1 is just a good point. happy you made it. I wish people owned the EA reputation more and we should work towards it having a better brand. I also acknowledge that âwhat is EAâ is fuzzy and also that in an ideal analysis, I would have summed up EA organizations (by my definition) receiving funding as opposed to tallying EA sources of funding.
On 2, I agree but I donât think this will change the calculation very much. Even if I were to grant Schmidt Ventures as an EA funder (I donât fwiw, they mostly fund science), this doesnât change much in the realm of being able to significantly diversify funding (there are 2 funding sources and not one).
Withr respect to the org you work for being funded by a donor who isnât widely considered an âEA billionaireâ, thatâs awesome but again, I donât think will change the math very much. It would be similar (at best) to adding another SFF. It would take OPs funding percentage from 89% to say 85%. It helps but doesnât change the big picture.
I should also note that this isnât surprising. In the hedge fund or VC space, firms usually have a few investors representing the bulk of their funds. Every firm is different but generally speaking, fewer than 5 investors make up 80% of a firmâs AUM and it very much follows a power law.
This is a great point that I strong upvoted.
1 is just a good point. happy you made it. I wish people owned the EA reputation more and we should work towards it having a better brand. I also acknowledge that âwhat is EAâ is fuzzy and also that in an ideal analysis, I would have summed up EA organizations (by my definition) receiving funding as opposed to tallying EA sources of funding.
On 2, I agree but I donât think this will change the calculation very much. Even if I were to grant Schmidt Ventures as an EA funder (I donât fwiw, they mostly fund science), this doesnât change much in the realm of being able to significantly diversify funding (there are 2 funding sources and not one).
Withr respect to the org you work for being funded by a donor who isnât widely considered an âEA billionaireâ, thatâs awesome but again, I donât think will change the math very much. It would be similar (at best) to adding another SFF. It would take OPs funding percentage from 89% to say 85%. It helps but doesnât change the big picture.
I should also note that this isnât surprising. In the hedge fund or VC space, firms usually have a few investors representing the bulk of their funds. Every firm is different but generally speaking, fewer than 5 investors make up 80% of a firmâs AUM and it very much follows a power law.