One related thing I’m wondering about is how important widening the set of donors is. I.e. new donors help directly because they’re donating and funding useful work, and also extra donors mean that (probably?) there’s a bit more stability. I’m not sure how strongly to value the second factor.
Some folks explicitly prefer a world in which a lower proportion of money spent on EA-ish projects was from Open Philanthropy even if overall donations were the same. That seems like a sensible preference.
I think I would value non-OP donations to a largely-OP-backed organization at 1-20% more than OP donations to them, roughly. Or heuristically: I think funding diversity is some icing on the cake if you are considering EtG, but the primary motivation I expect should be funding things which would otherwise not have been funded at all.
That seems like a very weak claim. I think for these views to have much action guiding consequence, you have to prefer $1 of non-OP money over significantly more than $1 of OP money.
One related thing I’m wondering about is how important widening the set of donors is. I.e. new donors help directly because they’re donating and funding useful work, and also extra donors mean that (probably?) there’s a bit more stability. I’m not sure how strongly to value the second factor.
Some folks explicitly prefer a world in which a lower proportion of money spent on EA-ish projects was from Open Philanthropy even if overall donations were the same. That seems like a sensible preference.
I think I would value non-OP donations to a largely-OP-backed organization at 1-20% more than OP donations to them, roughly. Or heuristically: I think funding diversity is some icing on the cake if you are considering EtG, but the primary motivation I expect should be funding things which would otherwise not have been funded at all.
That seems like a very weak claim. I think for these views to have much action guiding consequence, you have to prefer $1 of non-OP money over significantly more than $1 of OP money.