This year’s Giving Tuesday was quite different from previous years. Giving What We Can and One For The World were already running a pared-down version of EAGT due to the change in ownership of the project, and once the rules for 2022 were announced, the project was essentially put on hold. Unfortunately, unlike previous years we do not have a retrospective demonstrating impact, instead, we (OFTW and GWWC) are advising that EAGT should be fully hibernated for future years.
 

Here are the high-level details of this year’s match:

“To help nonprofits jumpstart their Giving Season fundraising, Meta will match your donors’ recurring donation 100% up to $100 in the next month (up to $100,000 per organization and up to $7 million in total across all organizations). All new recurring donors who start a recurring donation within November 15 - December 31, 2022 are eligible. Read the terms and conditions.
 

The reasons for hibernating the project include:

  • Smaller potential impact due to new donor limits (previously to a single charity you could do $20k/donor, now only $100/donor).
  • The matching seems to be more of a lottery than first come first serve, so coordination makes less sense (More details per Will Kiely’s comment here; lots of thanks to Will for all his help!)
  • Recurring donations being necessary and potentially indefinite (making the match actually 50% since the second donation is the one being matched), placing strain on regranting.

 

If the rules were to change for future Giving Tuesdays or another matching opportunity comes up that seems to be a good candidate for coordination, GWWC and OFTW would be happy to facilitate volunteers to work on the project, given there is sufficient demand for it. We will archive the work that was done in previous years and can make it available to community members on request.

We encourage community members to share donation matching opportunities on the EA Forum, and other spaces where donations get discussed. Giving What We Can tries to share counterfactual donation matching opportunities for effective charities through our normal communication channels.

We’d like to thank everyone who organized and participated in EA Giving Tuesday over the years. It's been wonderful to see the community come together to raise money for effective charities.

 

Thank you for your support,

- The EA Giving Tuesday Team


 

104

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments9


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I'm sad to see EA Giving Tuesday go, it was really cool to have a community holiday like this, but I think you're right that it's not worth it anymore. Kudos on shutting down the project when it no longer made sense to run.

I really like the togetherness aspect of things like EA Giving Tuesday and Project for Awesome. I really wish we could find more things, maybe 2-4 a year, that can intentionally bring the entire EA community together.

I feel like Effective Giving day could fill the void left by EA Giving Tuesday, I liked the first edition!

There were several live events all around the world and a nice online space in gather town

Yes, I'd love to make this a bigger thing. I wish there was a way to turn it into more of an activity, like Petrov Day. Petrov Day is stressful, but it's lots of fun and it's so in your face that you basically have to participate (assuming you are a >1 per day forum checker like me, which I hear is actually only like 5% of forum users with accounts).

Thank you for working on this - like Ben and Peter I really appreciated its existence, and the way it brought the community together. Thank you also for making the tough decision to put it into hibernation, and letting us know that was happening.  

By the way: is EAGT still going to hibernate for 2023? (Makes sense if so, just checking!) I can't tell if there is going to be a matching fund via Facebook this year at all.

The project is continuing to hibernate for 2023!

Thanks, both!

Hi, I’m off the project now, but to my knowledge it is still hibernating (unless otherwise announced I think it will be, and I believe such an effort would be contingent on a serious matching funds opportunity).

