Equal Hands — 2 Month Update

Equal Hands is an experiment in democratizing effective giving. Donors simulate pooling their resources together, and voting how to distribute them across cause areas. All votes count equally, independent of someone's ability to give.

You can learn more about it here, and sign up to learn more or join here. If you sign up before December 16th, you can participate in our current round. As of December 7th, 2024 at 11:00pm Eastern time, 12 donors have pledged $2,915, meaning the marginal $25 donor will move ~$226 in expectation to their preferred cause areas.

In Equal Hands’ first 2 months, 22 donors participated and collectively gave $7,495.01 democratically to impactful charity. Including pledges for its third month, that number will likely increase to at least 24, and $10,410.01

Across the first two months, the gifts made by cause area and pseudo-counterfactual effect (e.g. if people had given their own money in line with their voting, rather than following the democratic outcome) has been:

• Animal welfare: $3,133.35, a decrease of $1,662.15
• Global health: $1,694.85, a decrease of $54.15
• Global catastrophic risks: $2,093.91, an increase of $1,520.16 
• EA community building: $319.38, an increase of $179.63 
• Climate change: $253.52, an increase of $16.52 

Interestingly, the primary impact has been money being reallocated from animal welfare to global catastrophic risks. From the very little data that we have, this primarily appears to be because animal welfare-motivated donors are much more likely to pledge large amounts to democratic giving, while GCR-motivated donors are more likely to sign up (or are a larger population in general), but are more likely to give smaller amounts.

• I’m not sure why exactly this is! The motivation should be the same regardless of cause area for small donors — in expectation, the average vote has moved over $200 to each donor’s preferred causes across both of the first two months, so I would expect it to be motivating for donors from various backgrounds, but maybe GCR-motivated donors are more likely to think in this kind of reasoning.
• GCR donors haven’t had as high-retention over the first three months of signups, so currently the third month looks like it might look a bit different — funding is primarily flowing out of animal welfare, and going to a mix of global health and GCRs.

The total administrative time for me to operate Equal Hands has been around 45 minutes per month. I think it will remain below 1 hour per month with up to 100 donors, which is somewhat below what I expected when I started this project.

We’d love to see more people join! I think this project works best by having a larger number of donors, especially people interested in giving above the minimum of $25. If you want to learn more or sign up, you can do so here!

Nice! And yeah, I shouldn't have said downstream. I mean something like, (almost) every intervention has wild animal welfare considerations (because many things end up impacting wild animals), so if you buy that wild animal welfare matters, the complexity of solving WAW problems isn't just a problem for WAI — it's a problem for everyone.

I have seen this before, and wondered if it is conflation with Humane Society of the United States (which is often called the Humane Society). Also, many local animal shelters are named "Humane Society". I'd guess this phrase would have very high recognition in the US.

Thanks! That's useful and makes sense! Appreciate the quick response

Minor question - I noticed that the website states for the climate fund that the same donation will help a lot more animals than the impact fund (over 2x as many - and mostly driven by chickens and pigs). I know the numbers are likely low confidence, but just curious how you're thinking about those, as to me it was unintuitive to have one labelled "impact fund" that straightforwardly looks worse on animal impacts than the climate fund (and also worse on the climate side!). I didn't quite understand why this was happening from looking at the calculations page (though from the charities in each, I definitely have the sense that the impact fund is better for animals!)

I voted for Wild Animal Initiative, followed by Shrimp Welfare Project and Arthropoda Foundation (I have COIs with WAI and Arthropoda).

• All three cannot be funded by OpenPhil/GVF currently, despite WAI/SWP being heavily funded previously by them.
• I think that wild animal welfare is the single most important animal welfare issue, and it remains incredibly neglected, with just WAI working on it exclusively.
  • Despite this challenge, WAI seems to have made a ton of progress on building the scientific knowledge needed to actually make progress on these issues.
  • Since founding and leaving WAI, I've just become increasingly optimistic about there being a not-too-long-term pathway to robust interventions to help wild animals, and to wild animal welfare going moderately mainstream within conservation biology/ecology.
• Wild animal welfare is downstream from ~every other cause area. If you think it is a problem, but that we can't do anything about it because the issue is so complicated, then the same is true of the wild animal welfare impacts of basically all other interventions EAs pursue. This seems like a huge issue for knowing the impact of our work. No one is working on this except WAI, and no other issues seem to cut across all causes the way wild animal welfare does.
• SWP seems like they are implementing the most cost-effective animal welfare intervention that is remotely scalable right now.
• In general, I favor funding research, because historically OpenPhil has been far more likely to fund research than other funders, and it is pretty hard for research-focused organizations to compete with intervention-focused organizations in the animal funding scene, despite lots of interventions being downstream from research. Since Arthropoda also does scientific field building / research funding, I added it to my list.

This is starting to feel pretty bad faith, so I'm actually going to stop engaging. 

(Responding because this is inaccurate): My claim in the comment above was that you haven't provided any evidence that:

• 5 / 11 (or more) ACE top charities are not effective
• That animals are suffering as a result of ACE recommendations

Which remains the case — I look forward to you producing it. 

Wait, those are related to each other though - if we haven't seen the full impact of their previous actions, we haven't yet seen their historical cost-effectiveness in full! Also, you cite these as reasons the project should be dismissed in your post - you have a section literally called "Legal Impact for Chickens Did Not Achieve Any Favorable Legal Outcomes, Yet ACE Rated Them a Top Charity" which reads to me that you believe that it is bad they were rated a Top Charity, and make these same arguments (and no others) in the section, suggesting that you think this evidence means they should be dismissed.

This is not what we are trying to do. We simply critiqued the way that ACE calculated historic cost-effectiveness, and how ACE gave Legal Impact for Chickens a relatively high historic cost-effectiveness rating despite have no historic success. 

FWIW this seems great - excited to see more comprehensive evaluations. Yeah, I agree with many of your comments here on the granular level — it seems you found something that is a potential issue for how ACE does (or did) some aspects of their evaluations, and publishing that is great! I think we just disagree on how important it is?

By the way, I'm ending further engagement on this (though feel free to leave a response if useful!) just because I already find the EA Forum distracting from other work, and don't have time this week to think about this more. Appreciate you going through everything with me!