I like your point

“Even when funding is abundant, poorly designed systems can still produce scarcity.”

This is a real concern, even more if EA funding grows faster than the infrastructure to spend the money wisely.

But.

I think you used too much chatGPT to the point where it's not an editorial tool and it compromised the intelligibility of the post.

Afaiu, you have 2 main points in your post:

• Kidney deaths as a case study on how money is not the only bottleneck.
• CTA: please support our petition.

Both reasonable and interesting. But hard to parse from the AI aesthetic fillers.

And also, the Manifund post explicitly asks for how to / what systems we need to navigate having more money. I think you are preaching to the choir when you say that systems can be more important than sheer amounts of money.

I have mixed feelings on this post:

On the one hand, the case for compensating donors is compelling and seems well supported.

However, the AI style of the prose makes the arguments sound weaker, because we are developing antibodies to this kind of text after having been exposed to AI slop in other parts.

Also, I think "effective altruism is preparing for a world with far more money" is a non sequitur. There are problems in the world that we know how to solve with money, that doesn't mean the prevalent opinion is that money is the only constraint. People talk frequently about talent and coordination as bottlenecks.

Hi, welcome to the EA Forum.

There are some very interesting takes about marketing in EA here:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/marketing?sortedBy=new

My input is:

In general, there is no EA canon guidelines telling you what you should do, there is lots of debate and different points of view.

I'm telling you this because when I first found EA I had very complicated questions and was hoping to EA to provide simple answers for them, not sure if you resonate with this but sharing it for if it applies to you.

I would say I have a tendency to go with the crowd, yes, so voting in the same direction that is already there.

Which is the contrary as minding the current voting status as you suggest.

I think this (the first one) is a failure mode.

I would say doing the opposite would be a problem, like upvoting something partly because it has positive karma so "this must be valuable".

I'm not actively doing this nor endorsing it, I just caught myself having this reflex.

Just noticed that I tend to up/downvote and agree/disagree vote more or less depending on what the current vote count is at.

Standard herding bias at work.

Hoping that saying it out loud will make it weaker, and maybe other people can relate.

What I don't like about this is that the mecanism would be unintuitive for many people. Also the vibes are off.

Mutual funds underperform in an environment where arbitrage exists and prices are at least close to efficient.

Indices don't select the "best performing" companies, they usually select the "biggest" companies. Here the analogy to the charity world breaks.

I agree that we don't need to (and usually don't) play those zero-sum games. The problem is that those zero-sum games are the mechanism for price discovery, and we don't have market price signals in the charity world.

I agree with your point about diversification reducing risk. This is true for empirical uncertainty and for value uncertainty sometimes. If you have a convex utility function, reducing risk has positive expected value, if not, then no.

This reminds me of Simplex Architecture, which seems well established in the literature. 

And projecting onto a convex body is alright I guess but doesn't need to be the best depending on the application.