I proposed a simple solution to the problem:

1. For a project to be considered for retroactive funding, participants must post a specific amount of money as collateral.
2. If a retroactive funder determines that the project was net-negative, they can burn the collateral to punish the people that participated in it. Otherwise, the project receives its collateral back.

This eliminates the "no downside" problem of retroactive funding and makes some net-negative projects unprofitable.

The amount of collateral can be chosen adaptively. Start with a small amount and increase it slowly until the number of net-negative projects is low enough. Note that setting the collateral too high can discourage net-positive but risky projects.

Going Forward

1. We will convene a regular working group to more proactively iterate and improve the mechanism design focused on risk mitigation. We intend for this group to function for the foreseeable future. Anyone is welcome to join this group via our Discord.
2. We will attempt to gain consultation from community figures that have expressed interest in impact markets (Paul Christiano, Robin Hanson, Scott Alexander, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Vitalik Buterin). This should move the needle towards more community consensus.
3. We will continue our current EA Forum contest. We will not run another contest in July.
4. We will do more outreach to other projects interested in this space (Gitcoin, Protocol Labs, Optimism, etc.) to make sure they are aware of these issues as well and we can come up with solutions together.

Do we think that impact markets are net-negative?

We – the Impact Markets team of Denis, Dony, and Matt – have been active EAs for almost a combined 20 years. In the past years we’ve individually gone through a prioritization process in which we’ve weighed importance, tractability, neglectedness, and personal fit for various projects that are close to the work of QURI, CLR, ACE, REG, CE, and others. (The examples are mostly taken from my, Denis’s, life because I’m drafting this.) We not only found that impact markets were net-positive but have become increasingly convinced (before we started working on them) that they are the most (positively!) impactful thing in expectation that we can do. 

We have started our work for impact markets because we found that it was the best thing that we could do. We’ve more or less dedicated our lives to maximizing our altruistic impact – already a decade ago. We were not nerdsniped into it and adjusted our prioritization to fit.

We’re not launching impact certificates to make ourselves personally wealthy. We want to be able to pay the rent, but once we’re financially safe, that’s enough. Some of us have previously moved countries for earning to give.

Why do we think impact markets are so good?

Impact markets reduce the work of funders – if a (hits-based) funder hopes for 10% of their grantees to succeed, then they cut down on the funders’ work by 10x. The funders pay out correspondingly higher rewards which incentivize seed investors to pick up the slack. This pool of seed investors can be orders of magnitude larger than current grant evaluators and would be made up of individuals from different cultures, with different backgrounds, and different networks. They have access to funding opportunities that the funders would not have learned of, they can be confident in these opportunities because they come out of their existing networks, and they can make use of economies of scale if the projects they fund have similar needs. These opportunities can also be more and smaller than opportunities that it would’ve been cost-effective for a generalist funder to evaluate.

Thus impact markets solve the scaling problem of grantmaking. We envision that the result will be an even more vibrant and entrepreneurial EA space that makes maximal use of the available talent and attracts more talent as EA expands.

What do we think about the risks?

The risks are real – we’ve spent June 2021 to March 2022 almost exclusively thinking about the downsides, however remote, to position us well to prevent them. But abandoning the project of impact markets because of the downsides seems about as misguided to us as abandoning self-driving cars because of adversarial-example attacks on street signs.

A wide range of distribution mismatches can already happen due to the classic financial markets. Where an activity is not currently profitable, these don’t work, but there have been prize contests for otherwise nonprofitable outcomes for a long time. We see an impact market as a type of prize contest.

Other things being equal, simpler approaches are easier to communicate …

Attributed Impact may look complicated but we’ve just operationalized something that is intuitively obvious to most EAs – expectational consequentialism. (And moral trade and something broadly akin to UDT.) We may sometimes have to explain why it sets bad incentives to fund projects that were net-negative in ex ante expectation to start, but the more sophisticated the funder is, the less likely it is that we need to expound on this. There’s also probably a simple version of the definition that can be easily understood. Something like: “Your impact must be seen as morally good, positive-sum, and non-risky before the action takes place.”

