Even after discounting for standard vesting terms (4 years), % of EAs, and % allocated to charity, that’s still mindboggling amounts of money. I’d guess that this is more like “10 new OpenPhils in the next 2-6 years”
Can you explain this math for me? The figure you started with is $21 billion in Anthropic equity, so what’s your figure for Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving? Dustin Moskovitz’s net worth is $12 billion and he and Cari Tuna have pledged to give at least 50% of it away, so that’s at least $6 billion. $21 billion is only 3.5x more than $6 billion, not 10x.
If you think of that $21 billion in Anthropic equity, 50% is owned by people who identify with or like effective altruism, that’s $10.5 billion. If they donate 50% of it to EA-related charities, that’s around $5 billion. So, even on these optimistic assumptions, that would only be around one Open Philanthropy (now Coefficient Giving), not ten.
What didn’t I understand? What did I miss?
(As a side note, the time horizon of 2-6 years is quite long...)
Differing priorities and timelines (ie focus on TAI) among Ants
Also, the Anthropic situation seems like it’ll be different than Dustin in that the number of individual donors (“principals”) goes up a lot—which I’m guessing leads to more grants at smaller sizes, rather than OpenPhil’s (relatively) few, giant grants
To be clear, “10 new OpenPhils” is trying to convey like, a gestalt or a vibe; how I expect the feeling of working within EA causes to change, rather than a rigorous point estimate
Dustin Moskovitz’s net worth is $12 billion and he and Cari Tuna have pledged to give at least 50% of it away, so that’s at least $6 billion.
I think this pledge is over their lifetime, not over the next 2-6 years. OP/CG seems to be spending in the realm of $1 billion per year (e.g. this, this), which would mean $2-6 billion over Austin’s time frame.
But if it’s $21 billion total in Anthropic equity, that $21 billion is going to be almost all of the employees’ lifetime net worth — as far as we know and as far as they know. So, why would this $21 billion all get spent in the next 2-6 years?
If we assume, quite optimistically, half of the equity belongs to people who want to give to EA-related organizations, and they want to give 50% of their net worth to those organizations over the next 2-6 years, that’s around $5 billion over the next 2-6 years.
If Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving is spending $1 billion a year like you said, that’s around one OP/CG, not ten.
If OP/CG is really spending $1 billion/year, then OP/CG must have a lot more donations coming in from people other than Dustin Moskovitz or Cari Tuna than I realized. Either that or they’re spending down their fortune much faster than I thought.
Can you explain this math for me? The figure you started with is $21 billion in Anthropic equity, so what’s your figure for Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving? Dustin Moskovitz’s net worth is $12 billion and he and Cari Tuna have pledged to give at least 50% of it away, so that’s at least $6 billion. $21 billion is only 3.5x more than $6 billion, not 10x.
If you think of that $21 billion in Anthropic equity, 50% is owned by people who identify with or like effective altruism, that’s $10.5 billion. If they donate 50% of it to EA-related charities, that’s around $5 billion. So, even on these optimistic assumptions, that would only be around one Open Philanthropy (now Coefficient Giving), not ten.
What didn’t I understand? What did I miss?
(As a side note, the time horizon of 2-6 years is quite long...)
Some factors that could raise giving estimates:
The 3:1 match
If “6%” is more like “15%”
Future growth of Anthropic stock
Differing priorities and timelines (ie focus on TAI) among Ants
Also, the Anthropic situation seems like it’ll be different than Dustin in that the number of individual donors (“principals”) goes up a lot—which I’m guessing leads to more grants at smaller sizes, rather than OpenPhil’s (relatively) few, giant grants
So, what is your actual math to get to 10x the size of Open Philanthropy?
To be clear, “10 new OpenPhils” is trying to convey like, a gestalt or a vibe; how I expect the feeling of working within EA causes to change, rather than a rigorous point estimate
Though, I’d be willing to bet at even odds, something like “yearly EA giving exceeds $10B by end of 2031”, which is about 10x the largest year per https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NWHb4nsnXRxDDFGLy/historical-ea-funding-data-2025-update.
2031 is far too far away for me to take an interest in a bet about this, but I proposed one for the end of 2026.
I think this pledge is over their lifetime, not over the next 2-6 years. OP/CG seems to be spending in the realm of $1 billion per year (e.g. this, this), which would mean $2-6 billion over Austin’s time frame.
But if it’s $21 billion total in Anthropic equity, that $21 billion is going to be almost all of the employees’ lifetime net worth — as far as we know and as far as they know. So, why would this $21 billion all get spent in the next 2-6 years?
If we assume, quite optimistically, half of the equity belongs to people who want to give to EA-related organizations, and they want to give 50% of their net worth to those organizations over the next 2-6 years, that’s around $5 billion over the next 2-6 years.
If Open Philanthropy/Coefficient Giving is spending $1 billion a year like you said, that’s around one OP/CG, not ten.
If OP/CG is really spending $1 billion/year, then OP/CG must have a lot more donations coming in from people other than Dustin Moskovitz or Cari Tuna than I realized. Either that or they’re spending down their fortune much faster than I thought.