That being said, we might increase our funding threshold if we learn that few grants have been large successes, or if more funders are entering the space.
My intuition is that more funders entering the space should lower your bar for funding, as it’d imply there’s generally more money in this space going after the same set of opportunities. I’m curious what the reasoning behind this is, e.g. unilateralist curse considerations?
My guess is that it’s mostly that more funders being in the space increases the chance that good things get funded even if EAIF doesn’t fund them, thus reducing the cost of false negatives (i.e., EAIF rejecting things that in reality should’ve been funded), thus reducing the cost of raising the bar. (But that’s just a guess.)
My intuition is that more funders entering the space should lower your bar for funding, as it’d imply there’s generally more money in this space going after the same set of opportunities. I’m curious what the reasoning behind this is, e.g. unilateralist curse considerations?
My guess is that it’s mostly that more funders being in the space increases the chance that good things get funded even if EAIF doesn’t fund them, thus reducing the cost of false negatives (i.e., EAIF rejecting things that in reality should’ve been funded), thus reducing the cost of raising the bar. (But that’s just a guess.)