Both extremes are caricatures, but we are closer to the second. Contrast with the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has a number of regrantors with pots which grow proportionally to their estimated success.
We’re all interested in mostly agent-neutral goals, so these should be much more aligned by default than agent-relative goals such as profit. That’s a huge advantage that we’re not using sufficiently (I think). Impact markets such as ours or that of the SFF make use of the alignment with regrantors and that between funders (through the S-Process).
The upshot is that there are plenty of mechanism that promise to solve problems for funders while (almost as a side-effect) democratizing funding.
With impact markets in particular we want to enable funders to find more funding opportunities and fund more projects that would otherwise be too small for them to review. On the flip side that means that a much more diverse set of fledgling projects gets funded. It’s a win-win.
I’d like to highlight this paragraph some more:
We’re all interested in mostly agent-neutral goals, so these should be much more aligned by default than agent-relative goals such as profit. That’s a huge advantage that we’re not using sufficiently (I think). Impact markets such as ours or that of the SFF make use of the alignment with regrantors and that between funders (through the S-Process).
The upshot is that there are plenty of mechanism that promise to solve problems for funders while (almost as a side-effect) democratizing funding.
With impact markets in particular we want to enable funders to find more funding opportunities and fund more projects that would otherwise be too small for them to review. On the flip side that means that a much more diverse set of fledgling projects gets funded. It’s a win-win.