Your recommendations only make sense if cost-effectiveness before the hypothetical deadline would be greater than after the deadline, even when accounting for (possibly unprecedented) investment returns. Why do you believe this? And with such confidence that you want to force donors to spend money based on your schedule?
I think historical track record of patient philanthropy looks better than imprudent philanthropy.
I think I would say that you should deploy sooner if cost-effectiveness now is better than cost-effectiveness later, after appropriately adjusting the later cost-effectiveness for the lost impact of giving later. If you care about causes where there is urgency (particularly AI safety), no amount of future investment returns would be a good trade for delaying your intervention until it's too late.
What historical track record of patient philanthropy do you have in mind? The examples I am aware of are mostly performing poorly, and the modal outcome is that patient philanthropy turns out to mean no philanthropy at all (see all the Gates Giving Pledgers who died without making good on their pledge, for example). Maybe you have good counter examples.
Finally, you have elided the most important point, which is that the public subsidises this money now. So it's not "forcing donors to give on Jack's schedule", it's saying "if you want public subsidy for your donations, you should have to actually make a donation in a reasonable timeframe."
Your recommendations only make sense if cost-effectiveness before the hypothetical deadline would be greater than after the deadline, even when accounting for (possibly unprecedented) investment returns. Why do you believe this? And with such confidence that you want to force donors to spend money based on your schedule?
I think historical track record of patient philanthropy looks better than imprudent philanthropy.
I think I would say that you should deploy sooner if cost-effectiveness now is better than cost-effectiveness later, after appropriately adjusting the later cost-effectiveness for the lost impact of giving later. If you care about causes where there is urgency (particularly AI safety), no amount of future investment returns would be a good trade for delaying your intervention until it's too late.
What historical track record of patient philanthropy do you have in mind? The examples I am aware of are mostly performing poorly, and the modal outcome is that patient philanthropy turns out to mean no philanthropy at all (see all the Gates Giving Pledgers who died without making good on their pledge, for example). Maybe you have good counter examples.
Finally, you have elided the most important point, which is that the public subsidises this money now. So it's not "forcing donors to give on Jack's schedule", it's saying "if you want public subsidy for your donations, you should have to actually make a donation in a reasonable timeframe."