· Public charity
Manifold for Charity Inc
Manifund supports impactful projects by developing innovative funding systems and software focusing on AI safety and effective altruism.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2022–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 24 grants below total $1,577,660 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $3,120,203 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $1,542,543 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k2 grants · $13k
- $10k–50k11 grants · $273k
- $50k–250k10 grants · $1.0M
- $250k+1 grant · $280k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| MATS Research Inc | $279,583 |
| Center for AI Safety Inc | $190,000 |
| Effective Ventures Foundation USA I | $106,000 |
| The Center for Innovative Governanc | $100,000 |
| 1Day Sooner Inc | $100,000 |
| Players Philanthropy Fund | $100,000 |
| Center for Land Economics Inc | $100,000 |
| Innovate Animal Ag | $100,000 |
| PauseAI US | $100,000 |
| Ashgro Inc | $58,900 |
| Ashgro | $57,367 |
| Lightcone Infrastructure Inc | $49,087 |
| The Tarbell Center for AI Journalis | $32,000 |
| Rethink Priorities | $26,760 |
| ALLFED Institute | $25,100 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY23–24, $371k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
Grants abroad, by region — $416k on the FY2024 return
Schedule F, as filed: 3 regions, $230k to organizations and $186k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.
Stated purpose: Scoping Developmental Interpretability Next Step · AI Safety Textbook · AI Driven Market Alternatives for a post AGI world
Stated purpose: Support EA NZ's operations · Good Ancestors Policy expenses · Help launch the Technical Alignment Research Accelerator
Stated purpose: One Health Wastewater Surveillance for Emerging Pathogens in Jos and Combat global antibiotic resistance
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
3 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 0 since wound down; 15 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 31% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $1.0M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- MRMATS RESEARCH INC2× · 2023–2024 · $470k
- RPRethink Priorities2× · 2023–2024 · $371k · revenue -1%
- AIASHGRO INC2× · 2023–2024 · $274k · revenue +101%
Funded once
- MMManifold Markets Incone grant, 2023 · $827k
- FAFAR AI INCgraduatedone grant, 2023 · $400k · revenue +201%
- TCTHE CLEAR FUNDgraduatedone grant, 2022 · $9k · revenue +79%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To drive global coordination that minimizes extreme AI risks and ensures the benefits of AI are shared by all. SAIF fosters responsible governance to reduce catastrophic risks through shared understanding and collaboration among key global…
The center for ai policy (caip) is a nonpartisan research organization dedicated to mitigating the catastrophic risks of ai through policy development and advocacy. operating out of washington, dc, caip works to ensure ai is developed and…
Our mission is to research and communicate the capabilities and risks posed by advanced artificial intelligence systems. our current work focuses on cybersecurity, deception, and persuasion. we aim to communicate the state of these…
Center for Humane Technology is a nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that the most consequential technologies actually serve humanity. We bring clarity to how the tech ecosystem works in order to shift the incentives that drive it.
Transluce is an independent research lab that builds open, scalable technology for understanding ai systems and steering them in the public interest.
Bringing diverse voices together across global sectors, disciplines, and demographics so developments in ai advance positive outcomes for people and society.
Ai research - redwood research conducted research on ai interpretability and adversarial training techniques. as part of the research, we published blog posts and laid the foundation for research projects.
The Ethical AI Governance Group was formed by a group of leading venture capital investors enterprise executives and startup entrepreneurs. We understand the risks AI systems can pose to privacy accountability and transparency and are…
The organization provides public education on artificial intelligence.
Building infrastructure that helps high-performing startups drive competitive advantage while advancing human flourishing and avoiding downstream harms to people, communities, and planet.
OpenAIs mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.
Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Effective Ventures Foundation Usa Inc and the most unlike its peers is Center for Land Economics Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
Your grantees are a median of 3 years old; the field is 14. You back the younger end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 24% startups (under 5 years old) — 60% of your grantees by number, and just 54% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
19 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 19 of the 22 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds MATS RESEARCH INC ↗
- Who funds FAR AI INC ↗
- Who funds Rethink Priorities ↗
- Who funds ASHGRO INC ↗
- Who funds Center for AI Safety Inc ↗
- Who funds PLAYERS PHILANTHROPY FUND INC ↗
- Who funds EFFECTIVE VENTURES FOUNDATION USA INC ↗
- Who funds INNOVATE ANIMAL AG ↗
- Who funds Center for Innovative Governance Research ↗
- Who funds 1DAY SOONER INC ↗
- Who funds Center for Land Economics Inc ↗
- Who funds PAUSEAI US ↗
- Who funds Lightcone Infrastructure Inc ↗
- Who funds ALLFED INSTITUTE ↗
- Who funds HealthLearn Inc ↗
- Who funds BLUEPRINT BIOSECURITY ↗
- Who funds SENTINEL RESEARCH ↗
- Who funds New Roots Institute ↗
- Who funds THE CLEAR FUND ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Founders Pledge Inc · Good Ventures Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Every Org · Humane America Animal Foundation · Daffy Charitable Fund · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · National Philanthropic Trust · Paypal Charitable Giving Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Manifold for Charity Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Manifold for Charity Inc?
Find your warmest path to Manifold for Charity Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.