Hi Kieran, thanks for posting— it was an interesting and insightful read, and it’s unfortunate that the fund is facing a wider gap and has fewer resources available compared to last year.
I have a few questions if you don’t mind:
1) If I understand correctly, with $1 million currently available and $4.5 million worth of grants under evaluation, several promising applicants are likely to be declined. In instances where applications are rejected due to insufficient funds, does the fund ever share information about these declined proposals with other potential funders, so as not to miss out on any potentially promising interventions? Do these applicants typically remain active long enough without funding to reapply in the following year?
2) You flagged that the fund is (somewhat) tied to funders that invest in Cryptocurrency— are you able to share a rough % breakdown from funds received from Cryptocurrency sources versus more traditional funding sources? Would you attribute the anticipated variation in funding for the upcoming year to fluctuations in the Cryptocurrency market, or are there other unrelated factors primarily influencing this change?
3) Do any of AWF’s larger donors provide restricted funding, where their contributions are earmarked for specific initiatives or causes? For instance, a donor who specifies that their donation should only be used for projects related to fish welfare, or those favoring abolitionist approaches over welfare-based methods. How common is this, if at all, and does it lead to any challenges or difficulties?
Thanks! I was really happy to hear that there was significant investment in invertebrate welfare over this past year— I hope that continues, and keep up the great work with the fund.
Hi David, thanks for engaging! Responding to your questions below.
Yes, sometimes we do this if we think that some opportunity is a particularly good fit for a different funder. Yeah, I would say applicants usually remain active long enough to reapply again in the future. It seems rare to me that our funding is the deciding factor for their continued existence.
I can’t easily pull that information, and I think it depends on the year, but my very rough guess is between 3-30% of funds raised in any given year of the fund’s existence so far were crypto-related. Note that variance too, wherein some years we don’t receive any major crypto-associated donations, and other years our largest donations are crypto-related. When I think about fluctuations for this year or next, I am more thinking about, as Luke put it in one comment:
One thing that I’ve found when speaking with pledgers/donors and other people in the charitable sector is that economic conditions are also a very important part of the story. This has held since early 2022 when the dollar value of large donations dropped when financial markets and crypto markets declined (our larger donors tend to be more likely to have made money in tech or finance instead of other industries).
Hi Kieran, thanks for posting— it was an interesting and insightful read, and it’s unfortunate that the fund is facing a wider gap and has fewer resources available compared to last year.
I have a few questions if you don’t mind:
1) If I understand correctly, with $1 million currently available and $4.5 million worth of grants under evaluation, several promising applicants are likely to be declined. In instances where applications are rejected due to insufficient funds, does the fund ever share information about these declined proposals with other potential funders, so as not to miss out on any potentially promising interventions? Do these applicants typically remain active long enough without funding to reapply in the following year?
2) You flagged that the fund is (somewhat) tied to funders that invest in Cryptocurrency— are you able to share a rough % breakdown from funds received from Cryptocurrency sources versus more traditional funding sources? Would you attribute the anticipated variation in funding for the upcoming year to fluctuations in the Cryptocurrency market, or are there other unrelated factors primarily influencing this change?
3) Do any of AWF’s larger donors provide restricted funding, where their contributions are earmarked for specific initiatives or causes? For instance, a donor who specifies that their donation should only be used for projects related to fish welfare, or those favoring abolitionist approaches over welfare-based methods. How common is this, if at all, and does it lead to any challenges or difficulties?
Thanks! I was really happy to hear that there was significant investment in invertebrate welfare over this past year— I hope that continues, and keep up the great work with the fund.
Hi David, thanks for engaging! Responding to your questions below.
Yes, sometimes we do this if we think that some opportunity is a particularly good fit for a different funder. Yeah, I would say applicants usually remain active long enough to reapply again in the future. It seems rare to me that our funding is the deciding factor for their continued existence.
I can’t easily pull that information, and I think it depends on the year, but my very rough guess is between 3-30% of funds raised in any given year of the fund’s existence so far were crypto-related. Note that variance too, wherein some years we don’t receive any major crypto-associated donations, and other years our largest donations are crypto-related. When I think about fluctuations for this year or next, I am more thinking about, as Luke put it in one comment:
3. As far as I know this has never happened.
Hope that helps.
Perfect, this was all very insightful— thanks Kieran.