I disagree with this particular theunitofcaring post “what would you do with 20 billion dollars?”, and I think this is possibly the only area where I disagree with theunitofcaring overall philosophy and seemed worth mentioning. (This crops up occasionally in her other posts but it is most clear cut here).
I think if you got 20 billion dollars and didn’t want to think too hard about what to do with it, donating to OpenPhilanthropy project is a pretty decent fallback option.
But my overall take on how to handle the EA funding landscape has changed a bit in the past few years. Some things that theunitofcaring doesn’t mention here, which seem at least warrant thinking about:
[Each of these has a bit of a citation-needed, that I recall hearing or reading in reliable sounding places, but correct me if I’m wrong or out of date]
1) OpenPhil has (at least? I can’t find more recent data) 8 billion dollars, and makes something like 500 million a year in investment returns. They are currently able to give 100 million away a year.
They’re working on building more capacity so they can give more. But for the foreseeable future, they _can’t_ actually spend more money than they are making.
2) OpenPhil doesn’t want to be responsible for more than 50% of an orgs’ budget, because being fully dependent on a single foundation creates a distorted relationship (where the org feels somewhat constrained by the foundation’s own goals/whims/models).
If you have a diverse funding base, you can just do the thing you think is best. If you have a small funder base, if you aren’t perfectly aligned with the funder, there is pressure to shift towards projects that they think are best (even if the funder is trying _not_ to put such pressure on you)
I’m not sure how big a concern this _should_ be, but AFAICT it’s currently their policy.
This means there’s a fair bit of value, if you had $20 billion, to setting up an alternative foundation to OpenPhil, just from the perspective of making sure the best orgs can _actually_ get fully funded.
3) OpenPhil has high standards for where to donate.
This is good.
But the fact that they have 8 billion, make another 500 million a year and spend down only around 100 million, means that the funding niche that actually needs filling right now is not more-of-OpenPhils-strategy.
There’s a weird situation in the current landscape where it feels like money is unlimited… but there are still EA-relevant projects that need money. Typically ones that are younger, where data is more scarce.
Figuring out which of those actually deserve money is hard (esp. without creating weird incentivizes down the line, where _anyone_ with a half-baked project can show up and get your money). But this seems more like the domain where another major funder would be valuable.
...
Now, this is all hypothetical (theunitofcaring doesn’t have 20 billion and neither do I). But this does point at an important shift on how to think about donating, if you’re a small-to-medium sized donor.
Awhile ago I wrote “Earning to Give is Costly Signalling”. Power laws mean that the richest people dwarf the donations of smaller time donors. Therefore, most of the value of EA donors is convincing rich people to give (and think) in an EA fashion.
Now I think it’s weirder than that.
Given that EA collectively has access to billions of dollars (plus smaller-but-still-larger-than-we-know-what-to-do-with donor pools from a few other multi-millionaires)...
If you’re a small-to-medium donor, roles that make sense to play are:
Provide a costly signal for _new_ charities that aren’t already on OpenPhil, BERI et al’s radar.
Help seed-fund new projects that you have a lot of local information on, that you think make a credible case for being high impact
Donate to existing orgs, to help fill out the 50% funding gap (this is still partly about making sure they get funded, and also a sort of continued costly signal of the org’s value to the larger funders). Many orgs also have tax-relevant status where it matters what proportion of their budget comes from private vs public donations, so making sure they have a diverse donor base is helpful.
This last option is basically EA business as usual, which is still important, but it’s only one of several possible strategies that should be under consideration.
I also think it’s important to consider using the money for your own personal development, or the development of people you know who you think could do well. Hire a personal trainer, or a tutor. Save up runway so that you can afford to take time off to think, and plan, or start a project.
I disagree with this particular theunitofcaring post “what would you do with 20 billion dollars?”, and I think this is possibly the only area where I disagree with theunitofcaring overall philosophy and seemed worth mentioning. (This crops up occasionally in her other posts but it is most clear cut here).
I think if you got 20 billion dollars and didn’t want to think too hard about what to do with it, donating to OpenPhilanthropy project is a pretty decent fallback option.
But my overall take on how to handle the EA funding landscape has changed a bit in the past few years. Some things that theunitofcaring doesn’t mention here, which seem at least warrant thinking about:
[Each of these has a bit of a citation-needed, that I recall hearing or reading in reliable sounding places, but correct me if I’m wrong or out of date]
1) OpenPhil has (at least? I can’t find more recent data) 8 billion dollars, and makes something like 500 million a year in investment returns. They are currently able to give 100 million away a year.
They’re working on building more capacity so they can give more. But for the foreseeable future, they _can’t_ actually spend more money than they are making.
2) OpenPhil doesn’t want to be responsible for more than 50% of an orgs’ budget, because being fully dependent on a single foundation creates a distorted relationship (where the org feels somewhat constrained by the foundation’s own goals/whims/models).
If you have a diverse funding base, you can just do the thing you think is best. If you have a small funder base, if you aren’t perfectly aligned with the funder, there is pressure to shift towards projects that they think are best (even if the funder is trying _not_ to put such pressure on you)
I’m not sure how big a concern this _should_ be, but AFAICT it’s currently their policy.
This means there’s a fair bit of value, if you had $20 billion, to setting up an alternative foundation to OpenPhil, just from the perspective of making sure the best orgs can _actually_ get fully funded.
3) OpenPhil has high standards for where to donate.
This is good.
But the fact that they have 8 billion, make another 500 million a year and spend down only around 100 million, means that the funding niche that actually needs filling right now is not more-of-OpenPhils-strategy.
There’s a weird situation in the current landscape where it feels like money is unlimited… but there are still EA-relevant projects that need money. Typically ones that are younger, where data is more scarce.
Figuring out which of those actually deserve money is hard (esp. without creating weird incentivizes down the line, where _anyone_ with a half-baked project can show up and get your money). But this seems more like the domain where another major funder would be valuable.
...
Now, this is all hypothetical (theunitofcaring doesn’t have 20 billion and neither do I). But this does point at an important shift on how to think about donating, if you’re a small-to-medium sized donor.
Awhile ago I wrote “Earning to Give is Costly Signalling”. Power laws mean that the richest people dwarf the donations of smaller time donors. Therefore, most of the value of EA donors is convincing rich people to give (and think) in an EA fashion.
Now I think it’s weirder than that.
Given that EA collectively has access to billions of dollars (plus smaller-but-still-larger-than-we-know-what-to-do-with donor pools from a few other multi-millionaires)...
If you’re a small-to-medium donor, roles that make sense to play are:
Provide a costly signal for _new_ charities that aren’t already on OpenPhil, BERI et al’s radar.
Help seed-fund new projects that you have a lot of local information on, that you think make a credible case for being high impact
Donate to existing orgs, to help fill out the 50% funding gap (this is still partly about making sure they get funded, and also a sort of continued costly signal of the org’s value to the larger funders). Many orgs also have tax-relevant status where it matters what proportion of their budget comes from private vs public donations, so making sure they have a diverse donor base is helpful.
This last option is basically EA business as usual, which is still important, but it’s only one of several possible strategies that should be under consideration.
I also think it’s important to consider using the money for your own personal development, or the development of people you know who you think could do well. Hire a personal trainer, or a tutor. Save up runway so that you can afford to take time off to think, and plan, or start a project.