Well that’s certainly a concern. I’m made more confident by the fact that REG directs funding to multiple charities that are good candidates for top charity, and I believe their model has reasonably good learning value. Plus 1.5:1 is sufficiently higher than 1:1 that I believe it’s more likely to have a positive multiplicative effect from outside view.
I’m not sure I understand. I would think that in the face of uncertainty it would be better to divide donations in accordance to how likely we find each model.
Really quick question: I was wondering why the 1.5:1 ratio is enough to outweigh your uncertainty about REG’s impact?
Well that’s certainly a concern. I’m made more confident by the fact that REG directs funding to multiple charities that are good candidates for top charity, and I believe their model has reasonably good learning value. Plus 1.5:1 is sufficiently higher than 1:1 that I believe it’s more likely to have a positive multiplicative effect from outside view.
I’m not sure I understand. I would think that in the face of uncertainty it would be better to divide donations in accordance to how likely we find each model.
Surely that depends on the level of uncertainty?