Project summary

I want to test whether a new kind of competitive format is viable: a multi-event “mind-sport” (inspired by mind-sports formats such as the Mind Sports Olympics) built around judgment, estimation, strategic reasoning, negotiation, and decision-making under uncertainty.

This is not a request to fund the full event. It is a short pre-design investigation into whether the concept is strong enough to justify a larger design sprint and, later, a pilot event.

The core hypothesis is that a well-designed multi-event competition could do three things at once:

1. Attract talent from adjacent communities that are not already well-covered by existing rationalist/EA/forecasting channels - for example board-game players, mind-sports enthusiasts, puzzle and strategy communities, and other people with strong fit for this kind of competition.

2. Generate a broader talent signal than existing single-format competitions alone.

3. Lay the groundwork for a later European pilot event that could function both as a compelling competition and as a lightweight talent-identification/training funnel.

I think there may be a real gap here. Existing platforms already capture some important things well, especially around forecasting and track records. But there is currently no obvious “mind-sport” style arena built around a broader cluster of useful reasoning skills: estimation, information search, strategic judgment, negotiation, uncertainty handling, and related abilities.

If the idea survives this phase, the eventual project would likely look like a European competitive festival with a mix of existing and novel events — something legible and attractive from the outside, not narrowly internal to the rationalist/EA world.

My aim in this phase is to determine whether this could plausibly become:

• a genuinely compelling competition format,

• a useful talent funnel,

• and a project worth discussing further with potential collaborators and funders.

Overall, this is a relatively low-cost way to test whether a potentially valuable new competition format is worth further development.

What are this project's goals? How will you achieve them?

My goals for this phase are to answer three questions:

1. Could this become a genuinely compelling new competition format?

I want to assess whether a multi-event “mind-sport” built around judgment, strategy, and uncertainty could be attractive as a competitive product, not just an educational exercise.

2. Could it attract people beyond the current EA/rationalist core?

I want to test whether this concept could appeal to adjacent communities such as board-game players, mind-sports enthusiasts, and puzzle/strategy communities.

3. Could it produce useful talent signals and justify a larger pilot?

I want to evaluate whether this format could generate meaningful signals and justify a larger design sprint and pilot event.

To answer these questions, I plan to produce:

• 12–20 stakeholder conversations

• a landscape memo

• a concept note (format, audience, theory of value)

• a shortlist of candidate event types

• a go/no-go/pivot memo

• and, if promising, a short next-stage pitch deck

If the results are promising, I want to use this work to prepare a stronger next-stage proposal and discuss it with potential collaborators and funders at EA Global London. Because the application deadline for EA Global London is May 10, this pre-design phase is intentionally time-bounded.

How will this funding be used?

Minimum funding ($4,000)

At the minimum funding level, I would produce the core research outputs: interviews, landscape memo, concept note, and a go/no-go recommendation.

• Founder time: $3,200

• Research/admin/software/comms: $300

• Design/materials: $200

• Outreach/interviews/contingency: $300

• Total: $4,000

Full funding ($7,500)

At the full funding level, I would also do deeper concept refinement, light public-facing materials, a small private feedback round, and—if warranted—travel to EA Global London for next-stage conversations.

• Founder time: $4,800

• Research/admin/software/comms: $500

• Design/landing page/materials: $700

• Outreach/interviews/advisory support: $700

• Small private feedback round: $300

• Possible EA Global London travel/next-stage meetings: $500

Total: $7,500

Who is on your team? What's your track record on similar projects?

This is currently a solo founder-led project.

I have been working within the rationality/EA ecosystem for several years, with a background in philosophy and cognitive science and experience building projects in this space.

Most notably, I founded School of Thinking, a rationality-focused media platform where I:

• secured and managed ~$300,000 in grant funding

• built and led a team of 6

• produced 100+ pieces of content

• grew an audience of 50,000+ followers and 1M+ views

• developed partnerships with organizations such as the Centre for Effective Altruism and Future of Life Institute

I have also led a grant-funded EA community-building project in Italy and worked in strategy/operations roles (Accenture), combining conceptual work with execution

Importantly, I’ve also seen where previous approaches struggled—especially around creating strong selection mechanisms and translating interest into measurable outcomes.

This project is a direct attempt to explore a different direction: focusing on competition design, signal generation, and external attractiveness, rather than content or education alone.

If this phase goes well, I would involve a small advisory group and later operational support for a pilot.

What are the most likely causes and outcomes if this project fails?

The most likely failure modes are:

1. Weak demand outside the current rationalist/EA core

   The concept may be interesting in theory but fail to attract enough of the adjacent audience I think it could.

2. Weak signal value beyond existing platforms

   It may turn out that the competition would not produce enough useful information beyond what forecasting platforms and existing community channels already provide.

3. The concept may be more interesting than playable

   The format may be intellectually appealing but not compelling enough as a competitive product.

4. Weak downstream use

   Even if participants enjoy the idea, it may not create enough value for talent identification, follow-up, or career-capital development.

If this investigation points strongly in one of those directions, I will treat that as evidence against proceeding to a larger design sprint or pilot.

This grant is specifically intended to help me avoid overcommitting to a weak version of the idea.

How much money have you raised in the last 12 months, and from where?

$0. I have not raised funding for this project in the last 12 months.