The legibility trap: how "fund the most rigorous thinkers" can quietly select for the wrong people

This EA Forum post scores 89/100 on composite fit because it demonstrates thesis alignment with civic infrastructure (1.0 thesis_fit) through a rigorous critique of philanthropic capital allocation backed by ten years deploying $700M at Google.org, founder credentialing (1.0) via Harvard degrees and senior tech-operator experience, and strong peer signal (0.7) from direct Open Philanthropy collaboration on $130M+ criminal justice work. The author proposes measurable reforms treating proximity as an expected-value input, funding RCTs of participatory grantmaking, defining "bridgers" via four operational traits that map to Funder's interest in systems that surface overlooked high-proximity organizations, though raise stage drops to 0.5 because this is a published argument rather than an active fundraising entity.

• Ranked · score 89

  Forward the post to Andrew Dunckelman at Gates Foundation (LinkedIn contact already public in the piece) with a two-line note asking if he knows whether the author is building an allocator or intermediary around the bridger framework, since that operational structure would be the fundable artifact if it exists.

  2026-05-23 09:01 · projects
• Project ingested

  Source: custom-ea-forum-rss · posted 2026-05-23

  2026-05-23 08:00 · projects