At a floated $300B valuation and many EAs among their early employees, the amount of additional funding could be in the billions. [...]
One way to get a sense of the impact of donating sooner is to imagine that others will donate $1M to my preferred charity this year, and $10M next year.
EA-related funding is around 900 M$/​year. So thinking about donations to one’s top organisationg becoming 10 (= 10*10^6/​(1*10^6)) times as large would make sense for expected EA-related funding in 2026 of 9 billion $ (= 10*900*10^6), 3 % (= 9*10^9/​(300*10^9)) of the valuation you mention above.
Ideally, the largest funders, mainly Coefficient Giving (CG) and GiveWell, would have moved money from the years with the lowest marginal cost-effectiveness to the ones with the highest until there were no significant changes in marginal cost-effectiveness across time. I can see their predictions about the funding from Anthropic’s employees not having been accurate. However, it would be a bit surprising if they were completely off to the point of marginal cost-effectiveness significantly decreasing from 2025 to 2026.
Thanks for the post, Jeff!
EA-related funding is around 900 M$/​year. So thinking about donations to one’s top organisationg becoming 10 (= 10*10^6/​(1*10^6)) times as large would make sense for expected EA-related funding in 2026 of 9 billion $ (= 10*900*10^6), 3 % (= 9*10^9/​(300*10^9)) of the valuation you mention above.
Ideally, the largest funders, mainly Coefficient Giving (CG) and GiveWell, would have moved money from the years with the lowest marginal cost-effectiveness to the ones with the highest until there were no significant changes in marginal cost-effectiveness across time. I can see their predictions about the funding from Anthropic’s employees not having been accurate. However, it would be a bit surprising if they were completely off to the point of marginal cost-effectiveness significantly decreasing from 2025 to 2026.