They probably updated the information. I ran the original analysis in early December but delayed publishing due to a request from EA funds as they wanted to update the database.
Agreed that knowing when the last update was made helps to understand what is being reflected on the websites.
@emre that's a good point but I think there is a couple things to unpack here:
1- In this particular section I am referring to the "grants" that EA Funds gives to beneficiaries and not "donations" they receive, which is what the graph you shared is referring to. If you look at the first graph, besides the drop in 2023 (data incomplete when I ran the analysis) the grants they gave followed an upward trajectory.This may be a language/semantic issue from my end as I use these interchangeably, but I'll look over the text and try to make sure this is clear.
2- The graph you shared, I am assuming it corresponds only to individual donors donating to EA funds. This is one of my suggestions for EA funds, that they could be more explicit about this on the website so the information is easier to interpret. Either way, individual donations has clearly gone down, however overly grant giving has gone up. The two most obvious explanations for this are (1) they had built up a larger cash position that is being drawn down now and (2) they are receiving or have received more institutional funding that isn't represented in that graph.
I'm curious on the last point about "investor toolbox" & governance more generally. I don't know how much research has gone into startup governance more broadly and if it has been done, I 'm assuming most of it has been done in terms of advancing business vs ensuring an alignment to a specific mission / value. OpenAi's recent board events make me doubt the long-term effectiveness of structure like Ethics Boards.
In the VC industry more generally, the "wild west" phenomena is true but from personal experience, the weirder a shareholder agreement gets, the easier it is to scare of future investors. I think this highlights a critical point in the VC model: You would need investors that are aligned with this governance structure throughout the company's entire fundraising journey.
This article brought some very interesting points that weren't so clear in 2018 but a lot of development has been made into ESG / SRI standards (although I feel its generally quite opaque and hard to track claims and reporting).
That being said, I believe it would be interesting to do a similar in depth analysis for private entities vs public markets. Despite the value of public stock markets, a lot of business still gets done in private markets (ex: roughly 50% of European GDP comes from SMEs). I believe the most relevant form of impact investment is in non-public entities now a days.
Thank you very much.
They probably updated the information. I ran the original analysis in early December but delayed publishing due to a request from EA funds as they wanted to update the database.
Agreed that knowing when the last update was made helps to understand what is being reflected on the websites.
@emre that's a good point but I think there is a couple things to unpack here:
1- In this particular section I am referring to the "grants" that EA Funds gives to beneficiaries and not "donations" they receive, which is what the graph you shared is referring to. If you look at the first graph, besides the drop in 2023 (data incomplete when I ran the analysis) the grants they gave followed an upward trajectory.This may be a language/semantic issue from my end as I use these interchangeably, but I'll look over the text and try to make sure this is clear.
2- The graph you shared, I am assuming it corresponds only to individual donors donating to EA funds. This is one of my suggestions for EA funds, that they could be more explicit about this on the website so the information is easier to interpret. Either way, individual donations has clearly gone down, however overly grant giving has gone up. The two most obvious explanations for this are (1) they had built up a larger cash position that is being drawn down now and (2) they are receiving or have received more institutional funding that isn't represented in that graph.
Very interesting investment thesis.
I'm curious on the last point about "investor toolbox" & governance more generally. I don't know how much research has gone into startup governance more broadly and if it has been done, I 'm assuming most of it has been done in terms of advancing business vs ensuring an alignment to a specific mission / value. OpenAi's recent board events make me doubt the long-term effectiveness of structure like Ethics Boards.
In the VC industry more generally, the "wild west" phenomena is true but from personal experience, the weirder a shareholder agreement gets, the easier it is to scare of future investors. I think this highlights a critical point in the VC model: You would need investors that are aligned with this governance structure throughout the company's entire fundraising journey.
Hey, just skimmed the post but I feel the basic premise looks a lot like the work the Purpose Foundation is pushing for steward-ownership.
This article brought some very interesting points that weren't so clear in 2018 but a lot of development has been made into ESG / SRI standards (although I feel its generally quite opaque and hard to track claims and reporting).
That being said, I believe it would be interesting to do a similar in depth analysis for private entities vs public markets. Despite the value of public stock markets, a lot of business still gets done in private markets (ex: roughly 50% of European GDP comes from SMEs). I believe the most relevant form of impact investment is in non-public entities now a days.