If there is no way to prevent anyone from becoming a retro funder …

We already can’t prevent anyone from becoming a retro funder. Anyone with money and a sizable Twitter following can reward people for any contributions that they so happen to want to reward them for – be it AI safety papers or how-tos for growing viruses.

Even if we hone Attributed Impact to be perfectly smooth to communicate and improve it to the point where it is very hard to misapply it, that hypothetical person on Twitter can just ignore it. Chances are they’ll never hear of it in the first place.

The price of a certificate tracks the maximum amount of money that any future retro funder will be willing to pay for it …

The previous point applies here too. Anyone on Twitter with some money can already outbid others when it comes to rewarding actions.

An additional observation is that the threshold for people to seed-invest into projects seems to be high. We think that very few investors will put significant money into a project that is not clearly in line with what major retro funders already explicitly profess to want to retro-fund only because there may later be someone who does.

Suppose that a risky project that is ex-ante net-negative ends up being beneficial …

There are already long-running prize contests where the ex ante and the ex post evaluation of the expected impact can deviate. These don’t routinely seem to cause catastrophes. If they are research prizes outside EA, it’s also unlikely that the prize committees will always be sophisticated enough that contenders will trust them to evaluate their projects according to its ex ante impact. Even the misperception that a prize committee would reward a risky project is enough to create an incentive to start the project.

And yet we very much do not want our marketplace to be used for ex ante net-negative activities. We are eager to put safeguards in place above and beyond what any other prize contest in EA has done. As soon as  any risks appear to emerge, we are ready to curate the marketplace with an iron fist, to limit the length of resell chains, to cap the value of certificates, to consume the impact we’re buying, and much more.

What are we actually doing?

1. We are not currently working on a decentralized impact marketplace. (Though various groups in the Ethereum space are, and there is sporadic interest in the EA community as well.)
   1. This is our marketplace. It is a React app hosted on an Afterburst server with a Postgres database. We can pull the plug at any time.
   2. We can hide or delete individual certificates. We’re ready to make certificates hidden by default until we approve them.
   3. You can review the actual submissions that we’ve received to decide how risky the average actual submission is.
   4. We would be happy to form a curation committee and include Ofer and Owen now or when the market grows past the toy EA Forum experiment we have launched so far.
2. This is our current prize round.
   1. We have allowed submissions that are directly related to impact markets (and received some so that we don’t want to back down from our commitment now), but we’re ready to exclude them in future prize rounds.
   2. We would never submit our own certificates to a prize contest that we are judging, but we’d also be open to not submitting any of our impact market–related work to any other prize contests if that’s what consensus comes to.
   3. An important safety mechanism that we have already started implementing is to reward solutions to problems with impact markets. A general ban on using such rewards would remove this promising mechanism.
   4. We don’t know how weak consensus should be operationalized. Since we’ve already launched the marketplace, it seems to us that we’ve violated this requirement before it was put into place. We would welcome a process by which we can obtain a weak consensus, however measured, before our next prize round.

Miscellaneous notes

1. Attributed Impact also addresses moral trade.
2. “A naive implementation of this idea would incentivize people to launch a safe project and later expand it to include high-risk high-reward interventions” – That would have to be a very naive implementation because if the actual project is different from the project certified in the certificate, then the certificate does not describe it. It’s a certificate for a different project that failed to happen.

Hm, naively - is this any different than the risks of net-negative projects in the for-profit startup funding markets? If not, I don't think this a unique reason to avoid impact markets.

My very rough guess is that impact markets should be at a bare minimum better than the for-profit landscape, which already makes it a worthwhile intervention. People participating as final buyers of impact will at least be looking to do good rather than generate additional profits; it would be very surprising to me if the net impact of that was worse than "the thing that happens in regular markets already".

Additionally - I think the negative externalities may be addressed with additional impact projects, further funded through other impact markets?

