Yes, absolutely. All in with portfolio theory for all aplications!

This is only necessary for funds obtained by compulsion or for large indivisible expenditures that need coordination.

For voluntary contributions, direct allocation of individual funds work as a (probably optimal!) moral parliament, doesn’t it?

You can pay people on ideology and community prestige, the sweetest currency. That is precisely what EA can issue, and for the most valuable professionals in our time.  

First of all, thank you for the work. I hope a peer reviewed version will be available. I find nuclear war modelling a most neglected research field. I have 3 comments:

1. We really need to understand how likely are different nuclear war scenarios. After some review, I have found this reference, as a relatively comprehensive primer, but for the US I am sure there is a lot of information available and discussion on nuclear war scenarios. 
2. What about the Electromagnetic Pulse? For all scenarios different from the full Russia - NATO exchange, it looks an important non-blast effect. Some people says that the electric grid is lost for months! Do we lose also chips, and everything depending on them?
3. What about radioactive elements in the food chain? I remember much discussion in the 80s, including Sajarov estimates on cancer increases, but now it is not considered.

I really think thay comprehensive nuclear war modelling is a something we shall spend between hundreds of millions and billions, but the field is almost a desert. Nuclear winter is almost the only issue extensively commented. I would be very happy to help with any development, but I really don't know who is working on this.

In terms of extinction I will not challenge your estimates, but in terms of "going back to the Middle Age with not clear road to recovery", in my view nuclear war is massively above the rest. I wrote this two pieces that also explore how "AI" is perhaps the only strategy two avoid nuclear war (one and two).

Absolutely. In my view, support for consociational democracy and institutional innovation is a more general cause, where activism can be effective. Participation in primaries, support for moderates, rank voting, welfare reform (vg. Unemployment benefits contingent on macroeconomic conditions).

PR parliamentarianism at a national level is distant goal in the context of a more comprehensive activism.

My favorite lesson here for EA is “don’t sell critical assets”.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/z8H7q3fgY4gCqnpTJ/jeff-bezos-wealth

I think that "low tech" solutions for very poor countries is probably the most neglected area of funding in the world. There have been an "african makers" movement, and the open source ecology project, that suggest the possibility of better low tech for the poorest.

Unfortunately I am not an engineer, so perhaps there is not neglect. But millions of african and probably even latin american farmers are still working almost in neolithical conditions.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4viLtxnwzMawqdPum/time-consistency-for-the-ea-community-projects-that-bridge

Also in Progress Forum: https://progressforum.org/posts/oH4pZ2j5BtmsucjWS/chomsky-vs-pax-democratica

Insect welfare (unlike woke identitarian proliferation) is not a priori wrong. Consciouness is noumenal and consenquently you cannot rule it out from insects. But it looks obvious that conscienciousness is related to nervous system complexity, which depends on brain size. 

And complexity grows far more than linearly with "interactions" among parts of a system. I would say that my iphone is as likely to be consciouss as a fly. A fruit fly has 150,000 neurons, a human  16,340,000,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons

"Secondly, the argument for arthropod welfare is essentially exactly the same as your classic antispeciesist arguments"

That are right,  but exagerated. I mean:

Fruit fly:             150,000

Dog:           885,460,000

Human: 16,340,000,000

Torturing animals that have a neuron count around 2-3% of yours is something to be concerned about. But the ratio Human-fruit fly is 0.0009%. And mathematical theories of consciousness suggest strong supperaditivity of conscience, so the ratios probably understate the moral weight difference.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FjiND3qJCvC6CtmxG/super-additivity-of-consciousness