” … [Chrome for a cause] promotes the idea of organizational competition — the nonprofit deathmatch. Take a look at the screenshot above: You can either donate 9 vaccinations, or 23 books, or one person’s clean water. I know that these kinds of competitions are all the rage — they even have a name, crowdsourcing philanthropy — but it’s frustrating to me how it’s rooted in a scarcity model, in which organizations must compete rather than collaborate. I’m sure, for instance, that each of these nonprofits is encouraging their members to “donate tabs” to them, rather than others. In fact, since Google has capped its donation at $1 million, and it’s relatively certain they will reach that amount given their reach, what participants are really voting for is allocation. “We’ve got a million dollars; vote with your tabs on what percentage should go to The Nature Conservancy,” they’re saying. So every vote to one organization takes money away from another.”  -Ivan Boothe

Hmm. But even if you had each person split their tabs between different causes that would still be “voting for allocation”. Picking organizations to support is a nontrivial undertaking because it’s hard to understand and compare effectiveness per dollar (or per hour or per tab). GiveWell and Peter Singer have some recommendations but it may be the Acumen Fund model that turns out to be sustainable.