Episode Details

Back to Episodes

“Two Coefficient Givings beat one twice as big” by Jack Lewars

Published 2 weeks, 4 days ago

Description

Why the AI windfall should build new grantmakers, not just bigger ones

Originally published at my Funding Anthropalypse Substack.

Imagine you could live in one of two worlds in 2027.

In the first, Coefficient Giving is twice as big.

In the second, there are two Coefficient Givings of the same size.

Which seems better to you?

Having considered it for a while, I would choose the second world. Put plainly, two Coefficient Givings beat one twice as big. I think the potential $37bn+ AI windfall is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to achieve this, with significant long-term benefits.

Is effective giving too concentrated?

In my view, yes.

Coefficient Giving (and to a great extent GiveWell) have enormous influence and power within the ecosystem, by virtue of their size and track records. Coefficient Giving is also the predominant or only funder in some of its domains, such as funding the effective giving ecosystem and farm animal welfare.

The situation seems analogous to a monopsony in economics:

monopsony, in economic theory, is a market situation in which there is only one buyer... Although cases of pure monopsony are rare, monopsonistic elements are found wherever there are many sellers and few purchasers. (Encyclopedia [...]

---

Outline:

(00:11) Why the AI windfall should build new grantmakers, not just bigger ones

(01:03) Is effective giving too concentrated?

(04:01) What's wrong with one dominant funder?

(07:45) Can GiveWell and Coefficient Giving absorb the windfall?

(10:49) Could doubling Coefficient Giving be better?

(14:17) How has this played out before in global health?

(15:27) Where can the next Coefficient Giving come from?

(18:22) What should I do with my AI windfall?

---

First published:
July 22nd, 2026