I’d love to see something that’s somewhat similar to SFF’s speculation grants, though a bit different: - Small, fast funders can fund as they do - if the receiving org then gets a grant from a larger funder, the smaller funder gets their money back.
E.g. get 50k from a small funder with a 1M yearly budget. Then get 500k from CG, 50k of which is used to pay back the small funder.
This seems to move the incentive from “don’t fund a project if you think CG will fund them anyway” to the opposite: “fund a project especially if you think CG will fund them anyway”
This seems useful if (I guess) these two conditions are met: - dollar for dollar, the impact of smaller funders is higher - smaller funders are faster
(I think Matt Brooks recently mentioned something like this to me, though possibly in a different form)
Yes, this is similar to the design of speculator grantors in SFF (and likely the new Lightcone Commons, too)
I think my ideal design wouldn’t even require participation in a specific round or program or system—rather, just retro payback to any particular donor/funder who backed an excellent project.
Hmm Lightcone Commons uses some proportional distribution system I think—though I didn’t quite read it in enough detail to understand it—which would be similar in spirit but sligtly different from what I meant.
Yeah I think the “ideal design” you mention afterwards is what I had in mind here. I’ve even read SFF grantmakers (I think in Zvi’s reflection from 1-2 years ago) stating they are less likely to fund something with SFF money if they think CG will fund it. Which seems like a particularly bad outcome—though understandable with the current mechanisms.
It’s a bit confusing and not the main emphasis of Lightcone Commons, but I believe that they intend to also incorporate speculation budgets like SFF does. The proportional distribution is the main mechanism, which is what informs how the speculators get repaid.
See the section “What if a project needs funding sooner than 3 months from now”
It seems they’re less prescriptive than SFF—the default is to repay but not grow the speculator (“direct grantor”) budget?
I’d love to see something that’s somewhat similar to SFF’s speculation grants, though a bit different:
- Small, fast funders can fund as they do
- if the receiving org then gets a grant from a larger funder, the smaller funder gets their money back.
E.g. get 50k from a small funder with a 1M yearly budget. Then get 500k from CG, 50k of which is used to pay back the small funder.
This seems to move the incentive from “don’t fund a project if you think CG will fund them anyway” to the opposite: “fund a project especially if you think CG will fund them anyway”
This seems useful if (I guess) these two conditions are met:
- dollar for dollar, the impact of smaller funders is higher
- smaller funders are faster
(I think Matt Brooks recently mentioned something like this to me, though possibly in a different form)
Yes, this is similar to the design of speculator grantors in SFF (and likely the new Lightcone Commons, too)
I think my ideal design wouldn’t even require participation in a specific round or program or system—rather, just retro payback to any particular donor/funder who backed an excellent project.
Hmm Lightcone Commons uses some proportional distribution system I think—though I didn’t quite read it in enough detail to understand it—which would be similar in spirit but sligtly different from what I meant.
Yeah I think the “ideal design” you mention afterwards is what I had in mind here. I’ve even read SFF grantmakers (I think in Zvi’s reflection from 1-2 years ago) stating they are less likely to fund something with SFF money if they think CG will fund it. Which seems like a particularly bad outcome—though understandable with the current mechanisms.
It’s a bit confusing and not the main emphasis of Lightcone Commons, but I believe that they intend to also incorporate speculation budgets like SFF does. The proportional distribution is the main mechanism, which is what informs how the speculators get repaid.
See the section “What if a project needs funding sooner than 3 months from now”
It seems they’re less prescriptive than SFF—the default is to repay but not grow the speculator (“direct grantor”) budget?