Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Hide table of contents
5 min read 15

79

Summary

  • The Animal Welfare Fund, the Long-Term Future Fund, and the EA Infrastructure Fund (formerly the EA Meta Fund) are calling for applications.
  • Applying is fast and easy – it typically takes less than a few hours. If you are unsure whether to apply, simply give it a try.
  • The Long-Term Future Fund and EA Infrastructure Fund now support anonymized grants: if you prefer not having your name listed in the public payout report, we are still interested in funding you.
  • If you have a project you think will improve the world, and it seems like a good fit for one of our funds, we encourage you to apply by 7 March (11:59pm PST). Apply here. We’d be excited to hear from you!

Recent updates

  • The Long-Term Future Fund and EA Infrastructure Fund now officially support anonymized grants. To be transparent towards donors and the effective altruism community, we generally prefer to publish a report about your grant, with your name attached to it. But if you prefer we do not disclose any of your personal information, you can now choose one of the following options: 1) Requesting that the public grant report be anonymized. In this case, we will consider your request, but in some cases, we may end up asking you to choose between a public grant or none at all. 2) Requesting we do not publish a public grant report of any kind. In this case, if we think the grant is above our threshold for funding, we will refer it to private funders.
  • We are currently appointing new fund management teams. We have introduced a process by which fund managers are evaluated and (re-)appointed every two years and expect some changes to the fund management teams for the upcoming funding round. We plan to announce the new teams on the EA Forum in a few weeks.
  • The upcoming application deadlines and funding decision dates are:
    • 7 Mar 2021, decision by 2 Apr 2021
    • 13 Jun 2021, decision by 9 Jul 2021
    • 3 Oct 2021, decision by 29 Oct 2021
    • 6 Feb 2022, decision by 4 Mar 2022
    • 5 Jun 2022, decision by 1 Jul 2022
    • 2 Oct 2022, decision by 28 Oct 2022
    • All dates are at 11:59pm, Pacific Time. Please note that these dates are subject to change up to a month before the application deadline.
    • In addition, the Long-Term Future Fund and EA Infrastructure Fund can evaluate time-sensitive applications more quickly. Just let us know in the application form.
    • This is now out of date, you can now apply anytime. Please refer to our website for up-to-date information.
  • As a reminder, the minimum grant size at EA Funds has been reduced from $10,000 to $1,000.

Long-Term Future Fund

The Long-Term Future Fund aims to positively influence the long-term trajectory of civilization, primarily via making grants that contribute to the mitigation of global catastrophic risks. Historically, we’ve funded a variety of longtermist projects, including:

  • Scholarships, academic teaching buy-outs, and additional funding for academics to free up their time
  • Funding to make existing researchers more effective
  • Direct work in AI, biosecurity, forecasting, and philanthropic timing
  • Up-skilling in a field to prepare for future work
  • Seed money for new organizations
  • Movement-building programs

See our previous grants here. Most of our grants are reported publicly, but we also give applicants the option to receive an anonymous grant, or to be referred to a private donor.

The fund has an intentionally broad remit that encompasses a wide range of potential projects. We strongly encourage anyone who thinks they could use money to benefit the long-term future to apply.

Animal Welfare Fund

The Animal Welfare Fund aims to effectively improve the well-being of nonhuman animals, by making grants that focus on one or more of the following:

  • Relatively neglected geographic regions or groups of animals
  • Promising research into animal advocacy or animal well-being
  • Activities that could make it easier to help animals in the future
  • Otherwise best-in-class opportunities

For more information about the fund’s focus, see its request for proposal and past grants.

EA Infrastructure Fund

The EA Infrastructure Fund recommends grants that aim to improve the work of projects that use the principles of effective altruism, by increasing their access to talent, capital, and knowledge. We are interested in applications from organizations and individuals working on new or established projects.

Please note that if your project relates to community building for local, regional, or national groups, you should apply to CEA’s Community Building Grants (CBG) programme. However, the EA Infrastructure Fund is still keen to fund projects initiated by local groups which are unrelated to community building. If you are uncertain whether you should apply to the EA Infrastructure Fund or the CBG programme, please contact us.

