In a comment on GWWC's recent fundraising appeal, I asked whether prospective donors were holding off on donating until the end of the fundraiser, out of the worry that it would hit its goal early and thus their donation would not have any counterfactual impact. About 50% of people who answered the poll said that they were influenced "at least in part" by this reasoning.
So it sounds like we might have a coordination problem on our hands that causes everyone to wait until the last minute to donate to large fundraisers. Unfortunately, as Rob Wiblin notes, this
comes at the cost that we have to put in more time - perhaps a month of staff time - in order to eventually reach our goal. In addition, there's the stress and uncertainty it creates for us.
So it seems like it might be useful to figure out a more efficient way of allocating EA donations that didn't waste so much org time by donors waiting until the last minute. What are people's thoughts on how we could accomplish this?
That's a good point, and it might be plausible with regards to both charities and causes. Thinking through it a little, if...
...then this view would suggest that donor X just gives to that charity, and let displaced donors to give to what they initially thought was second best. The challenge would be that this is unconsequentialist. A potential counter could explore the good consequences of a diverse donor market in which everyone gives to what they think best, though it might be harder to use this counter within the small EA market as opposed to the general philanthropic one. I haven't really thought this through, just getting some undigested considerations down (without care or concern for karma) as I come up with them in the hope that I can free ride on someone else doing that thinking through ;)