Okay, well, EA's both work to try to convince rich people to donate a lot and advocate that others maximize the good they an do both with their careers and with their money. This notion of patting myself on the back just seems confused. The aim of ea is not self aggrandizement (unlike I daresay many charitable organizations). Instead, it's try to maximally improve the world, something ea does quite well. So is your pitch just that ea's should spent more time trying to convince rich people to donate a lot? If so, the claim that would be effective is an empirical claim. If you have evidence for it, I'd be interested in seeing it. If not, then my prior in that being successful is pretty low. I tend to have a pretty low prior in there being radically different ways to improve on current ea practices. You keep talking about risk. I have no idea what risks you're referring to. Donating to cure malaria doesn't cause one to undergo any risk--what extra risk are you saying we should try to get people to undergo? It seems like if being an ea were risky, fewer people would do it. EA's already have convinced lots of rich people to donate and others like Sam Bankman Fried to become rich and donate a lot. Is there some better way they should be doing that?