Finally: on a meta level, the amount of risk you're willing to spend on trying new funding mechanisms with potential downsides should basically be proportional to the amount of risk you see in our society at the moment. Basically, if you think existing funding mechanisms are doing a good job, and we're likely to get through the hinge of history safely, then new mechanisms are to be avoided and we want to stay the course. (That's not my current read of our xrisk situation, but would love to be convinced otherwise!)

This reminds me a lot of limited liability (see also Austin's comment, where he compares it to the for-profit startup market, which because of limited liability for corporations bounds prices below by 0).

This is a historically unusual policy (full liability came first), and seems to me to have basically the same downsides (people do risky things, profiting if they win and walking away if they lose), and basically the same upsides (according to the theory supporting LLCs, there's too little investment and support of novel projects). 

Can you say more about why you think this consideration is sufficient to be net negative? (I notice your post seems very 'do-no-harm' to me instead of 'here are the positive and negative effects, and we think the negative effects are larger', I'm also interested in Owen's impression on whether or not impact markets lead to more or less phase 2 work.)

Concretely:

If someone thinks a net-negative project is being traded on (or run at all), how about posting about it on the forum?

I assume anyone who retro funds a project will first run a search here and see what came up.

Meta:

1. The problem of funding net-negative projects exists also now.
2. I think that if retroactive public good's funding existed, people would be slightly horrified about canceling it. The upside seems big.
3. Nobody has seriously run retroactive public good's funding yet, we're not sure how it will go or what will go wrong. Surely some things will go wrong, I agree about that.
4. This is a kind of project that we can stop or change if we want to. There is a lot of human discretion. This is not like adding a government regulation that will be very hard to change, or launching a blockchain that you can pretty much never take back no matter what you do.
5. So I suggest we do experiment with it, fund some good projects (like hpmorpodcast!), and do a few things like encourage people to post on the forum if they think a project is net-negative and being traded. Perhaps even the software system that manages the trade can link to a forum post for each project, so people can voice their opinions there

I should mention that Good Exchange/impact certs people have discussed this quite a bit. I raised concerns about this issue early on here. Shortly later, I posted the question would (myopic) general public good producers significantly accelerate the development of AGI? to Lesswrong.

My current thoughts are similar to harsimony's, it's probably possible to get the potential negative externalities of a job to factor into the price of the impact cert by having certs take on negative value/turn into liabilities/debts if the negative outcomes end up eventuating.
We don't know exactly how to implement that well yet, though.

I think that retroactive Impact Markets may be a net negative for many x-risk projects, however, I also think that in general Impact Markets may significantly reduce x-risk.

I think you have to bear in mind that if this project is highly successful, it has the potential to create a revolution in the funding of public goods. If humanity achieves much better funding and incentive mechanisms for public goods, this could create a massive increase in the efficiency of philanthropy.

It is hard to know how beneficial such a system would be, but it is not hard to see how mutilpying the effectiveness of philanthropy and public good provision could make society function much better by improving education, coordination, mental health, moral development, health, etc., and increases in these public goods could broadly improve humanity’s ability to confront many x-risks.

I think it may make sense for Impact Markets to find ways of limiting or excluding x-risk projects, but I think abandoning Impact Markets altogether would be a mistake, and considering their massive upsides I cannot say I agree that they are net negative in expectation, even without excluding x-risk projects.

Dawn’s (Denis’s) Intellectual Turing Test Red-Teaming Impact Markets

[Edit: Before you read this, note that I failed. See the comment below.]

I want to check how well I understand Ofer’s position against impact markets. The “Imagined Ofer” below is how I imagine Ofer to respond (minus language – I’m not trying to imitate his writing style though our styles seem similar to me). I would like to ask the real Ofer to correct me wherever I’m misunderstanding his true position.

I currently favor using the language of prize contests to explain impact markets unless I talk to someone intimately familiar with for-profit startups. People seem to understand it more easily that way.

