I think (2) is just a very strong argument. As far as I can tell (have not researched deeply though), GiveDirectly is implementing a best in class version of a fairly undifferentiated product (giving cash unconditionally to poor households), so starting more competitor orgs seems low value. (I personally find the local biases argument unconvincing, but GD does allow UCTs to Americans here (https://www.givedirectly.org/united-states/) -- it would be interesting to unpack where the funding for that program has mostly come from, e.g. was it from existing GD donors (so maybe crowded out more funding for LICs), from totally new donors (and do those donors eventually also start giving to LICs?), etc.)
I think (2) is just a very strong argument. As far as I can tell (have not researched deeply though), GiveDirectly is implementing a best in class version of a fairly undifferentiated product (giving cash unconditionally to poor households), so starting more competitor orgs seems low value. (I personally find the local biases argument unconvincing, but GD does allow UCTs to Americans here (https://www.givedirectly.org/united-states/) -- it would be interesting to unpack where the funding for that program has mostly come from, e.g. was it from existing GD donors (so maybe crowded out more funding for LICs), from totally new donors (and do those donors eventually also start giving to LICs?), etc.)
There are so many countries that GiveDirectly doesn’t cover, so there seems to be a lot of room for other charities to pop up in these areas.