It’s great to see more funding for meta initiatives, so thank you for your work on the MCF!
and we will welcome similar applications as the last round, especially “giving multipliers” that help grow the pie of effective donations.
Could you say more about your circle’s reasons for focusing on giving multipliers? I’d be especially curious about why you might focus on donations instead of multiplying other resources like human capital.
(Maybe answered in the first question) What is the object-level cause prioritisation of circle funders?
Thanks for the questions. I am afraid I cannot give a particularly good answer, as each member speaks and makes decisions for themselves, and I have not properly investigated the things you are asking about. I hope to build higher clarity on this over time and give a better answer, but I will say a few high-level things that I think are true and might shine some light.
- Several members prioritize global health and well-being (high confidence) and think that this cause seems more funding-constrained than talent-constrained (low confidence) - Some members are more excited about projects with clear feedback loops (medium confidence) - Some members think there is an opportunity here as few other funders are focusing on giving multipliers (low confidence)
Importantly these are my impressions, not more. Also, it does not reflect all members’ views. E.g. I prioritize GCRs and multiplying human capital, due to thinking this is more important than financial capital for the causes I think are most important.
It’s great to see more funding for meta initiatives, so thank you for your work on the MCF!
Could you say more about your circle’s reasons for focusing on giving multipliers? I’d be especially curious about why you might focus on donations instead of multiplying other resources like human capital.
(Maybe answered in the first question) What is the object-level cause prioritisation of circle funders?
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the questions. I am afraid I cannot give a particularly good answer, as each member speaks and makes decisions for themselves, and I have not properly investigated the things you are asking about. I hope to build higher clarity on this over time and give a better answer, but I will say a few high-level things that I think are true and might shine some light.
- Several members prioritize global health and well-being (high confidence) and think that this cause seems more funding-constrained than talent-constrained (low confidence)
- Some members are more excited about projects with clear feedback loops (medium confidence)
- Some members think there is an opportunity here as few other funders are focusing on giving multipliers (low confidence)
Importantly these are my impressions, not more. Also, it does not reflect all members’ views. E.g. I prioritize GCRs and multiplying human capital, due to thinking this is more important than financial capital for the causes I think are most important.