My model of Ofer is informed by (at least) these posts/comment threads.

Dawn: I’m doing these prize contests now where I encourage people to help each other (monetarily and otherwise) to produce awesome work to reduce x-risks and finally I reward all participants in the best ones of the projects. I’m writing software to facilitate this. I will only reward them in proportion to the gains from moral trade that they’ve generated, and I’ll use my estimate of their ex ante EV as a ceiling for my overall evaluation of a project.

This has all sorts of benefits! It’s basically a wide-open regrantor program where the quasi-regrantors (the investors) absorb most of the risk. It scales grantmaking up and down – grantmakers have ~ 10x less work and can thus scale their operation up by 10x, and the investors can be anyone around the world, so they can draw on their existing networks for their investments, so they can consider many more much smaller investments or investments which require very niche knowledge or access. Many more ideas will get tried, and it’ll be easier for people to start projects even when they still lack personal contact to the right grantmakers.

Imagined Ofer: That seems very dangerous to me. What if someone else also offers a reward and also encourages people to help each other with the projects but does not apply your complicated ex ante EV ceiling? Someone may create a flashy but extremely risky project and attract a lot of investors for it.

Dawn: But they can do that already? All sorts of science prizes, all the other EA-related prizes, Bountied Rationality, new prizes they promote on Twitter, etc.

Imagined Ofer: Okay, but you’re building a software to make it easier, so presumably you’ll thereby increase the number of people who will offer such prizes and increase the number of people who will attract investments in advance because the user experience and networking with investors is smoother and because they’re encouraged to do so.

Dawn: That’s true. We should make our software relatively unattractive to such prize offerers and their audiences, for example by curating the projects on it such that only the ones that are deemed to be robustly positive in impact are displayed (something I proposed from the start, in Aug. 2021). I could put together a team of experts for this.

Imagined Ofer: That’s not enough. What if you or your panel of experts overlook that a project was actually ex ante net-negative in EV, for example because it has already matured and so happened to turn out good? You’d be biased in a predictably upward direction in your assessment of the ex ante EV. In fact, people could do a lot of risky projects and then only ever submit the ones that worked out fine.

Dawn: Well, we can try really hard… Pay bounties for spotting projects that were negative in ex ante EV but slipped through; set up a network of auditors; make it really easy and effortless to hold compounding short positions on projects that manage their -1x leverage automatically; recruit firm like Hindenburg Research (or individuals with similar missions) to short projects and publish exposés on them; require issuers to post collateral; set up a mechanisms whereby it becomes unlikely that there’ll be other prizes with any but a small market share (such as the “pot”); maybe even require preregistration of projects to avoid the tricks you mention; etc. (All the various fixes I propose in Toward Impact Markets.) 

Imagined Ofer: Those are only unreliable patches for a big fundamental problem. None of them is going to be enough, not even in combination. They are slow and incomplete. Ex ante negative projects can slip through the cracks or remain undetected for long enough to cause harm in this world or a likely counterfactual world.

Dawn: Okay, so one slips through, attracts a lot of investment, gets big, maybe even manages to fool us into awarding it prize money.  It or new projects in the same reference class have some positive per-year probability of being found out due to all the safety mechanisms. Eventually a short-seller or an exposé-bounty poster will spot them and make a lot of money for doing so. We will react and make it super-duper clear going forward that we will not reward projects in that reference class ever again. Anyone who wants to get investments will need to make the case that their project is not in that reference class.

Imagined Ofer: But by that time the harm is done, be it to a counterfactual world. Next time the harm will be done to the factual world. Besides, regardless of how safe you actually make the system, what’s important is that there can always be issuers and investors who believe (be it wrongly believe) that they can get their risky project retro-funded. You can’t prevent that no matter how safe you make the system.

Dawn: But that seems overly risk averse to me because prospective funders can also make mistakes, and current prizes – including prizes in EA – are nowhere near as safe. Once our system is safer than any other existing methods, the bad actors will prefer the existing methods.

