Great post, thanks for writing it (and appreciate the shout outs for Ultra/our Mid-stage Global Health Fund).

One way to frame this is as an opportunity for all non-cG GiveWell donors to give to these other parts of the scaffolding this year. Given that cG's grant covers the majority or all of GiveWell's expected grantmaking in 2026, this frees up other donors to redirect funding, and then they can always return to the bigger GiveWell next year if it needs more regranting funds.

Worth noting that cG has increased its $175m to GiveWell to $1 billion, since this was written. https://open.substack.com/pub/fundinganthropalypse/p/coefficient-giving-just-gave-givewell?utm_source=share&utm_medium=eaforum&r=4b7xoz

I think Joey is working on this at Elevate Philanthropy.

Thanks for writing this - extremely interesting.

Disclosure: I recently advised a client to fund a small grant to Dimagi, to do emergency cholera response in Nigeria.

Overall, this is a plausible way to activate a lot of small actors, while overcoming some of the difficulties of vetting very large numbers of small grants, or requiring overly burdensome due diligence from small actors.

I would also note that many of these interventions are externally validated, e.g. vitamin A, treating childhood malnutrition, kangaroo mother care. They are funded by organisations EAs have learnt to trust, like GiveWell (which specifically funds all three of these).

It is also often true that verification is a critical factor in delivering services or commodities, and that digital platforms like Connect can ensure more cost-effective delivery.

I would be interested to see actual cost-effectiveness figures for your table, rather than just rate per unit, if that is available? E.g. a cost per DALY averted estimate?

I agree that there is certainly gatekeeping happening around AI donors and that this relates to issues around power concentration (related post coming later today on my Substack).

This post wasn't particularly intended to address either problem.

One related issue is that most people on this forum probably do want some gatekeeping - that is, they wouldn't want Bridgespan or Blue Meridian to have unfettered access to AI donors, because they don't focus on cost-effectiveness enough.

If that's true, it becomes an argument about where to draw the line, and most parties want the line to extend to exactly where they are but no further 😂

Hey Siobhan - thanks for this. These are definitely concerns I take seriously. You are right that my approach doesn't solve the 'access' problem for lots of fundraisers, by implicitly gatekeeping access - that is a real issue, just not one I was trying to address here. I also recognise that "intermediary says using intermediaries is best strategy" is at best convenient.

However, I think you understate some of the things that undermine your position. Things like:

1. Donors are annoyed by this. You can see a public expression of this here (https://fundinganthropalypse.com/p/how-not-to-fundraise-from-anthropic/comment/296180159?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4b7xoz), but also talk to anyone who interacts with these donors regularly and you will hear the same. It's also intuitive that this sort of outreach would be annoying.
2. You said donors are receptive to "thoughtful, targeted" outreach. This is a very generous description of cold emailing, or indeed any sort of unsolicited pitching anyone you have never met or talked to.
3. I think you understate the wider harms of this sort of approach.

I do take these concerns seriously and I am glad you raised them, but I don't agree with your conclusions. This type of outreach very likely won't work and is therefore net negative, in my view.

Congratulations on your many amazing achievements at GWWC Luke. You'll be sorely missed but I'm also really excited for your next steps. I also know the team at GWWC will handle the transition with their usual professionalism.

This is an absolutely staggering challenge - anyone who has ever run even a half marathon will know how long that feels, and this is tens of them back to back!

I also know as a former colleague how much effort Emma puts into training, getting up at 5am every day so she can be at her desk ready to go for 9am.

This may not be the type of fundraising EA usually does but a pledge of even $1 per mile could help to crowd in new donors who wouldn't give on a recurring basis to New Incentives. I really encourage promoting this campaign as HIA trials campaign fundraising through sport as a way to widen the base of effective donors.

Thank you!

Thanks mate, this is really lovely to read. Will you be at EAG London?