In philanthropic funding, particularly within the Effective Altruism (EA) community, a lack of transparency around funding criteria creates inefficiencies. Applicants often misunderstand what funders value, leading to wasted effort, generic proposals, and promising projects being abandoned due to perceived misalignment. Unlike the competitive secrecy of venture capital, philanthropy's focus on impact suggests transparency should be the default, unless there are specific risks like infohazards.

Transparency Framework and Advocacy

One way to address this gap is by introducing a standardized transparency framework for funders. This could include:

• Explicit funding thresholds (e.g., minimum expected impact).
• Priority areas with reasoning.
• Common rejection reasons (e.g., "We rarely fund projects without a pilot study").
• Anonymized examples of successful/rejected applications.

Alongside this, an advocacy campaign could encourage funders to adopt the framework through public pledges and case studies demonstrating how transparency improves proposal quality and reduces wasted effort. Hosting this on a central platform, like an EA Forum wiki, could make it widely accessible.

Stakeholder Incentives and Scaling

Funders might initially resist due to perceived administrative burdens or fears of applicants "gaming" the system. However, transparency could reduce low-quality applications—saving review time—and enhance their reputations as open communicators. Applicants, in turn, could push for broader adoption once they see the benefits of clearer guidelines. Execution might start with a minimal viable product (MVP), such as drafting the framework with input from progressive funders, piloting it with a few, and refining based on feedback. Scaling could involve pledges and a centralized repository for published criteria.

Comparisons and Unique Advantages

Existing efforts like EA Funds’ grantmaking criteria lack granularity, while models like Y Combinator’s startup advice focus on for-profit contexts. This idea adapts best practices for philanthropy, emphasizing simplicity and behavioral change. Early adopters could set norms, creating network effects as more funders join and applicants reference a single resource. Potential challenges, like maintaining updated disclosures, could be addressed by designing lightweight processes (e.g., annual reviews). Funding might come from meta-EA grants or platform sponsorships, rather than direct monetization.

By focusing on proactive transparency rather than post-hoc reviews, this approach could align funders and doers more effectively, improving the EA ecosystem’s overall impact.