Imagined Ofer: The existing methods are much safer. Prospective funding is as safe as it gets, and current prizes have a time window of months or so, so by the time the prizes are awarded, the projects that they are awarded to are still very young, so the prizes are awarded on the basis of something that is still very close to ex ante EV.

Dawn: But retroactive funders can decide when to award prizes. In fact, we have gone with a month in our experiment. But admittedly, in the end I imagine that cycles of a year or two are more realistic. That is still not that much more. (See this draft FAQ for some calculations. Retro funders will pay out prizes of up to 1000% in the success case, but outside the success case investors will lose all or most of their principal. They are hits-based investors, so their riskless benchmark profit is probably much higher than 5% per year. They’ll probably not want to stay in certificates for more than a few years even at 1000% return in the success case.)

Imagined Ofer: A lot more can happen in a year or two than in a month. EA, for example, looked very different in 2013 compared to 2015, but it looked about the same in January vs. February 2015. But more importantly, you write about tying the windfall clauses of AGI companies to retro funding with enormous budgets, budgets that surely offset even the 20 years that it may take to get to that point and the very low probability.

Dawn: The plan I wrote about has these windfalls reward projects that were previously already rewarded by our regular retro funders, no more.

Imagined Ofer: But what keeps a random, unaligned AGI company from just using the mechanism to reward anyone they like?

Dawn: True. Nothing. Let’s keep this idea private. I can unpublish my EA Forum post too, but maybe that’s the audience that should know about it if anyone should. As an additional safeguard against uncontrolled speculation, how about we require people to always select one or several actual present prize rounds when they submit a project?

Imagined Ofer: That might help, but people could just churn out small projects and select whatever prize happens to be offered at the time whereas in actuality they’re hoping that one of these prizes will eventually be mentioned in a windfall clause or their project will otherwise be retro funded through a windfall clause or some other future funder who ignore the setting.

Dawn: Okay, but consider how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone now: We have a platform that is moderated; we have relatively short cycles for the prize contest (currently just one month); we explicitly offer prizes for exposés; we limit our prizes to stuff that is, by dint of its format, unlikely to be very harmful; we even started with EA Forum posts, a forum that has another highly qualified moderation team. Further, we want to institute more mechanisms – besides exposés – that make it easy to short certificates to encourage people to red-team them; mechanisms to retain control of the market norms even if many new retro funders enter; even stricter moderation; etc. We’re even considering requiring preregistration, mandatory selection of present prize rounds (even though it runs counter to how I feel impact markets should work), and very narrow targets set by retro funders (like my list of research questions in our present contest). Compare that to other EA prize contests. Meanwhile, the status quo is that anyone with some money and Twitter following can do a prize contest, and anyone can make a contract with a rich friend to secure a seed investment that they’ll repay if they win. All of our countless safeguards should make it vastly easier for unaligned retro funders and unaligned project founders to do anything other than use our platform. All that remains is that maybe we’re spreading the meme that you can seed-invest into potential prize winners, but that’s also something that is already happening around the world with countless science prizes. What more can we do!

Imagined Ofer: This is not an accusation – we’re all human – but money and sunk time-cost fallacy corrupt. For all I know this could be a motte-and-bailey type of situation: The moment a big crypto funder offers you a $1m grant, you might throw caution to the wind and write a wide-open ungated blockchain implementation of an impact market.

Dawn: I hope I’ve made clear in my 20,000+ words of writing on impact market safety that were unprompted by your comments (other than the first one in 2021) that my personal prioritization has long rested on robustness over mere positive EV. I’ve just quit my well-paid ETG job as software engineer in Switzerland to work on this. If I were in it for the money, I wouldn’t be. (More than what I need for my financial safety.) Our organization is also set up with a very general purview so that we can pivot easily. So if I should start work on a more open version of the currently fully moderated, centralized implementation, it’s because I’ve come to believe that it’s more robustly positive than I currently think it is. (Or it may well be possible to find a synthesis of permissionlessness and curation.) The only thing that can convince me otherwise are evidence and arguments.

