Scott Alexander writes:
"The past year has been a terrible time to be a charitable funder, since FTX ate every opportunity so quickly that everyone else had trouble finding good not-yet-funded projects. But right now is a great time to be a charitable funder: there are lots of really great charities on the verge of collapse who just need a little bit of funding to get them through. I’m trying to coordinate with some of the people involved. I haven’t really succeeded yet, I think because they’re all hiding under their beds gibbering - but probably they’ll have to come out eventually, if only for food and water. If you’re a potential charitable funder interested in helping, and not already connected to this project, please email me at email@example.com. I don’t want any affected charities to get their hopes up, because I don’t expect this to fill more than a few percent of the hole, but maybe we can make the triage process slightly less of a disaster."
I think this argument is probably correct. Potentially we shouldn't fund every organisation that would have been funded by the Future Fund. Potentially, we shouldn't fund things that were started because FTX had so much money, and which are then going to die in a year or two now that the Future Fund isn't around anymore. This might be a time of "right-sizing" projects for available money. However, even with the recent reduction in total assets, many of these projects/organisations should probably be supported. One could simply apply the heuristic of "should this be part of the EA portfolio?" after taking into consideration that EA has less funding now.
There are also considerations about community support and mutual insurance; e.g. donors might want to help out individuals who quit their jobs because they expected a grant from the Future Fund, and so on. I'm going to stop here now, as this is not my main point.
My main question is this: HOW should small-to-medium sized donors (let's say people who want to donate 3-to-7 figures) actually go about this? In particular, if they don't want to put out a public call for proposals, which will likely end in receiving dozens and dozens of grant requests?
One option is to email Scott (see above). Any other ideas?