Open Philanthropy Rebrands as Coefficient Giving — Pivot to Multi‑Donor Funds and a $245M Focus

Open Philanthropy is now Coefficient Giving. After a decade of combining rigorous analysis with large-scale grantmaking, the organization is shifting from a single-anchor-donor model toward pooled, multi-donor funds that invite other philanthropists to join its bets.

Background: scale, rigor and results

Working closely with Good Ventures — the foundation of Facebook and Asana co‑founder Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna — Open Philanthropy directed more than $4 billion since 2014 across global health, housing, frontier science and other areas. Its grants have been linked to efforts that likely saved roughly 100,000 lives, helped spur California's YIMBY movement, improved conditions for billions of farmed animals, and supported research that later won a Nobel Prize.

What’s changing and why

The group will operate under the name Coefficient Giving. CEO Alexander Berger says the name signals two things: the “co‑” for collaboration with other donors and “efficient” for the organization’s long‑standing focus on cost‑effectiveness — together implying a multiplier effect on impact.

From internal programs to pooled funds

Practically, Coefficient Giving will convert many internal initiatives into multi‑donor funds so other philanthropists can contribute to and scale targeted strategies. Early examples include a $125 million Lead Exposure Action Fund and a $120 million Abundance and Growth Fund — a combined $245 million in named vehicles — while continuing core work in global health and development. The organization says it directed more than $100 million from donors beyond Good Ventures in 2024 and more than doubled that amount in 2025.

Transparency and decision‑making

Berger emphasizes that Coefficient does not intend to retreat from the transparency that distinguished Open Philanthropy: it will continue to share its worldview, rationale for major grants and lessons from failures. At the same time, the group acknowledges it no longer publishes exhaustive grant writeups for every award because that level of detail didn’t scale. Instead, Coefficient operates through a mix of selective public documentation and direct engagement with partners.

Governance of pooled funds

Early multi‑donor pools have generally worked by donors entrusting Coefficient to allocate within the agreed area based on the organization’s judgment. Some external partners have explicitly preferred that Coefficient retain decisive funding authority rather than creating heavy governance controls for every contributor. The organization expects to scale partnerships over time and may evolve formal roles for larger partners later.

Philanthropy’s comparative advantage

Berger frames philanthropy’s unique role as addressing problems where markets and governments leave interests unrepresented — for example, subsidizing development of medical technologies for diseases that affect primarily low‑income countries, or supporting housing reforms that benefit potential future residents. He also notes a broader point: increasing the total philanthropic "pie" matters, because many high‑income donors currently give a small share of income relative to global need.

Balancing long‑term bets and near‑term lives saved

Coefficient continues to fund both long‑term, uncertain bets (like AI safety and frontier science) and near‑term, high‑confidence global health interventions. Berger says pooled funds and a multi‑donor model help reduce zero‑sum tradeoffs: other donors can join causes they care about, reducing pressure on any single funder to choose between urgent and long‑term priorities.

AI policy and long‑term engagement

The organization has supported AI safety and related research since about 2015. Berger says Coefficient’s goal is to build a long‑lasting, bipartisan ecosystem of research and governance capacity rather than to chase a single short‑term policy win. He sees opportunities for constructive engagement across the policy spectrum even amid shifting federal stances.

Abundance, housing reform and patient timelines

Coefficient’s support for abundance‑oriented policies and the YIMBY movement shows how influence can grow slowly. California’s SB 79 — which eased rules around multifamily housing near transit — passed only after multiple prior attempts. Such policy wins can take years of organizing, research and advocacy to materialize.

How criteria and strategy have evolved

Open Philanthropy’s core framework — importance, tractability and neglectedness — remains central. But Berger says the organization now places relatively more weight on importance and neglectedness, and somewhat less on tractability, because tractability is harder to estimate and can shift over time. Their experience suggests the highest returns often come from causes that are extremely important and neglected.

Notable risks and wins

Coefficient embraces a tolerance for failure to pursue high‑upside science and interventions. Long‑term investments in scientific field‑building — including protein design research at the University of Washington that intersected with DeepMind’s work — contributed to advances recognized by a Nobel Prize. Berger positions the organization in a "middle space": neither only the riskiest bets nor exclusively low‑risk interventions, but a portfolio across the risk spectrum guided by evidence and impact potential.

Relationship with effective altruism

While Coefficient shares an analytical, impact‑focused approach with the effective altruism community, Berger stresses the organization’s goal to be a resource for a broad set of donors — including people who are unfamiliar with or unreceptive to the effective altruism label.

Correction (Nov 18): Good Ventures is a foundation.

Takeaway

Coefficient Giving’s rebrand is less about abandoning past commitments than about scaling them: inviting other donors into pooled funds, preserving an analytic approach to impact, and testing whether a collaborative “multiplier” can accelerate philanthropic influence and results.