Great counterargument. Your skepticism regarding the actual funds is understandable. It does seem unlikely for the wealthy to suddenly drop billions into philanthropic work unless deeper reasons have compelled them. (I'm sure they have their own reasons for doing so, whether if it's related to self-interest, pure altruism, or another variable.)

Secondly, it is indeed hard to start an organization, but not impossible. Things remain feasible. 

The problem isn't in starting a large group, but in a person's own drive. What actual problems affect the masses at scale, and which of those problems are you truly passionate about? 

I believe that no matter the obstacle, if your intrinsic motivation about the cause runs deep, then you'll eventually find a way to make things work. 

In that lens, the funds just become fuel to your already burning desire to solve a huge crisis, one that many are not actively taking the initiative to mitigate. 

Those handing out the funds can sense that: whether a person truly cares about a cause and intends to see things through to the end, or whether they just want to do a side-project to pass time. Due to the filtering process, many do not get their hands on these funds (and for good reasons too), which perpetuates the bias that funds are unavailable.

Those in management are careful and quick with their decision, so half-prepared ideas get dismissed relatively fast for the few yet prominent causes (which is where most of the funds go).

Thanks for this post. I'm sure others found it useful. Will come back to break down and analyze it at a later date.