Over the past decade, Open Philanthropy has been the rare philanthropic shop with both the resources and the rigor to make a dent in some of the world’s biggest problems.

Working closely with Good Ventures — the foundation built by Facebook and Asana co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna — Open Philanthropy has directed more than $4 billion since 2014 across a wide portfolio, from global health to housing to frontier science. Its money has backed philanthropic efforts estimated to have saved 100,000 lives, helped catalyze the YIMBY movement in California, fought to improve conditions for billions of farmed animals, and supported research that went on to win a Nobel Prize.

Whatever you think about “effective” giving as a label — or effective altruism, the movement that Open Philanthropy is inescapably associated with — this is one of the clearest experiments we have in what analytically minded, effectiveness-obsessed philanthropy can do at scale.

Now, as it enters its second decade, Open Philanthropy is changing its name — and changing some of what it does. It will now call itself Coefficient Giving, a rebrand meant to signal that the organization is moving from primarily serving one anchor donor — Moskovitz and Tuna — to advising and deploying capital for many.

In practical terms, that means converting internal programs into multi-donor funds that other philanthropists can join — among them the $125 million Lead Exposure Action Fund and the $120 million Abundance and Growth Fund — while continuing core work in areas that benefit global health and development. The group says it directed more than $100 million from donors beyond Good Ventures in 2024, and has already more than doubled that number in 2025. But the mission, they emphasize, remains the same: maximize impact for every dollar given.

Why “coefficient”? As CEO, Alexander Berger, puts it in my conversation with him, “coefficient is a multiplier”: the “co-” nods to collaboration with other givers; the “efficient” is a reminder of the north star of effectiveness.

Berger, who has helped steer the organization through years of bets on global health, AI risk, and “abundance and growth,” is a pragmatic optimist. In the conversation that follows, we dig into what the name change means in practice: how pooled funds will make decisions, how they’re weighing AI and near-term global health, and where philanthropy’s comparative advantage really lies in a world of volatile public budgets and accelerating technology.

Consider this a map to Open Philanthropy’s — sorry, Coefficient Giving’s — second act, and a test of whether the multiplier effect can deliver more impact, faster.

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

You’ve said the last two years marked a significant shift, moving from a single anchor funder toward partnering with other donors. And now you’re rebranding. What problem didn’t the old setup solve, and what will feel different with the new name and approach?

There’s not a problem that it’s trying to solve — it’s really about sort of delivering on the original goal that we launched Open Philanthropy with way back in the day. The ambition was to sort of be a resource for other people who would come along, who would be in Cari and Dustin’s shoes, sort of asking that question: Where can I give my resources in a way that it’s going to have the most impact for other people?

We basically spent our first decade trying to build up to the point where we were sort of on track to hit Cari and Dustin’s goals of giving away their resources in their lifetime. We’re sort of within striking distance of that now. And over the last couple of years, we’ve started to pivot to invest in that original ambition of being a resource to........

© Vox