Adam Gleave money moved

This is an online portal with information on donations that were announced publicly (or have been shared with permission) that were of interest to Vipul Naik. The git repository with the code for this portal, as well as all the underlying data, is available on GitHub. All payment amounts are in current United States dollars (USD). The repository of donations is being seeded with an initial collation by Issa Rice as well as continued contributions from him (see his commits and the contract work page listing all financially compensated contributions to the site) but all responsibility for errors and inaccuracies belongs to Vipul Naik. Current data is preliminary and has not been completely vetted and normalized; if sharing a link to this site or any page on this site, please include the caveat that the data is preliminary (if you want to share without including caveats, please check with Vipul Naik). We expect to have completed the first round of development by the end of December 2019. See the about page for more details. Also of interest: pageview data on analytics.vipulnaik.com, tutorial in README, request for feedback to EA Forum.

Table of contents

This entity is also a donor.

Full list of documents in reverse chronological order (1 documents)

Title (URL linked)Publication dateAuthorPublisherAffected donorsAffected doneesDocument scopeNotes
2017 Donor Lottery Report2018-11-12Adam Gleave Effective Altruism ForumDonor lottery Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters Global Catastrophic Risk Institute AI Impacts Wild-Animal Suffering Research Single donation documentationA write-up that documents Adam Gleave’s decision process for where he donated the money for the 2017 donor lottery. (Adam won one of the two blocks of $100,000 for 2017.)

Full list of donations in reverse chronological order (4 donations)

DonorDoneeAmount (current USD)Donation dateCause areaURLNotes
Donor lotteryAlliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters70,000.002018-11-12--https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/SYeJnv9vYzq9oQMbQ/2017-donor-lottery-report The blog post explaining the donation contains an extensive discussion of the Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED), and also includes a response statement from ALLFED founder David Denkerberger. Gleave writes in the post: "I am somewhat more excited about ALLFED than GCRI since their research agenda seems more directly impactful and there is a clearer pathway for growth. However, I see more downside risks to ALLFED, and in particular would expect GCRI to be in a better position to work productively with governments. ALLFED has a large team of volunteers, which increases reputational risks. I view support for ALLFED at this stage as mostly a test of the tractability of R&D in this area, and to enable them to continue to build relevant collaborations." Earlier in the post, he writes: "If I had an additional $100k to donate, I would first check AI Impacts current recruitment situation; if there are promising hires that are bottlenecked on funding, I would likely allocate it there. Otherwise, I would split it equally between ALLFED and GCRI. In particular, I recommend a proportionally greater allocation to GCRI than I made. My donation to ALLFED increased their 2018 revenue by 50%: although they have capacity to utilize additional funds, I expect there to be some diminishing returns.". Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 70.00%.
Donor lotteryGlobal Catastrophic Risk Institute20,000.002018-11-12--https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/SYeJnv9vYzq9oQMbQ/2017-donor-lottery-report The blog post explaining the donation contains an extensive discussion of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (GCRI). Highlight: "Overall I am moderately excited about supporting the work of GCRI and in particular Seth Baum. I am pessimistic about room for growth, with recruitment being a major challenge, similar to that faced by AI Impacts. [...] At their current budget level, additional funding is a factor for whether Seth continues to work at GCRI full-time. Accordingly I would recommend donations sufficient to ensure Seth can continue his work. I would encourage donors to consider funding GCRI to scale beyond this, but to first obtain more information regarding their long-term plans and recruitment strategy." Earlier in the post: "If I had an additional $100k to donate, I would first check AI Impacts current recruitment situation; if there are promising hires that are bottlenecked on funding, I would likely allocate it there. Otherwise, I would split it equally between ALLFED and GCRI.". Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 20.00%.
Donor lotteryAI Impacts5,000.002018-11-12--https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/SYeJnv9vYzq9oQMbQ/2017-donor-lottery-report The blog post explaining the donation contains extensive discussion of AI Impacts. Highlight: "I have found Katja's output in the past to be insightful, so I am excited at ensuring she remains funded. Tegan has less of a track record but based on the output so far I believe she is also worth funding. However, I believe AI Impacts has adequate funding for both of their current employees. Additional contributions would therefore do a combination of increasing their runway and supporting new hires. I am pessimistic about AI Impacts room for growth. This is primarily as I view recruitment in this area being difficult. The ideal candidate would be a cross between an OpenPhil research analyst and a technical AI or strategy researcher. This is a rare skill set with high opportunity cost. Moreover, AI Impacts has had issues with employee retention, with many individuals that have previously worked leaving for other organisations." In terms of the prioritization relative to other grantees: "I ranked GCRI above AI Impacts as AI Impacts core staff are adequately funded, and I am sceptical of their ability to recruit additional qualified staff members. I would favour AI Impacts over GCRI if they had qualified candidates they wanted to hire but were bottlenecked on funding. However, my hunch is that in such a situation they would be able to readily raise funding, although it may be that having an adequate funding reserve would substantially simplify recruitment. [...] If I had an additional $100k to donate, I would first check AI Impacts current recruitment situation; if there are promising hires that are bottlenecked on funding, I would likely allocate it there.". Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 5.00%.
Donor lotteryWild-Animal Suffering Research5,000.002018-11-12--https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/SYeJnv9vYzq9oQMbQ/2017-donor-lottery-report The blog post explaining the donation has some discussion of the grantee. Highlight: "Overall I think WASR is a well-run organisation with a clear strategy and a short but encouraging track record. I would encourage those with a near-term animal welfare centric worldview to support them. Under my own worldview, I did not find them competitive with the other organisations, and so recommended a small grant of $5,000.". Percentage of total donor spend in the corresponding batch of donations: 5.00%.

Donation amounts by donee and year

Donee Donors influenced Cause area Metadata Total 2018
Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters Donor lottery (filter this donor) 70,000.00 70,000.00
Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Donor lottery (filter this donor) Global catastrophic risks FB Tw Site 20,000.00 20,000.00
AI Impacts Donor lottery (filter this donor) AI safety Site 5,000.00 5,000.00
Wild-Animal Suffering Research Donor lottery (filter this donor) 5,000.00 5,000.00
Total ---- -- 100,000.00 100,000.00

Skipping spending graph as there is fewer than one year’s worth of donations.

Donation amounts by donor and year for influencer Adam Gleave

Donor Donees Total 2018
Donor lottery (filter this donee) AI Impacts (filter this donee), Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (filter this donee), Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (filter this donee), Wild-Animal Suffering Research (filter this donee) 100,000.00 100,000.00
Total -- 100,000.00 100,000.00

Skipping spending graph as there is fewer than one year’s worth of donations.