[JumpCrisscross]

> a life overseas in some poor country is worth as much as a life here (in NYC where I live)

Similar methodology, perhaps, not philosophy.

Both seek to objectively measure impact across multiple causes e.g. healthcare, education and other disparate philanthropic domains.

The scoping is, however, as you note, different. Robinhood holds that a life nearby is more valuable to the people near it than one faraway. (There is also an institutional component to this argument. A life elevated in New York has a higher chance of producing multi-generational change than one in an intermittent war zone. Though the war zone is in part a product of that depression.) So helping one person in the Bronx at the cost of five in Sub-Saharan Africa is okay, but helping one person in Manhattan over two in Queens is not. (Drastically oversimplifying, but you get the point.)

> company's philanthropic arms

The Foundation has nothing to do with Robinhood, the company.