Updating on one comment from Siobhan or me does not seem like a good idea :) Give it a go; I think a lot of EAs are just already on the side of your argument here; that's why I thought maybe it's not so much needed for us, as we're already convinced. But publishing your thoughts is always good, and if someone isn't interested, then they'll just skip it. 
The framing might be new, but the problem is old, and you've talked about it for years just in various different framings. At least that's how it sounds to me. But you should not update about posting because 2 people don't find the thoughts original. I think your thoughts on this are needed, and I expressed this above. 

Thanks for this it’s a really useful point and one we’ve been thinking about too. You’re right that the value of cross-cause prioritization research depends a lot on who’s actually listening and what they’re open to. The way we see it, there are at least three types of donors this work is relevant to.

The first are donors who are genuinely cause-neutral and are actively looking for guidance on how to split their resources. Some have asked us for exactly this kind of analysis, both in the past and in the current wave of new philanthropy, so this work is directly for them.

The second are donors who are broadly cause-neutral but, in practice, hedge by putting some money into one cause as a kind of safety net (GHD is a common choice), or who defer to advice that isn’t explicitly modeled. We think an explicit model can help these donors do what they already want to do: diversify their portfolio but in a more principled way. We’re hoping to address their concerns more directly in future posts in the series.

The third group is donors who mostly default to giving later, or to giving within a single cause. Even here, we think the work has something to offer. Many donors with a clear worldview still aren’t completely certain of it, and it’s worth asking what they should do as a hedge against being wrong. Relatedly, some donors who appear to hold a particular worldview may actually be people who think the arguments come down squarely in favor of giving, as though that worldview were true. For them, it can be useful to see an alternative way of allocating resources and what it would recommend. We probably won’t change many minds in this group, but we plan to engage with some of the assumptions behind these positions in later posts.

We’re already in contact with some donors in each of these groups, and we’d love more opportunities to engage with others. Part of our hope for this series is simply that it helps the work get noticed by the people who might find it useful. Thanks again for raising this.

Oh, so you think this is just not adding new perspective to some recent articles? I might have not being following the discussion so closely. So maybe you're right in this context. 

Thanks for this post. I don't want to be annoying, so feel free to ignore this if it would take too much of your time to answer, but I'm curious whether anyone has modeled the end-to-end cost of testing this theory of change end-to-end.
For example:
a) Accelerating the remaining R&D needed for scalable solutions
b) Developing a product that's genuinely competitive on taste
c) Securing a mass-market deal in one country, e.g., getting the product into a major supermarket chain at price parity with meat (with funders subsidizing the difference to test the hypothesis), plus the marketing to support it

Put differently: if a funder asked you or someone in the space, "What would it take to test this ToC, and how would you design the test?", what would we tell them?

Part of why I ask is that from the outside, this space can be hard to navigate. Many companies are raising money, and each makes a plausible case for what it could do with more funding. I understand GFI's model is to support the ecosystem broadly rather than back specific companies, but I wonder whether there's a role for identifying the 1–3 most promising bets closest to a real market test, mapping out their pathways and costs, and helping match them with funding. Or perhaps that's already part of what you do?

It has been made and yet some activists are not even inclusive of fellow advocates, who work on animal welfare :) I think EA Forum obviously has a different community, and maybe there's no need to repost here, given the topic :) But I like that Tobias is using his platforms to make this point 100-time-again, because it ties into the recent conversations that were happening on Substack.  
Singer keeps on repeating his argument about a child in a pond for 40+ years :) 

Hi Toby, the CCF is not eligible for UK gift aid, I'm afraid, as it's a US-held fund, so donations are tax-deductible in the US only.
We're actively looking into workarounds. Theoretically, one can give to a giving vehicle eligible for UK gift aid, and that entity could then re-grant to this fund. Anyone interested can contact us at [email protected] to discuss options.

Thank you, Sarah!

Thanks so much, Marcus, on behalf of the Team :) 

I don't know, as I'm not very familiar with EA's AI side. I guess, for AI, the pathway is very specialized and only for extremely skilled individuals who can get into these highly competitive programs and become the very best in them. There is a huge chunk of EAs interested in working in other cause areas, and for that, I am unsure whether we have anything good. I'd love AIM to create this kind of program, but it's not its role in the ecosystem. We have EA courses run by CEA, but I've heard many complaints about the recent ones, so I am not optimistic they'll add much value, especially for experienced professionals who want to switch careers, rather than very EA-ingrained students, for whom they will be easier. 

Some lose thoughts around this: 
1) There are not enough people is correct if you understand it as "enough people with the right fit, for the jobs currently on offer" - so there can be thousands of candidates, but only a small percentage fit the very specific criteria. 
2) I doubt there is a good way to communicate this and not deter candidates, and therefore lose the chance to find those great people the charities need.
3) The current problem is the lack of good training programs in impact-focused thinking, so it's hard for people with tons of experience and great credentials to get to the required EA-ness stage (impact-focused mindset, landscape familiarity) quickly enough to get the positions on offer, when they join EA. 
4) Yes, most of us should be doing earning to give, because there is not enough opportunities, why some of us, that can handle the stress and pressure of launching new projects, should create opportunities for ourselves. 
5) Noone have mentioned that an organization can only scale if it's cost-effective, and to keep being cost-effective, it can't just absorb talent because we want to have jobs. Too many hires and you're spending much more than you're creating in impact, which should not be the case.
6) The other thing is that scaling is very hard, and we don't have a lot of expertise in the movement on how to do it right, while remaining cost-effective. So this expertise is developing slowly, but not fast enough to create many opportunities. 
7) Another bottleneck is people management experience. This is also a lacking skill in EA, so I can see why people will be slow and careful about hiring to ensure a good culture fit and maintain equilibrium within teams.
8) You are right that insane salaries should be used differently; there should be no insane salaries in our movement, CEOs/directors should not be paid much, much more than other people in the team. I think this is the case in charities I worked/work for, like Ambitious Impact, Rethink Priorities. There are no huge gaps between employees and leadership, as we all create the impact together. 
9) There are some organizations trying to address talent gaps, e.g., IAPS has fellowships, AIM has research fellowships, AIM has an incubation program, RP is fiscally sponsoring new impactful projects that people want to launch. AIM helped create "Effective Spenden" - like orgs in various countries. This is all absorbing some talent, but obviously not enough.
10) This is why I think we need to birng back earning to give, but ensure earning to givers have local communitis, where they can meet with like-manded individuals, and this is proerly fostered, so that they feel needed, they have connection with the impact they are creating etc.