I think you're probably right. The possibility of the funder being their own matcher-of-last-resort probably destroys the scheme. I hadn't thought about this before, thanks for pointing it out.

One potential way to fix this would be to require the identification of donors, so that you cannot fund anonymously. But this would make the proposal a bit more complicated.

I'd say that using donation matching without making it counterfactual is much more manipulative, because without establishing causality, you'd essentially be deceiving potential 'matchers'. My proposal precisely aims to remove this deceptive potential.

It's possible that this kind of donation matching essentially shifts power to large funders. I think this could be mitigated by having a long whitelist of effective charities (rather than one specific charity chosen by the funder), which gives matchers more leeway.

Just to clarify, is the 8-week period for all participants? And if so, will you still accept some applications after the date has be decided?

I might apply but I could only participate if the program was organized in July-August. But given that it could occur any time between February and August, I probably won't apply since it's only like 1/7th chance it will start in July.

For people considering a policy Master's degree in Europe, here's a list of Masters Programs in Tech Policy, Public Policy and Security (Europe) that could be useful.

As the program is about forecasting, what is your stance on the broader field of foresight & futures studies? Why is forecasting more promising than some other approaches to foresight?

Is this/other episodes available on Spotify or other podcast platforms? I couldn't find it with a quick search

Thanks for the response! It's great to see that animals are mentioned in many other pages on the website. I understand the difficulty of tradeoffs between succintness and precision.

I'm not sure if I follow. I guess strict veganism would be a more effective signal then, since it would be more costly? But I see even less people in the EA/rationalist circles being vegan rather than vegetarian.

I agree that it makes sense, although using the term "people" and mentioning that it means also non-human animals in a footnote seems a bit dishonest to me. I'm uncertain about the tradeoffs between telling the truth and trying to maximize impact here.

That's helpful to know, thanks! I still think the word "people" is quite misleading in the sense that people rarely associate it with nonhuman animals. I also think there might be an additional reason for not mentioning animals, which is to avoid alienating people who don't care about animals but who are interested in longtermist causes.