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is a linkpost for a paper I wrote recently, “Endogenous Growth and Excess Variety”, along with a summary. Two schools in growth theory Roughly speaking: In Romer’s (1990) growth model, output per person is interpreted as an economy’s level of “technology”, and the economic growth rate—the growth rate of “real GDP” per person—is proportional to the amount of R&D being done. As Jones (1995) pointed out, populations have grown greatly over the last century, and the proportion of people doing research (and the proportion of GDP spent on research) has grown even more quickly, yet the economic growth rate has not risen. Growth theorists have mainly taken two approaches to reconciling [research] population growth with constant economic growth. “Semi-endogenous” growth models (introduced by Jones (1995)) posit that, as the technological frontier advances, further advances get more difficult. Growth in the number of researchers, and ultimately (if research is not automated) population growth, is therefore necessary to sustain economic growth. “Second-wave endogenous” (I’ll write “SWE”) growth models posit instead that technology grows exponentially with a constant or with a growing population. The idea is that process efficiency—the quantity of a given good producible with given labor and/or capital inputs—grows exponentially with constant research effort, as in a first-wave endogenous model; but when population grows, we develop more goods, leaving research effort per good fixed. (We do this, in the model, because each innovator needs a monopoly on his or her invention in order to compensate for the costs of developing it.) Improvements in process efficiency are called “vertical innovations” and increases in good variety are called “horizontal innovations”. Variety is desirable, so the one-off increase in variety produced by an increase to the population size increases real GDP, but it does not increase the growth rate. Likewise exponential population growth raise
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Epistemic status: This post — the result of a loosely timeboxed ~2-day sprint[1] — is more like “research notes with rough takes” than “report with solid answers.” You should interpret the things we say as best guesses, and not give them much more weight than that. Summary There’s been some discussion of what “transformative AI may arrive soon” might mean for animal advocates. After a very shallow review, we’ve tentatively concluded that radical changes to the animal welfare (AW) field are not yet warranted. In particular: * Some ideas in this space seem fairly promising, but in the “maybe a researcher should look into this” stage, rather than “shovel-ready” * We’re skeptical of the case for most speculative “TAI<>AW” projects * We think the most common version of this argument underrates how radically weird post-“transformative”-AI worlds would be, and how much this harms our ability to predict the longer-run effects of interventions available to us today. Without specific reasons to believe that an intervention is especially robust,[2] we think it’s best to discount its expected value to ~zero. Here’s a brief overview of our (tentative!) actionable takes on this question[3]: ✅ Some things we recommend❌ Some things we don’t recommend * Dedicating some amount of (ongoing) attention to the possibility of “AW lock ins”[4]  * Pursuing other exploratory research on what transformative AI might mean for animals & how to help (we’re unconvinced by most existing proposals, but many of these ideas have received <1 month of research effort from everyone in the space combined — it would be unsurprising if even just a few months of effort turned up better ideas) * Investing in highly “flexible” capacity for advancing animal interests in AI-transformed worlds * Trying to use AI for near-term animal welfare work, and fundraising from donors who have invested in AI * Heavily discounting “normal” interventions that take 10+ years to help animals * “Rowing” on na
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
As we mark one year since the launch of Mieux Donner, we wanted to share some reflections on our journey and our ongoing efforts to promote effective giving in France. Mieux Donner was founded through the Effective Incubation Programme by Ambitious Impact and Giving What We Can. TLDR  * Prioritisation is important. And when the path forward is unclear, trying a lot of different potential priorities with high productivity leads to better results than analysis paralysis. * Ask yourself what the purpose of your organisation is. If you are a mainly marketing/communication org, hire people from this sector (not engineers) and don’t be afraid to hire outside of EA. * Effective altruism ideas are less controversial than we imagined and affiliation has created no (or very little) push back * Hiring early has helped us move fast and is a good idea when you have a clear process and a lot of quality applicants Summary of our progress and activities in year 1 In January 2025, we set a new strategy with time allocation for our different activities. We set one clear goal - 1M€ in donations in 2025. To achieve this goal we decided: Our primary focus for 2025 is to grow our audience. We will experiment with a variety of projects to determine the most effective ways to grow our audience. Our core activities in 2025 will focus on high-impact fundraising and outreach efforts. The strategies where we plan to spend the most time are : * SEO content (most important) * UX Optimization of the website * Social Media ; Peer to Peer fundraising ; Leveraging our existing network The graphic below shows how we plan to spend our marketing time: We are also following partnership opportunities and advising a few high net worth individuals who reached out to us and who will donate by the end of the year. Results: one year of Mieux Donner On our initial funding proposal in June 2024, we wrote down where we wanted to be in one year. Let’s see how we fared: Meta Goals * Spendi