Tl;dr: I was to date judging the funds by the cause area rather than the fund managers tastes and this has left me a bit surprised. I think in future I will judge more based on the fund mangers tastes.
Thank you Ben â I agree with all of this
Maybe I was just confused by the fund scope.
The fund scope is broad and that is good. The webpage says the scope includes: âRaise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projectsâ which basically means everything! And I do think it needs to be broad â for example to support EAs bringing EA ideas into new cause areas.
But maybe in my mind I had classed it as something like âEA metaâ or as âeverything that is EA aligned that would not be better covered by one of the other 3 fundsâ or similar. But maybe that was me reading too much into things and the scope is just âanything and everything that is EA alignedâ.
It is not bad that it has a broader scope than I had realised, and maybe the fault is mine, but I guess my reaction to seeing the scope is different to what I realised is to take a step back and reconsider if my giving to date is going where I expect.
To date I have been judging the EAIF as the easy option when I am not sure where to give and have been judging the fund mostly by the cause area it gives too.
I think taking a step back will likely involve spending an hour or two going though all of the things given in recent fund rounds and thinking about how much I agree with each one then deciding if I think the EAIF is the best place for me to give, and if I think I can do better giving to one of the existing EA meta orgs that takes donations. (Probably I should have been doing this already so maybe a good nudge).
Does that make sense /â answer your query?
â â
If the EAIF had a slightly more well defined narrower scope that could make givers slightly more confident in where their funds will go but has a cost in terms of admin time and flexibility for the Funds. So there is a trade-off.
My gut feel is that in the long run the trade-off is worth it but maybe feedback from other donors would say otherwise.
Tl;dr: I was to date judging the funds by the cause area rather than the fund managers tastes and this has left me a bit surprised. I think in future I will judge more based on the fund mangers tastes.
Thank you Ben â I agree with all of this
Maybe I was just confused by the fund scope.
The fund scope is broad and that is good. The webpage says the scope includes: âRaise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projectsâ which basically means everything! And I do think it needs to be broad â for example to support EAs bringing EA ideas into new cause areas.
But maybe in my mind I had classed it as something like âEA metaâ or as âeverything that is EA aligned that would not be better covered by one of the other 3 fundsâ or similar. But maybe that was me reading too much into things and the scope is just âanything and everything that is EA alignedâ.
It is not bad that it has a broader scope than I had realised, and maybe the fault is mine, but I guess my reaction to seeing the scope is different to what I realised is to take a step back and reconsider if my giving to date is going where I expect.
To date I have been judging the EAIF as the easy option when I am not sure where to give and have been judging the fund mostly by the cause area it gives too.
I think taking a step back will likely involve spending an hour or two going though all of the things given in recent fund rounds and thinking about how much I agree with each one then deciding if I think the EAIF is the best place for me to give, and if I think I can do better giving to one of the existing EA meta orgs that takes donations. (Probably I should have been doing this already so maybe a good nudge).
Does that make sense /â answer your query?
â â
If the EAIF had a slightly more well defined narrower scope that could make givers slightly more confident in where their funds will go but has a cost in terms of admin time and flexibility for the Funds. So there is a trade-off.
My gut feel is that in the long run the trade-off is worth it but maybe feedback from other donors would say otherwise.