I worry about people’s preferences changing over time, either as they get older or as a result of running into financial difficulties. I can imagine buying a bunch of certificates in my idealistic youth and then selling them off again in my cynical old age. At any point in time I’d feel like I was doing the right thing, and whatever philanthropist bought the certificates off me would think they were restrospectively funding the original project when actually they were just putting money into my pocket.
This is sort of the opposite problem of what (I think) Owen_Cotton-Barret was describing with old certificates becoming valueless.
Thinking about this a bit more… If I don’t trust my future self with these certificates, I can always send them to some other entity which will look after them in a way consistent with present-self’s wishes.
This could be an account in a different name, corresponding to an entity which I believed caused my behavior, and which I believe will responsibly hoard the certificates (e.g. GiveWell).
Alternatively it could be an ethereum-style contract which allows me to either hold on to the certificate or give it away (given enough other signatures verifying that I’m giving it to a reputable party and that I’m not benefitting financially from giving it away).
This sort of lock-in could also be a mechanical part of how certificates work, e.g. they allow themselves to be traded freely for a month and after that it gets more and more difficult.
The situation where certificates are bought and sold at near the original donation price is somewhat peculiar. Essentially, rather than giving away your assets to charity you’d be exchanging real money for some riskier and weirder asset, but which is nonetheless still worth money. Giving away certificates then feels like a sort of “second order altruism” which then maybe deserves a certificate of its own...
I worry about people’s preferences changing over time, either as they get older or as a result of running into financial difficulties. I can imagine buying a bunch of certificates in my idealistic youth and then selling them off again in my cynical old age. At any point in time I’d feel like I was doing the right thing, and whatever philanthropist bought the certificates off me would think they were restrospectively funding the original project when actually they were just putting money into my pocket.
This is sort of the opposite problem of what (I think) Owen_Cotton-Barret was describing with old certificates becoming valueless.
Thinking about this a bit more… If I don’t trust my future self with these certificates, I can always send them to some other entity which will look after them in a way consistent with present-self’s wishes.
This could be an account in a different name, corresponding to an entity which I believed caused my behavior, and which I believe will responsibly hoard the certificates (e.g. GiveWell).
Alternatively it could be an ethereum-style contract which allows me to either hold on to the certificate or give it away (given enough other signatures verifying that I’m giving it to a reputable party and that I’m not benefitting financially from giving it away).
This sort of lock-in could also be a mechanical part of how certificates work, e.g. they allow themselves to be traded freely for a month and after that it gets more and more difficult.
The situation where certificates are bought and sold at near the original donation price is somewhat peculiar. Essentially, rather than giving away your assets to charity you’d be exchanging real money for some riskier and weirder asset, but which is nonetheless still worth money. Giving away certificates then feels like a sort of “second order altruism” which then maybe deserves a certificate of its own...