Happy (belated) birthday, and thanks for all the important work you've done! 

On 7 & 8, it seems to me that:

1. "denser cages, crueler genetics, and drugs to keep them alive in squalor." all lead to worse conditions because they make production cheaper, not because anyone wanted animals to actually suffer
2. Cultivating meat in a petri dish (or whatever way is most efficient) will be thermodynamically more efficient than having to grow an entire living animal
3. Very few people actually want someone to suffer for their food; it's just an "unfortunate byproduct" of production
4. Producers of cultivated meat will be able to offer meat at lower prices than others
5. ~As soon as cultivated meat becomes cheaper (and certified absolutely safe for human consumption), I really don't see why consumers would prefer to pay extra for suffering.

I'm not sure if you disagree with any of these takes, but you seem to come to a different conclusion.

In my opinion, there might be some inertia, but I personally feel hopeful about market forces winning out here

Great news, congrats!

Agreed! The series has been valuable for my personal thinking around this (I quoted the post I linked above as late as yesterday.) Imo, more people should be paying attention to this.

Toby wrote this post, which touches on many of the questions you asked. I think it's been significantly under-hyped!

Ah, sorry that makes a lot more sense haha! 

All decisions are made by funders individually, so I can't speak for everyone, but overall I don't think it has influenced people much so far. 

Of course, if we thought applicants had bad reasons for wanting to remain anonymous then that would be a red flag. 

Applicants' wishes are usually aligned with our assessments, so far we haven't deviated from the wishes of the applicants we ultimately choose to fund. 

Unfortunately, we can’t share much. In some cases, applicants have a preference for anonymity, for one reason or another and we have to respect their wishes to maintain trust and integrity in our application process.

This understanding is correct. All funding decisions are made by individual members and decisions don't necessarily reflect the aggregate view of the circle. 

To add on this, I'm confused by your choice to grow these teams quite abruptly as opposed to incrementally. What's your underlying reasoning?

This article is primarily aimed at donors, not grantees.

FWIW, I also think it's valuable information for grantmakers who want to understand the types of applications others are excited about funding.

Thank you for the write-up!