“Matching pledges get no special treatment. Applicants can mention them; you should treat them as ordinary evidence about cost-effectiveness.”
I’m evidently confused about how this works, despite having done SFF with a matching pledge, and unsure what it means for the grants under the new scheme. (I’m certainly in favor of eliminating weird special exceptions in code, but) I thought that the current method just treated the matching as a multiple for whatever cost / effectiveness values were being input; it sounds like you’re putting that multiplication on the evaluators instead? That sounds good, since lots of the matching isn’t really counterfactual.
But for new matching grants, will this mean that Lightcone Commons won’t actually enforce nonprofits showing that they actually received a matching grant? Or just that it won’t be treated as special on the front end? (Either way, it would be very weird to treat, say, cG grants money as matching different money that Dustin gives via Lightcone commons, or allow SFF grant money to match Jaan’s Lightcone money, or vice-versa, which otherwise I suppose it would. Is that part of what you’re trying to prevent / eliminate?)
But for new matching grants, will this mean that Lightcone Commons won’t actually enforce nonprofits showing that they actually received a matching grant?
Honestly, I don’t really expect people to apply for matching grants, since that whole concept feels a bit confusing. But if they do, we can make sure we only give them the money in matching amounts.
“Matching pledges get no special treatment. Applicants can mention them; you should treat them as ordinary evidence about cost-effectiveness.”
I’m evidently confused about how this works, despite having done SFF with a matching pledge, and unsure what it means for the grants under the new scheme. (I’m certainly in favor of eliminating weird special exceptions in code, but) I thought that the current method just treated the matching as a multiple for whatever cost / effectiveness values were being input; it sounds like you’re putting that multiplication on the evaluators instead? That sounds good, since lots of the matching isn’t really counterfactual.
But for new matching grants, will this mean that Lightcone Commons won’t actually enforce nonprofits showing that they actually received a matching grant? Or just that it won’t be treated as special on the front end? (Either way, it would be very weird to treat, say, cG grants money as matching different money that Dustin gives via Lightcone commons, or allow SFF grant money to match Jaan’s Lightcone money, or vice-versa, which otherwise I suppose it would. Is that part of what you’re trying to prevent / eliminate?)
Honestly, I don’t really expect people to apply for matching grants, since that whole concept feels a bit confusing. But if they do, we can make sure we only give them the money in matching amounts.