Imagined Ofer: I think that most interventions that have a substantial chance to prevent an existential catastrophe also have a substantial chance to cause an existential catastrophe, such that it’s very hard to judge whether they are net-positive or net-negative (due to complex cluelessness dynamics that are caused by many known and unknown crucial considerations). So the typical EA Forum post with sufficient leverage over our future to make a difference at all is about equally likely to increase or to decrease x-risk.

Dawn: I find that to be an unusual opinion. CEA and others try to encourage people to post on the EA Forum rather than discourage them. That was also the point of the CEA-run EA Forum contest. Personally, I also find it unintuitive that that should be the case: For any given post, I try to think of pathways along which it could be beneficial and detrimental. Usually there are few detrimental pathways, and if there are any, there are strong social norms around malice and government institutions such as the police in the way of pursuing the paths. A few posts come to mind that are rare, unusual exceptions to this theme, but it’s been several years since I read one of those. Complex cluelessness also doesn’t seem to make a difference here because it applies equally to any prospective funding, to prizes after one month, and to prizes after one year. Do you think that writing on high-leverage topics such as x-risks should generally be discouraged rather than encouraged on the EA Forum?

Imagined Ofer: Even if you create even a very controlled impact market that is safer than the average EA prize contest you are still creating a culture and a meme regarding retroactive funding. You could inspire someone to post on Twitter “The current impact markets are too curated. I’m offering a $10m retro prize for dumping 500 tons of iron sulfate into the ocean to solve climate change.” If someone posted this now no one would take them seriously. If you create an impact market with tens of millions of dollars flowing through it and many market actors, it will become believable to some rouge players that this payout is likely real.

Seems a case of "How x-risk projects are different from startups"
 

This post seems like a really great example in the wild of how distribution mismatch could occur.

Another comment, specifically about AGI capabilities:

If someone wants to advance AI capabilities, they can already get prospective funding by opening a regular for-profit startup.

No?

Ofer (and Owen), I want to understand and summarize your cruxes one by one, in order to sufficiently pass your Ideological Turing Test that I can regenerate the core of your perspective. Consider me your point person for communications.

Crux: Distribution Mismatch of Impact Markets & Anthropogenic X-Risk

If I understand one of the biggest planks of your perspective correctly, you believe that there is a high-variance normal distribution of utility centered around 0 for x-risk projects, such that x-risk projects can often increase x-risk rather than decrease it. I have been concerned for a while that the x-risk movement may be bad for x-risk, so I am quite sympathetic to this claim, though I do believe some significant fraction of potential x-risk projects approach being robustly good. That said I think we are basically in agreement that a large subset of potential mathematically realisable x-risk projects actually increase it, though it's harder to be sure about the share of it in-practice with real x-risk projects given that people generally if not totally avoid the obviously bad stuff.

It seems especially important to prevent the risk from materializing in the domains of anthropogenic x-risks and meta-EA.

The examples you are most concerned by in particular are biosecurity and AI safety (as mentioned in a previous comment of yours), due to potential infohazards of posts on the EA Forum, as well as meta EA mentioned above. You have therefore suggested that impact markets should not deal with these causes, either early on such as during our contest or presumably indefinitely.

Let me use at least one example set of particular submissions that may fall under these topics, and let me know what you think of them.

I was thinking it would be quite cool if both Yudkowsky and Christiano respectively submitted certificates for their posts, 'List of Lethalities' and 'Where I agree and disagree with Eliezer'. These are valuable posts in my opinion and they would help grow an impact marketplace.

My model of you would say either that:

1) funding those particular posts is net bad, or 

2) funding those two posts in particular may be net good, but it sets a precedent that will cause there to be further counterfactual AI safety posts on EA Forum due to retroactive funding, which is net bad, or 

3) posts on the EA Forum/LW/Alignment Forum being further incentivized would be net good (minus stuff such as infohazards, etc), but a more mature impact market at scale risks funding the next OpenAI or other such capabilities project, therefore it's not worth retroactively funding forum posts if it risks causing that.

