(Before writing this I thought most people thought the benefits of the additional consideration were relatively low, but it was still worth doing because the downsides were also low?)
Depends on who wins. I know at least one person who won the lottery and then planned to donate to LTFF, which I thought was a total waste and if that was what they were going to do they should have donated to LTFF in the first place. But I think Timothy TL’s uses were plausibly 10x EV what would have happened otherwise, even if one of them ultimately had little impact and the other I don’t know anything about. Admittedly that was back when funding was scarcer and there were no regranting programs, but I don’t think those have 100% covered everyone who could direct medium sized amounts usefully.
I should note I don’t participate in donor lotteries, for reasons not covered here. I definitely don’t think everyone should do them. But I do think there’s a place for them.
Okay, but what’s your estimate for the expected value across potential winners in today’s environment?
If the expected value is high, then I think it’s a big loss that almost all of these people who could be improving funding allocation will instead lose the lottery.
which I thought was a total waste and if that was what they were going to do they should have donated to LTFF in the first place
I don’t understand what was wasted. Do you estimate the costs of running the lottery to be significant?
I don’t think there are any extra financial transactions, if you would donate from the same platform in both the lottery and non-lottery cases. (In both cases you donate to EA funds / GWWC, and they then donate it to the org, so 2 transactions)
Over on FB I asked Jeff to quantify his estimates and he very kindly said
so I think the arguments about legibility and influencing others are kind of a red herring, Jeff just doesn’t think donor lotteries create much value.
How big do you think the effects are?
(Before writing this I thought most people thought the benefits of the additional consideration were relatively low, but it was still worth doing because the downsides were also low?)
Depends on who wins. I know at least one person who won the lottery and then planned to donate to LTFF, which I thought was a total waste and if that was what they were going to do they should have donated to LTFF in the first place. But I think Timothy TL’s uses were plausibly 10x EV what would have happened otherwise, even if one of them ultimately had little impact and the other I don’t know anything about. Admittedly that was back when funding was scarcer and there were no regranting programs, but I don’t think those have 100% covered everyone who could direct medium sized amounts usefully.
I should note I don’t participate in donor lotteries, for reasons not covered here. I definitely don’t think everyone should do them. But I do think there’s a place for them.
Okay, but what’s your estimate for the expected value across potential winners in today’s environment?
If the expected value is high, then I think it’s a big loss that almost all of these people who could be improving funding allocation will instead lose the lottery.
I don’t understand what was wasted. Do you estimate the costs of running the lottery to be significant?
I don’t think there are any extra financial transactions, if you would donate from the same platform in both the lottery and non-lottery cases. (In both cases you donate to EA funds / GWWC, and they then donate it to the org, so 2 transactions)