What I’d like to see (but don’t have the insights to fully write):
According to an apparently common argument, having more medium-size donors (e.g., from earning-to-give) would create a significant decentralization of funding power in EA (e.g., the post from Abraham linked in the original post). However, I can easily envision worlds in which the new mid-size donors largely end up funging off Open Phil (and a few other megadonors), and there isn’t any meaningful decentralization at all. Therefore:
Under what circumstances would introduction of a significant number of medium-size donors be likely to cause a significant decentralization?
Working theory: It would be particularly challenging for mid-size donors to meaningfully influence the split between major cause areas, but it would be easier to influence which smaller orgs get funded, which sub-cause areas / early-stage cause area candidates get funded, etc.
What steps, if any, should major funders take to avoid controlling more than their “fair share” of the funding allocation?
I do not have a firm definition of “fair share,” which would be an interesting discussion in itself.
As a tentative starting point: I think it is generally undesirable for a major funder to have greater percentage control of the funding landscape than the percentage of funding they bring to the table. One could argue for a lower threshold as well.
What I’d like to see (but don’t have the insights to fully write):
According to an apparently common argument, having more medium-size donors (e.g., from earning-to-give) would create a significant decentralization of funding power in EA (e.g., the post from Abraham linked in the original post). However, I can easily envision worlds in which the new mid-size donors largely end up funging off Open Phil (and a few other megadonors), and there isn’t any meaningful decentralization at all. Therefore:
Under what circumstances would introduction of a significant number of medium-size donors be likely to cause a significant decentralization?
Working theory: It would be particularly challenging for mid-size donors to meaningfully influence the split between major cause areas, but it would be easier to influence which smaller orgs get funded, which sub-cause areas / early-stage cause area candidates get funded, etc.
What steps, if any, should major funders take to avoid controlling more than their “fair share” of the funding allocation?
I do not have a firm definition of “fair share,” which would be an interesting discussion in itself.
As a tentative starting point: I think it is generally undesirable for a major funder to have greater percentage control of the funding landscape than the percentage of funding they bring to the table. One could argue for a lower threshold as well.