Edit: The parent, before being edited, at the time I responded, as I recall, read:
That’s about large donors, not small donors
It now reads:
That’s a reason for large donors to diversify. It is not at all a reason for small donors to diversify.
I am disappointed by this departure from LessWrong’s excellent track record of not abusing the edit feature to change the context of responding comments.
End Edit
The point is that the more total money they get from small donors, the more money large donors can give without going over certain percentages of the total that have arbitrary legal significance.
I meant, that’s the point of Document’s quote from SIAI’s statement about the value of small donors. It may not be an example of what ciphergoth was talking about, but it is about the importance of small donors.
This law does not provide a good reason for individual donors to diversify, but it does provide good reason for non-profits to actively solicit from small donors, and it shows that small donors are important.
Edit: The parent, before being edited, at the time I responded, as I recall, read:
It now reads:
I am disappointed by this departure from LessWrong’s excellent track record of not abusing the edit feature to change the context of responding comments.
End Edit
The point is that the more total money they get from small donors, the more money large donors can give without going over certain percentages of the total that have arbitrary legal significance.
No, that’s not the point.
I meant, that’s the point of Document’s quote from SIAI’s statement about the value of small donors. It may not be an example of what ciphergoth was talking about, but it is about the importance of small donors.
So, arguments are soldiers?
Not much of an argument here.
This law does not provide a good reason for individual donors to diversify, but it does provide good reason for non-profits to actively solicit from small donors, and it shows that small donors are important.