TLDR: This forum post is well-written but overlooks two key points: the high-status perception of OP funding within EA, which skews community inclusion and metrics, and the reputational risks for non-EA-branded donors and organisations in aligning with EA, leading to a disconnect in recognising their contributions.
This forum post effectively outlines the options and includes a (partial) call to action to stop complaining, acknowledge issues, and take steps forward. However, it overlooks two important aspects that I believe warrant discussion:
First, the post does not account for how funding from OP is perceived as a marker of being an EA organisation. This perception creates a feedback loop where organisations funded by Open Philanthropy are seen as high-status and placed centrally within the EA community. In contrast, organisations or sub-teams not viewed as fully aligned are often excluded from community metrics. This dynamic significantly influences which organisations are recognised as part of the EA community.
Additionally, in these kinds of statistics, there is little recognition of sub-teams within organisations or EA-adjacent groups that contribute to EA goals without formally associating with the movement. For example, many civil service roles are funded through diverse portfolios and remain underrepresented in these discussions. Similarly, some organisations prefer not to publicly align with EA for strategic reasons, despite their close alignment in practice.
Second, for figures like Dustin and Cari, donating to EA-branded organisations may make sense given their personal brands are closely tied to the community. However, for other donors, explicitly associating with EA poses reputational risks and diminishes the credit they receive for their philanthropic efforts. Schmidt Futures exemplifies thisâit is a family-funded organisation doing work aligned with EA interests but avoids formally associating with the movement, as I think thereâs little incentive to do so from their perspective.
Similarly, I work for an organisation largely funded by a donor not widely considered an âEA billionaire,â yet the organisation is almost entirely staffed by EAs doing aligned work. Despite this, the donor is unlikely to appear in lists of EA funding sources, highlighting a gap in how contributions are recognised.
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.
TLDR: This forum post is well-written but overlooks two key points: the high-status perception of OP funding within EA, which skews community inclusion and metrics, and the reputational risks for non-EA-branded donors and organisations in aligning with EA, leading to a disconnect in recognising their contributions.
This forum post effectively outlines the options and includes a (partial) call to action to stop complaining, acknowledge issues, and take steps forward. However, it overlooks two important aspects that I believe warrant discussion:
First, the post does not account for how funding from OP is perceived as a marker of being an EA organisation. This perception creates a feedback loop where organisations funded by Open Philanthropy are seen as high-status and placed centrally within the EA community. In contrast, organisations or sub-teams not viewed as fully aligned are often excluded from community metrics. This dynamic significantly influences which organisations are recognised as part of the EA community.
Additionally, in these kinds of statistics, there is little recognition of sub-teams within organisations or EA-adjacent groups that contribute to EA goals without formally associating with the movement. For example, many civil service roles are funded through diverse portfolios and remain underrepresented in these discussions. Similarly, some organisations prefer not to publicly align with EA for strategic reasons, despite their close alignment in practice.
Second, for figures like Dustin and Cari, donating to EA-branded organisations may make sense given their personal brands are closely tied to the community. However, for other donors, explicitly associating with EA poses reputational risks and diminishes the credit they receive for their philanthropic efforts. Schmidt Futures exemplifies thisâit is a family-funded organisation doing work aligned with EA interests but avoids formally associating with the movement, as I think thereâs little incentive to do so from their perspective.
Similarly, I work for an organisation largely funded by a donor not widely considered an âEA billionaire,â yet the organisation is almost entirely staffed by EAs doing aligned work. Despite this, the donor is unlikely to appear in lists of EA funding sources, highlighting a gap in how contributions are recognised.
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.
Thanks for these helpful points! Minor note: Did you mean Schmidt Futures and not Smith Futures?
Yes!