I am tentatively guessing your view is something at least subtly different from those rough disjunctions, though not too different.

Looking at our current submissions empirically, my sense is that the potentially riskiest certificate we have received is 'The future of nuclear war' by Alexei Turchin. The speculation in it could potentially provide new ideas to bad actors. I don't know, I haven't read/thought about this one in detail yet.  For instance, core degasation could be a new x-risk but it also seems highly unlikely. This certificate could also be the most valuable. My model of you says this certificate is net-negative. I would agree that it may be an example of the sort of situation where some people believe a project is a positive externality and some believe it's a negative externality, but the mismatch distribution means it's valuated positively by a marketplace that can observe the presence of information but not its absence. Or maybe the market thinks riskier stuff may win the confidence game. 'Variance is sexy'. This is a very provisional thought and not anything I would clearly endorse; I respect Alexei's work quite highly!

After your commentary saying it would be good to ban these topics, I was considering conceding that condition because it doesn't seem too problematic to do so for the contest, and by and large I still think that,  though again I would also specifically quite like to see those two AI posts submitted if the authors want that. 

I'm curious to know your evaluation of the following possible courses of action, particularly by what percentage your concern is reduced vs other issues:

• impact markets are isolated from x-risk topics for all time using magic, they are not isolated from funding meta EA which could downstream affect x-risk
• impact markets are isolated from x-risk topics and from funding meta EA for all time using magic, they only fund object-level stuff such as global health and development
• we don't involve x-risk topics in our marketplace for the rest of the year
• we don't involve x-risk topics until there is a clear counterbalancing force to mismatch distribution in the mechanism design, in a way that can be mathematically modelled, which may be necessary if not sufficient for proving the mechanism design works
  • or you or agents you designate are satisfied that a set of informal processes, norms, curation processes, etc. are achieving this for a centralized marketplace
    • though I would predict this does not address your crux that a centralized impact market may inspire / devolve into a simpler set of equilibria of retro funding that doesn't use e.g. Attributed Impact, probably in conjunction with decentralization
      • I can start a comment thread for discussing this crux separately
• we do one of the above but allow the two AI posts as exceptions

That list is just a rough mapping of potential actions. I have probably not characterized sufficiently well your position to offer a full menu of actions you may like to see taken regarding this issue.

tl;dr is that I'm basically curious 1) how much you think the risk is dominated by mismatch distribution applying specifically to x-risk vs say global poverty, 2) on which timeframes it is most important to shape the cause scope of the market in light of that (now? at full scale? both?), 3) whether banning x-risk topics from early impact markets (in ~2022) is a significant risk reducer by your lights.

(Meta note: I will drop in more links and quotes some time after publishing this.)

Based on your arguments here, I wouldn't be excited about impact markets. Still, if impact markets significantly expand the amount of work done for social good, it's plausible the additional good outweighs the additional bad. Furthermore, people looking to make money are already funding net negative companies due to essentially the same problems (companies have non-negative evaluations), so shifting them towards impact markets could be good, if impact markets have better projects than existing markets on average.

I am going to be extremely busy over the next week as I prep for the EAEcon retreat and wrap up the retro funding contest among other things, and combining that with the generally high personal emotional cost of engaging with this post will choose to not comment further for at least a week to focus my energy elsewhere (unless inspiration strikes me).

Here are a couple of considerations relevant to why I at least have not been more responsive, generally speaking:

• https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/oxZ5yaZKkwEswbCNs/limits-to-legibility
• https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KFMMRyk6sTFReaWjs/you-don-t-have-to-respond-to-every-comment

Is there any real-world evidence of the unilateralist's curse being realised? My sense historically is that this sort of reasoning to date has been almost entirely hypothetical, and has done a lot to stifle innovation and exploration in the EA space.