Really appreciate this post, Jack. We have the three policies you mention, but I'm now thinking through what a major gifts policy might look like and whether it would be additive. 

My intuition is that the EA community is a little too confident in its own antibodies, which makes me nervous. 'High trust' etc might be true, but doesn't preclude all of the other common sense lines of defense being put in place. 

From a different lens, given its history of shady dealings and corrupt members, the IOC is now exceedingly cautious around conflicts of interest, both perceived and actual, almost to the point of comedy. But this is necessary if it wants to restore a good public reputation. Post-FTX, I believe the EA community is still in a situation where extra caution is necessary, and I also believe that reputation matters deeply if we want effective giving to become more popular in general. 

On point 2, I think this extrapolates to the whole community and its adjacents, which is why I think this decision is bonkers and potentially extremely harmful for the EA/effective giving space. 

I see an opinion on these forums that seems something like, 'We shouldn't care what people think of us.' I heartily disagree. Reputation does a huge amount of work in relationship building and trust. Reputational damage has real consequences (SBF etc etc). 

This sort of decision makes speaking to people about the value of EA ideas much more difficult. We can't keep shooting ourselves in the foot like this.

I'm sorry you went through this, and thank you for speaking up about it. I hope the bravery of speaking out results in meaningful change, not just at CEA but across the wider culture. 

I love this Rebecca! 

The only thing I'd want to see changed is to add a pledge % cell into the FI table at the top, so you can play around with the percentage right from the start.

I'm assuming people visiting the calculator will have at least some idea of what they're about to look at.

Thank you for writing this! I strongly agree that we should broaden the tent. 

EA's biggest weakness in my opinion is that almost nobody knows what it is. I've spoken to many hundreds of athletes about EA in the last 2 years and only a handful had any idea what it was (hadn't heard the term) before I explained it. These are people with large audiences and cultural clout, who could be outsized levers in bringing the ideas to hundreds of millions.

However, EA as it presents itself right now seems quite exclusive. I don't believe that broadening the tent would lessen the direction or determination of those who are "pure" EA, but would gather a much more powerful groundswell around it. 

YES. 

I love this post. I think EA has a weakness when it comes to storytelling and grabbing hearts. We're great at appealing to the cerebral folk with careful reasoning and logic, but they're a small minority. If we want EA ideas to percolate deeply we need to be outcompeting the other heart-grabbers, which means appealing to emotion and layering the logic on top. IMHO.

Totally. I'm being very tongue in cheek above. 
The gist of the headline and the post is that community members can contribute to a potentially highly impactful project with a very trivial amount of time and energy spend.
I very much agree that good intros take time.

Did you try?
I just tried it myself: followed three accounts in 17 seconds (having lost a couple of seconds in starting my stopwatch), which gave me 1m43s to think about my network and whether it includes athletes. 
Also open to alternate headlines, e.g. Two tiny requests from HIA, A Variable Amount of your Time Depending on your Click Speed, Network Size, and Desire to Spend Time on the Task.

Fair point, thanks.

Hear hear