Retroactive funding impact quantification and maximization
| Owners | ||
|---|---|---|
| Reserved | 0 | – |
The article: “Retroactive funding impact quantification and maximization”
Fundamental Justification
What outcomes were to be expected before you started the project? What were unusually good and unusually bad possible outcomes? (Please avoid hindsight bias and take the interests of all sentient beings into account.)
I expected to increase the popularity of retroactive funding, while motivating more people to submit certificates. An unusually good outcome would be that many people interested in maximizing impact invest in impact certificates, while they also motivate others to invest in effective impact. An unusually bad outcome would be that my writing discourages people, especially forecasters in EA, from investing.
What actual outcomes are you aware of?
The post has very low upvotes and comments are only from the retroactive funding team, which indicates that it did not motivate or demotivate many people.
Who can make a legitimate claim to a fraction of the impact, and have you talked to them?
The FTX Future Fund can actually claim a share of this impact, since I thought that the question is relevant to them. If I thought that I am speaking with someone else, I would probably respond differently or refrain from responding. About 0.5% can be attributed but this has not been discussed.
Who are the current owners of the impact and what fraction do they each own?
Myself, 100%.
Procedural Questions
What is your minimum valuation under which you’ll not sell any shares in your impact?
10% for 100$, additional 10% for $200, additional 10% for $1,000, then every 1% for $1,000 up to 49%
What would you have done had there been no chance to get retro funding? (This helps us assess our impact but has no effect on our evaluation of the certificate’s impact.)
It is possible (10%) that I would have written the post if I saw the question, all else equal, but it is likely (50%) that I would not see the question.