Effective Ventures, who manage EA Funds, has paused transfers of funding to grantees.
Will this funding resume in full, to successful Grantees by January 30, 2023.
I will resolve positive if I get a strong impression that transfers have returned to normal.
If a reliable and successful EA-Funds grantee (who was accepted before 2023), reports not to have recieved funding, without receiving a formal notice that they will now not be provided funding - I will resolve this negative.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ125 | |
| 2 | Ṁ62 | |
| 3 | Ṁ41 | |
| 4 | Ṁ38 | |
| 5 | Ṁ30 |
I've put out a call for comments:
"Call for comments: Hello aspiring altruists, I am trying to resolve this market: "Will EA Funds Resume Funding By January 31st" . I am currently on track to resolve positive by the end of the month, if you have any comments (i.e. you were promised funding, but haven't received it) - please share, either here, by pming me, or in the market."
I am somewhat confused by the resolution criteria here, but I commented the following on the forum recently.
For context I run EA Funds, which includes the EAIF (though the EAIF is chaired by Max Daniel not me). We are still paying out grants to our grantees — though we have been slower than usual (particularly for large grants). We are also still evaluating applications and giving decisions to applicants (though this is also slower than usual).
We have communicated this to the majority of our grantees, but if you or anyone else reading this urgently needs a funding decision ...
I think the resolution criteria of using a reliable grantee might not work super well as the funding bar has increased in the past month, and they may no longer be above the bar (despite the fund being operational). That said, maybe that would count as not returning to normal by your lights.
@CalebParikh I assume upon further discussion, we could come to agreement regarding resolution criteria, in my head it works out like this:
If someone was accepted before FTX crash, and has not received formal rejection, and have not been funded yet, effectively funding is partially paused.
If more people are being rejected now, but those who are being accepted are receiving funding, albeit it slower than usual, I resolve positive.
Essentially we are controlling for "Bar" and "speed", to measure "blockages"
@maskedtorah Most likely I would resolve negative, here's my thinking:
If I have a good reason to think that they have effectively rejected everyone, and paused funding, I will resume negative - If they have raised the bar, rejected all old grantees but are funding new grantees with higher EV, I would resume positive
Hope that makes sense
