I kind of assume I must be missing something, but I read the whole post and looked for several minutes. Is there an "output" i.e. a cost-effectiveness model that you have? Where can I see it? Or are you planning to publish it later?
One click granular reacts seem like a bad idea. Why encourage input from people who might have thought about the grant for all of five seconds, and make this impossible to differentiate from folk who have thought deeply about it. Seems better to require comments.
I concede Manifund has upvotes/down votes that are in one sense less nuanced. However, these are a necessary evil. There has to be some way of prioritising proposals for the site to function well. The same reasoning doesn't generate to reacts.
I believe every org that received their minimum funding should be required to post ~quarterly one-page updates on their work: this would help evaluate every consecutive grant a lot
Haha Manifund currently asks projects to post updates once every 6 months; I could believe that quarterly is a better cadence. Or even more often! Startups are recommended to post a quick investor update every month (https://blog.eladgil.com/p/investor-update-emails)
Will think about how we build this into the website, thanks for the idea~
Optimal cadence is arguable. I believe the important part is how much of a public commitment this is. Not posting any update should bear a big reputation hit (I believe). It’s like taking a money for a job and then never returning calls.
If you're looking for a more comprehensive view of who's looking for funding, I recommend signing up to the Nonlinear Network (www.nonlinear.org/network). There are more people there than on Manifund because they don't have to be public.
You can also see what expert reviewers and other funders think of various funding opportunities.
I consider it a great complement to Manifund (which has the pros and cons of being public).
Also, thanks for writing this! I wish more people did this sort of thing then wrote up their thinking on it.
I kind of assume I must be missing something, but I read the whole post and looked for several minutes. Is there an "output" i.e. a cost-effectiveness model that you have? Where can I see it? Or are you planning to publish it later?
One click granular reacts seem like a bad idea. Why encourage input from people who might have thought about the grant for all of five seconds, and make this impossible to differentiate from folk who have thought deeply about it. Seems better to require comments.
I concede Manifund has upvotes/down votes that are in one sense less nuanced. However, these are a necessary evil. There has to be some way of prioritising proposals for the site to function well. The same reasoning doesn't generate to reacts.
I believe every org that received their minimum funding should be required to post ~quarterly one-page updates on their work: this would help evaluate every consecutive grant a lot
Haha Manifund currently asks projects to post updates once every 6 months; I could believe that quarterly is a better cadence. Or even more often! Startups are recommended to post a quick investor update every month (https://blog.eladgil.com/p/investor-update-emails)
Will think about how we build this into the website, thanks for the idea~
Optimal cadence is arguable. I believe the important part is how much of a public commitment this is. Not posting any update should bear a big reputation hit (I believe). It’s like taking a money for a job and then never returning calls.
If you're looking for a more comprehensive view of who's looking for funding, I recommend signing up to the Nonlinear Network (www.nonlinear.org/network). There are more people there than on Manifund because they don't have to be public.
You can also see what expert reviewers and other funders think of various funding opportunities.
I consider it a great complement to Manifund (which has the pros and cons of being public).
Also, thanks for writing this! I wish more people did this sort of thing then wrote up their thinking on it.