there’s an implicit assumption here that highest impact path for the fund to take is to make grants which the inside view of the fund managers think is highest impact
To be clear I think this is not my all-things-considered position. Rather, I think this is a fairly significant possibility, and I’d favor an analogue of Open Phil’s 50/40/10 rule (or something a little more aggressive) than to eg whatever the socially mediated equivalent of full discretionary control by the specific funders would. be.
I’m not sure what the right balance of legibility vs inside view is for the LTFF. One possibility would be to split into a more inside view / trust-based fund, and a more legible and “safer” fund
This seems like a fine compromise that I’m in the abstract excited about, though of course it depends a lot on implementation details.
One thing to flag is that we do occasionally (with applicant’s permission) make recommendations to private donors rather than providing funding directly from the LTFF[..] an option if a grant requires a lot of context to understand (which we can provide to an individual highly engaged donor, but not in a brief public write-up). I think this further decreases the number of grant decisions that are influenced by any legibility considerations.
To be clear I think this is not my all-things-considered position. Rather, I think this is a fairly significant possibility, and I’d favor an analogue of Open Phil’s 50/40/10 rule (or something a little more aggressive) than to eg whatever the socially mediated equivalent of full discretionary control by the specific funders would. be.
This seems like a fine compromise that I’m in the abstract excited about, though of course it depends a lot on implementation details.
This is really good to hear!