Thanks for jumping in Nick. I appreciate the distinction.
To be clear, what I meant by “in practice” is the actual amount of effort, time, and resources RP dedicates to GHD internally, which is distinct from its public footprint and its ultimate impact. My point is simply that characterizing RP as having “shifted” to animal welfare doesn’t capture my sense of internal resource allocation and the external impact of our GHD work (some of which may be not in the public domain), even if that’s how it appears externally.
I think being skeptical here is probably smart. But even if Nan is off by some order of magnitude, and we believe there is some low probability the money comes through, the amounts of new philanthropic funding are very plausibly still very large, especially considering what goes into certain cause areas.
I find your advice to organizations compelling as well. Though on balance I’m likely to let their leadership figure what they are likely to win/lose from making such bets. Feels perfectly reasonable to get a whole lot of orgs that make heavy bets (alongside some, even perhaps very few, who don’t).