This, along with OAI is likely worth investigating.

This is a great point that I strong upvoted.

1 is just a good point. happy you made it. I wish people owned the EA reputation more and we should work towards it having a better brand. I also acknowledge that "what is EA" is fuzzy and also that in an ideal analysis, I would have summed up EA organizations (by my definition) receiving funding as opposed to tallying EA sources of funding.

On 2, I agree but I don't think this will change the calculation very much. Even if I were to grant Schmidt Ventures as an EA funder (I don't fwiw, they mostly fund science), this doesn't change much in the realm of being able to significantly diversify funding (there are 2 funding sources and not one). 

Withr respect to the org you work for being funded by a donor who isn't widely considered an "EA billionaire", that's awesome but again, I don't think will change the math very much. It would be similar (at best) to adding another SFF. It would take OPs funding percentage from 89% to say 85%. It helps but doesn't change the big picture.

I should also note that this isn't surprising. In the hedge fund or VC space, firms usually have a few investors representing the bulk of their funds. Every firm is different but generally speaking, fewer than 5 investors make up 80% of a firm's AUM and it very much follows a power law.

Good point. OpenAI as well.

Ill respond to all thoughts

1. Correct.
2. One way of viewing altruism is that you have an energy bar of it and you should spend it wisely. The other way of viewing it is more like exercising muscles at the gym. I think in general, the 2nd view has slightly more merit and much more than we like to give it credit for since it's inconvenient. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DBcDZJhTDgig9QNHR/altruism-sharpens-altruism
3. I don't think EA says that, at least in practice. I know of no EAs that donate all money above what they absolutely require, have no outside hobbies, etc.
4. Most of EA is inconvenient. That's fair.
5. I agree, I would also supplement with my comment I left here where similar things were discussed.

My reasons for being vegan have little to do with the direct negative effects of factory farming. They are in roughly descending order of importance.

1. A constant reminder to myself that non-human animals matter. My current day-to-day activities give nearly no reason to think about the fact that non-human animals have moral worth. This is my 2-5 times per day reminder of this fact.
2. Reduction of cognitive dissonance. It took about a year of being vegan to begin to appreciate, viscerally, that animals had moral worth. It's hard to quantify this but it is tough to think that animals have moral worth when you eat them a few times a day. This has flow-through effects on donations, cause prioritization, etc.
3. The effect it has on others. I'm not a pushy vegan at all. I hardly tell people but every now and then people notice and ask questions about it.
4. Solidarity with non-EAA animal welfare people. For better or worse, outside of EA, this seems to be a ticket to entry to be considered taking the issue seriously. I want to be able to convince them to donate to THL over a pet shelter and to SWP over dog rescue charities and the the EA AWF over Pets for Vets. They are more likely to listen to me when they see me as one of them who just happens to be doing the math.
5. Reducing the daily suffering that I cause. It's still something even though it pales in comparison to my yearly donations but it is me living in accordance with my values and is causing less suffering than I would otherwise.

Another good point. It's amazing how much donors can influence priorities, even subconsciously 

Yup, strong agree here. Many reasons to raise money from non-EA sources. Hard but extremely valuable.

I agree, raising money from non-EA sources is hard but extremely valuable for multiple reasons; the counterfactual probably isn't as charitable, it grows the EA pie, it might bring them into more effective giving, etc. 

It's not about telling others I'm vegan. It's about telling them that I think non human animals are worthy of moral consideration. I also tell people that I donate to animal welfare charities and even which ones.

This comment is extremely good. I wish I could incorporate some of it into my comment since it hits the cognitive dissonance aspect far better than I did.  It's near impossible to give significant moral weight to animals and still think it is okay to eat them.

I think a lot of commenters are taking the "maximize" bit too literally. EAs are a bit on the neurotic side and like to take things literally, but colloquially, people understand that maximize doesn't mean maximize at all other costs. I agree that maximization is perilous but in every day language, with which every day people we are trying to appeal to communicate, "maximize" doesn't mean to do so at all costs like maximizing a single function. When my basketball coach would tell me to score as many points as possible, I took it as a given he didn't think I should hold the referees and other team at gunpoint until they allowed me to score points easily or do any number of other ridiculous actions. When a friend tells me to come as early as I can, they don't mean for me to floor the gas pedal from my current location.

A pledge summed up in a single sentence isn't going to have all the caveats and asterisks that EAs like to have when they speak precisely.