I definitely agree that information on these topics is ripe for aggregation/curation.

My instinct is to look to the VC/startup community for some insight here, specifically around uncertainty (they're in the business of "predicting/quantifying/derisking uncertain futures/projects"). Two quick examples:

• Micro Models—They use a gate/funnel pattern to assess uncertainty over time. e.g. Here's a meta framework for startup lifecycle from the entrepreneurs perspective: https://d3ansictanv2wj.cloudfront.net/lean_0505-8a1e4251dd6cd9f28b38a2eb6354a1be.png. e.g. Here's a surprisingly helpful grid with metrics for VCs to invest in SaaS startups: https://www.quora.com/What-are-average-revenues-MRR-or-ARR-for-SaaS-companies-at-the-time-of-the-Series-A/answer/Christoph-Janz?srid=zROG
• Macro Models—They use macro models to predict how startups play into the context of future trends. e.g. The abstraction of trust — https://medium.com/@alexdanco/emergent-layers-an-introduction-f91c3cbe0175 or Aggregation Theory — https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/.

I would expect an "EA-focused uncertainty model" to include gates that map a specific project through time given models of macro future trends.

Thanks for aggregating this information, Richenda! One quick bucket of thoughts around EA groups + universities:

1. How are LEAN/CEA/EAF thinking about university chapters? Have they been an effective way of building a local community? Are there any university-focused plans going forwards?
2. Are there other movements trying a university-focused strategy? Could we partner/learn from them? I'm thinking about something like Blockchain Education Network (see https://blockchainedu.org/ and https://medium.com/@rishipr/fa2543cdcbd8).

Thanks Richenda!

While this way of gauging feedback is far from perfect, our impression is that community feedback has been largely positive. Where we’ve received criticism it has mostly been around how we can improve the website and our communication about EA Funds as opposed to criticism about the core concept.

As much as I admire the care that has been put into EA Funds (e.g. the 'Why might you choose not to donate to this fund?' heading for each fund), this sentence came across as 'too easy' for me. To be honest, it made me wonder if the analysis was self-critical enough (I admit to having scanned it) as I'd be surprised if the trusted people you spoke with couldn't think of any significant risks. I also think 'largely positive' reception does not seem like a good indicator. If a person like Eliezer would stand out as the sole person in disagreement, that should give pause for thought.

Even though the article is an update, I'm somewhat concerned by that it goes little into possible long-term risks. One that seems especially important is the consequences of centralising fund allocation (mostly to managers connected to OP) to having a diversity of views and decentralised correction mechanisms within our community. Please let me know where you think I might have made mistakes/missed important aspects.

I especially want to refer to Rob Wiblin's earlier comment: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/17v/ea_funds_beta_launch/aco

I love EA Funds, but my main concern is that as a community we are getting closer and closer to a single point of failure. If OPP reaches the wrong conclusion about something, there's now fewer independent donors forming their own views to correct them. This was already true because of how much people used the views of OPP and its staff to guide their own decisions.

We need some diversity (or outright randomness) in funding decisions for robustness.