[0xebfc]

Since the angle this website introduces itself with is:

"These are the world's most powerful people. Let's track their impact & inspire them to do more good"

This doesn't seem like a good motivator, because doing something for the sake of reputation doesn't directly incentivize solving a problem in an effective way.

And w.r.t. the title of the post, it seems like there are a few steps critical steps being omitted in the relationship between money donated and "doing good". For instance, not all organizations are as effective as others; if the motivator is to increase the $ count of donation, then what's the point in thinking about "doing good"?

Can I be ranked as "doing the most good" by contributing more money than anyone else in the list, while still doing measurable damage to parts of society that aren't being included in the metric?

See, if this website were neutral -- if it just showed the damn numbers without injecting it with an arbitrary value judgement, this would have been great. Instead, this serves to create anxiety to those who view it to do something for the wrong reasons.

The more I think about this, the more banal this site seems to me. I'd appreciate being pointed out if I'm missing something, but otherwise this website tells me more about the mindset of the authors than anything else.

[ztratar]

Thoughtful perspective!

This is the v1 of the site and I'm looking to improve it.

- How can I make it more neutral? - Is it sometimes worthwhile to simply accelerate the deployment of capital? Can you combine the two incentives?

My mindset, to be clear, is that we want more people to strive to be like Bill Gates with their wealth. Even determining who that is right now is extraordinarily difficult. Making the data public is step #1, and then figuring out how to help them leverage philanthropy effectively is step #2.

[0xebfc]

"How can I make it more neutral?"

Just show the numbers. If there's something you'd like to show what the numbers mean, then be careful about explaining that. Make clear distinctions between metrics and goals. Think about all the metrics you think will tell you that you're approaching a goal; then find all the ways they will break. I already said how your metric-of-choice is broken and cheat-able.

"Is it sometimes worthwhile to simply accelerate the deployment of capital?"

Is this what you believe your role is?

---

"My mindset, to be clear, is that we want more people to strive to be like Bill Gates with their wealth."

You're going to burn yourself out by trying to find human levers to change the world. Some of us will be there to welcome you to the club, but I know some people who haven't made it. I'm not one to say whether you should hop on or jump off that train. Usually, there's something else that's going on in my life that leads me to that kind of mindset.

There are contradictions in our language and value-systems, and it's total bullshit, but we chose to pretend to believe them because that's what you need to do to get in for the ride. Lots of people forget that they are pretending, and some of re-remember it in adulthood or something.

So the difficulty in determining in "who that is" might be one of those contradictions popping up.