To get a better idea of what kinds of projects we might be interested in funding, you can review our past payout reports.

What types of grants can we fund?

For grants to individuals, all of our funds can likely make the following types of grants: 

  • Events/workshops
  • Scholarships
  • Self-study
  • Research projects
  • Content creation
  • Product creation (e.g., a tool/resource that can be used by the community)

We can refer applications for for-profit projects (e.g., seed funding for start-ups) to EA-aligned investors. If you are a for-profit, simply apply through the standard application form and indicate your for-profit status in the application.

For legal reasons, we will likely not be able to make the following types of grants: 

  • Grantseekers requesting funding for a list of possible projects
    • In this case, we would fund only a single project of the proposed ones. Feel free to apply with multiple projects, but we will have to confirm a specific project before we issue funding.
  • Self-development that is not directly related to the common good
    • In order to make grants, the public benefit needs to be greater than the private benefit to any individual. So we cannot make grants that focus on helping a single individual in a way that is not directly connected to public benefit.

Please err on the side of applying, as it is likely we will be able to make something work if the fund managers are excited about the project. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Apply here.

Comments15
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Major kudos for publishing the upcoming application deadlines and funding decision dates until the end of 2022! It's very useful for me for planning, as someone who might apply at some point.

These dates are now out of date, you can now apply anytime. Please refer to our website for up-to-date information.


 

Please note that if your project relates to community building for local, regional, or national groups, you should apply to CEA’s Community Building Grants (CBG) programme.

 

CEA’s Community Building Grants page currently says applications are closed. When the closing was announced (August 2020), applications were expected to reopen in January. Do you know when applications are now expected to reopen? If it will be a long time and/or if CEA will only fund a narrow set of groups through CBG (which sounds like it may be the case), would the fund managers reconsider accepting applications from groups that don't have access to CBG?

That's a great suggestion, thank you. It will take me a few days to figure this out, so I expect to reply in a week or so. (Edited Sat 27 Feb: Still need a bit longer, sorry.)

Thanks for investigating Jonas!

After looking more into this, we've decided not to evaluate applications for Community Building Grants during this grant application cycle. This is because we think CEA has a comparative advantage here due to their existing know-how, and they're still taking some exceptional or easy-to-evaluate grant applications, so some of the most valuable work will still be funded. It's currently unclear when CBG applications will reopen, but CEA is thinking carefully about this question and I'll be coordinating with them.

That said, we're interested in receiving applications from EA groups that aren't typical community-building activities – e.g., new experiments, international community-building, spin-offs of local groups, etc. If you're unsure whether your project qualifies, just send me a brief email.

I'm aware this isn't the news you and others may have been hoping for, so I personally want to contribute to resolving this gap in the funding ecosystem long-term.

Edit: Huh, some people downvoted. If you have concerns about this comment or decision, please leave a comment or send me a PM.

I didn’t downvote your comment, though I am disappointed you won’t be considering applications this cycle. I hope that if CEA does choose to restrict CBG applications going forward (which seems to be under consideration per Harri) that the EAIF will fill the gap. FWIW I’d like to see EAIF funding this space even if CEA does open up applications, as I’d value diversifying funder perspectives more than any comparative advantage CEA might have.

Hi, sorry for not responding to this comment sooner. 

It's taking us longer than we expected to decide on our plans for reopening applications. For context, some of the options of the programme that we're considering:
1. Continue to accept applications for funding group organizers from any EA group
2. Only accept new applications from a subset of groups

We will give an update on this by June 1st latest (~2 weeks before the deadline for the next application deadline for EA Infrastructure Fund), and either let people know when they will be able to apply for CBG funding or recommending that they should apply for EAIF funding. 

We're chatting about the above with the EAIF, though it's ultimately up to them what they choose to accept applications for (so this comment shouldn't be seen as me speaking on their behalf)

Thanks for the update Harri. I'd suggest putting this info on the main CBG page so applicants have an up to date picture.

Thanks, we've now updated the page. 

If someone has a project which potentially spans multiple funds, should they apply to both noting that they have done so, or apply to one noting that they are happy for their application to be passed on to the other?

