I really love this! To bring it to the attention of the community as well as detailing the concrete actions your are taking yourself for your org - very inspiring.
And I have seen the drama on the other side, being a crypto entrepreneur for several years, seeing SBF screw people over but also more broadly the negative effects of having too much money/funding in an industry.
Your post also made me realize that I might be considered an "elder", not by being part of EA for terribly long (even though the other week I realized I chatted with Devon about accepting crypto donations for Effektiv-Spenden.de in 2021), but for being 48 years old...
Which is why I am commenting here publicly rather then sending you an email, and I vouch to take similar actions that you suggested within the first year of Hikanos.org*.
I am already forming a short list of potential board members/advisors to talk to in 2027, and you've practically just added yourself to that list ;-)
One more thought I wanted to share, as I've been talking about better governance with Patrick (Successif) and Deena (WSNP): I'd love to see grant makers take a more active role in this (e.g. board seats), similar to VCs in the for-profit world. But I also agree with you that strengthening the ops roles of orgs could help / would be needed, and again I'd urge grant makers to consider and enable this, by not restricting fund ("max % overhead"). And beyond that potentially partner with ops professional service providers, programs (e.g. WSNP GRIP*) and consultants so that grantees have lower bars engaging with them. And increasing org maturity that way will have positive effects on impact as much as on governance, imho.
I am a bit mixed on funders taking Board seats. This gives them great access to police standards, but it also makes them conflicted - for example, if they uncover a scandal, they have a duty as a Board member to treat it confidentially and support the charity; and a simultaneous potential duty as a funder to tell everyone and stop funding the org!
I would also note that I thought the worst example of a conflict of interest involved exactly this dynamic, when someone working for Open Philanthropy approved a 15m GBP grant to a charity whose Board they sat on, to buy Wytham Abbey. That is, to me, an epic conflict of interest that should never have been allowed to happen - no one should personally review 15m GBP grants to charities they are trustees of.
Nonetheless, I know this is common in the commercial sector, and I am open to changing my mind.
Oh, I totally see that point - terrible to learn about these cases! Thanks for pushing back!
Maybe I am overly naive in thinking that board should obviously have a solid mix of different people (and not be dominated by funders), and that a professional code of conduct would exclude anyone from taking part in decision making with (potential) conflicts of interest...
Maybe given the size of many orgs and the dominance of a few major grant makers, this balance is hard to achieve. But the principle of 3rd party support could still apply, e.g. grant maker sending some well respected but independent (as much as possible) person.
But let's start leveling up awareness of the importance of proper governance first and then figure out the actual measures as we go, probably it needs different approaches for different cases anyway.
Hi Jack,
I really love this! To bring it to the attention of the community as well as detailing the concrete actions your are taking yourself for your org - very inspiring.
And I have seen the drama on the other side, being a crypto entrepreneur for several years, seeing SBF screw people over but also more broadly the negative effects of having too much money/funding in an industry.
Your post also made me realize that I might be considered an "elder", not by being part of EA for terribly long (even though the other week I realized I chatted with Devon about accepting crypto donations for Effektiv-Spenden.de in 2021), but for being 48 years old...
Which is why I am commenting here publicly rather then sending you an email, and I vouch to take similar actions that you suggested within the first year of Hikanos.org*.
I am already forming a short list of potential board members/advisors to talk to in 2027, and you've practically just added yourself to that list ;-)
One more thought I wanted to share, as I've been talking about better governance with Patrick (Successif) and Deena (WSNP): I'd love to see grant makers take a more active role in this (e.g. board seats), similar to VCs in the for-profit world. But I also agree with you that strengthening the ops roles of orgs could help / would be needed, and again I'd urge grant makers to consider and enable this, by not restricting fund ("max % overhead"). And beyond that potentially partner with ops professional service providers, programs (e.g. WSNP GRIP*) and consultants so that grantees have lower bars engaging with them. And increasing org maturity that way will have positive effects on impact as much as on governance, imho.
Cheers from Germany, Freddy
* full disclosure: I ran WSNP GRIP https://workstreamnonprofit.org/programs/ for about 7 months early 2026, and I am founder and CEO of https://hikanos.org/ now.
The VC analogy I helped to write about in EA Forum here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/iNmexrAbovQ3MtF8K/the-infrastructure-gap-a-better-model-trust-based
Thanks Freddy, this is great.
I am a bit mixed on funders taking Board seats. This gives them great access to police standards, but it also makes them conflicted - for example, if they uncover a scandal, they have a duty as a Board member to treat it confidentially and support the charity; and a simultaneous potential duty as a funder to tell everyone and stop funding the org!
I would also note that I thought the worst example of a conflict of interest involved exactly this dynamic, when someone working for Open Philanthropy approved a 15m GBP grant to a charity whose Board they sat on, to buy Wytham Abbey. That is, to me, an epic conflict of interest that should never have been allowed to happen - no one should personally review 15m GBP grants to charities they are trustees of.
Nonetheless, I know this is common in the commercial sector, and I am open to changing my mind.
Oh, I totally see that point - terrible to learn about these cases! Thanks for pushing back!
Maybe I am overly naive in thinking that board should obviously have a solid mix of different people (and not be dominated by funders), and that a professional code of conduct would exclude anyone from taking part in decision making with (potential) conflicts of interest...
Maybe given the size of many orgs and the dominance of a few major grant makers, this balance is hard to achieve. But the principle of 3rd party support could still apply, e.g. grant maker sending some well respected but independent (as much as possible) person.
But let's start leveling up awareness of the importance of proper governance first and then figure out the actual measures as we go, probably it needs different approaches for different cases anyway.