Uhh, I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding or you are. My original point in the post was supposed to be that the current scenario is indeed better.
Ok, so we agree that having $1 billion is better despite diminishing returns. So I still don’t understand this statement:
When EA was more funding constrained, a $1M grant with 10X ROI looked better than a $1B grant with 5x ROI
Are you saying that in 2011, we would have preferred $1M over $1B? Or does “look better” just refer to the benefit to cost ratio?
I think I see the confusion.
No, I meant an intervention that could produce 10x ROI on $1M looked better than an intervention that could produce 5x ROI on $1B, and now the opposite is true (or should be).
Uhh, I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding or you are. My original point in the post was supposed to be that the current scenario is indeed better.
Ok, so we agree that having $1 billion is better despite diminishing returns. So I still don’t understand this statement:
Are you saying that in 2011, we would have preferred $1M over $1B? Or does “look better” just refer to the benefit to cost ratio?
I think I see the confusion.
No, I meant an intervention that could produce 10x ROI on $1M looked better than an intervention that could produce 5x ROI on $1B, and now the opposite is true (or should be).