The new funds UI actually has this specific point covered. At least for the (at least historically) larger overlap for the EAIF and the LTFF. See this section: 

Thanks! This seems like a good system for it.

I just published this article about some potential misconceptions that may help people decide whether to apply.

Someone asked me via email for what grant amount they should apply, and whether we would consider a large grant for several full-time positions at once. I'm sharing my response here, as I think it may be useful for others as well:

The short answer is: Please apply for whatever amount and duration makes the most sense for the project itself, and explain your reasoning to us.

Us not making such grants in the past is due to us not receiving any high-quality applications of this kind.

E.g., how long does it take for you to test some key hypotheses and get some early traction? Perhaps that duration plus 1-3 months of extra slack and runway should be your initial ask. If things work out as intended, you can then use the initial results to apply for follow-on funding. If there are no good results after that time, you may want to abort the project anyway (not primarily because you wouldn't get further funding from EA Funds, but because the people involved might decide that their time could be better spent elsewhere).

Depending on the details of this, I think an initial ask could be anywhere between 2 and 12 months for 1-4 FTE salaries plus other expenses, and depends on the details of the project.

I don't think you need to try and get funding from outside sources at the initial stage, as that sounds like it would be a hassle for you.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- > Why ending the worst abuses of factory farming is an issue ripe for moral reform I recently joined Dwarkesh Patel’s podcast to discuss factory farming. I hope you’ll give it a listen — and consider supporting his fundraiser for FarmKind’s Impact Fund. (Dwarkesh is matching all donations up to $250K; use the code “dwarkesh”.) We discuss two contradictory views about factory farming that produce the same conclusion: that its end is either inevitable or impossible. Some techno-optimists assume factory farming will vanish in the wake of AGI. Some pessimists see reforming it as a hopeless cause. Both camps arrive at the same conclusion: fatalism. If factory farming is destined to end, or persist, then what’s the point in fighting it? I think both views are wrong. In fact, I think factory farming sits in the ideal position for moral reform. Because its end is neither inevitable nor impossible, it offers a unique opportunity for advocacy to change the trajectory of human moral progress. Not inevitable Dwarkesh raised an objection to working on factory farming that I often hear from techno-optimists who care about the issue: isn’t its end inevitable? Some cite the long arc of moral progress; others the promise of vast technological change like cultivated meat or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) which surpasses human capabilities. It’s true that humanity has achieved incredible moral progress for humans. But that progress was never inevitable — it was the result of moral and political reform as much as technology. And that moral progress mostly hasn’t yet extended to animals. For them, the long moral arc of history has so far only bent downward. Technology may one day end factory farming, just as cars liberated w
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This is a personal essay about my failed attempt to convince effective altruists to become socialists. I started as a convinced socialist who thought EA ignored the 'root causes' of poverty by focusing on charity instead of structural change. After studying sociology and economics to build a rigorous case for socialism, the project completely backfired as I realized my political beliefs were largely psychological coping mechanisms. Here are the key points: * Understanding the "root cause" of a problem doesn't necessarily lead to better solutions - Even if capitalism causes poverty, understanding "dynamics of capitalism" won't necessarily help you solve it * Abstract sociological theories are mostly obscurantist bullshit - Academic sociology suffers from either unrealistic mathematical models or vague, unfalsifiable claims that don't help you understand or change the world * The world is better understood as misaligned incentives rather than coordinated oppression - Most social problems stem from coordination failures and competing interests, not a capitalist class conspiring against everyone else * Individual variation undermines class-based politics - People within the same "class" have wildly different cognitive traits, interests, and beliefs, making collective action nearly impossible * Political beliefs serve important psychological functions - They help us cope with personal limitations and maintain self-esteem, often at the expense of accuracy * Evolution shaped us for competition, not truth - Our brains prioritize survival, status, and reproduction over understanding reality or being happy * Marx's insights, properly applied, undermine the Marxist political project - His theory of ideological formation aligns with evolutionary psychology, but when applied to individuals rather than classes, it explains why the working class will not overthrow capitalism. In terms of ideas, I don’t think there’s anything too groundbreaking in this essay. A lot of the
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism