Respondents mentioned two broad concerns about EA Funds:
...
Funds was targeted to meet the needs of a small set of donors, but was advertised to the entire EA community.
.
Many donors may not want their donations going towards “unusual, risky, or time-sensitive projects”, and respondents were concerned that the Funds were advertised to too broad a set of donors, including those for whom the Funds may not have been a good fit.
.
we do not currently proactively advertise EA Funds.
I’d be happy to learn more about these considerations/concerns.
It seems to me that many of the interventions that are a good idea from a ‘long-term future perspective’ are unusual, risky, or time-sensitive. Is this an unusual view in the EA sphere?
Thanks for the question! There are different degrees and types of unusual-ness and riskiness. For example, as a reason why someone may choose not to donate to the Long-Term Future Fund we state:
First, they may prefer to support established organizations. The fund’s most recent grants have mostly funded newer organizations and individual researchers. This trend is likely to continue, provided that promising opportunities continue to exist.
Established organizations focused on the long-term future such as the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) are, in some ways, “unusual” and “risky”, but some donors may still prefer to donate to FHI instead of an independent researcher with a short track record, and those donors may not be a good fit for donating to the Long-Term Future Fund.
As a side note: we have been brainstorming internally about the correct adjective which would differentiate between e.g. FHI and an independent researcher. As you noted, “risk” is not exactly the dimension along which these two donation targets differ – if anyone has a better suggestion, we would appreciate hearing it.
To clarify my view, I do think there is a large variance in risk among ‘long-term future interventions’ (such as donating to FHI, or donating to fund an independent researcher with a short track record).
Thanks for publishing this!
.
.
I’d be happy to learn more about these considerations/concerns. It seems to me that many of the interventions that are a good idea from a ‘long-term future perspective’ are unusual, risky, or time-sensitive. Is this an unusual view in the EA sphere?
Thanks for the question! There are different degrees and types of unusual-ness and riskiness. For example, as a reason why someone may choose not to donate to the Long-Term Future Fund we state:
Established organizations focused on the long-term future such as the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) are, in some ways, “unusual” and “risky”, but some donors may still prefer to donate to FHI instead of an independent researcher with a short track record, and those donors may not be a good fit for donating to the Long-Term Future Fund.
As a side note: we have been brainstorming internally about the correct adjective which would differentiate between e.g. FHI and an independent researcher. As you noted, “risk” is not exactly the dimension along which these two donation targets differ – if anyone has a better suggestion, we would appreciate hearing it.
Thanks for this helpful explanation!
To clarify my view, I do think there is a large variance in risk among ‘long-term future interventions’ (such as donating to FHI, or donating to fund an independent researcher with a short track record).