upside, it also reduces the odds that the famine will stunt its natural growth pattern.
The leading organization (or most organizations) in the subfield are not that compelling, and it is likely that the disruptor will pull funding from those organizations and/or grow the subfield’s pie.
In contrast, I mostly have assumptions that make me less excited about disruption:
Rather than a dichotomy between healthy organizations/projects and collapsing ones, the ecosystem is likely to remain above its healthy carrying capacity with many organizations/projects in a weakened or even semi-starved state.
There is only a moderate correlation between impact and an organization’s ability to survive the funding famine. This could be true because donor relationships are fairly sticky, or because some organizations are more famine-resistant in a way that is loosely correlated with their impact.
The funding famine will be of relatively longer duration. A quality upstart org is at high risk of losing momentum because the famine will prevent it from getting the resources it needs. And the limited funding caps its upside.
This one I have no clear opinion on:
It is likely that the disruptor will pull significant funding away from organizations in adjacent subfields that are pretty effective (e.g., you might think more speculative farmed animal welfare [like shrimp] and wild animal welfare compete for some of the same dollars).