Expeditions is an experimental program created to address what we perceive as a gap in innovation funding. While conventional funds start with predefined outcomes and work backward, Expeditions focuses on recreating the conditions under which breakthroughs occur in the wild.

Why?

Nonprofits are notoriously ineffective at transforming dollars into value. Even with significant resources, they rarely drive the creation of high-quality, original work.

Analogue, in contrast, is new and operates with limited means. We chose to embrace this constraint and demonstrate skin in the game by allocating small grants with care. Naturally, this puts the burden on making smart selections.

The selection process

Terms like “interestingness” or “potential” are easy to understand intuitively but hard to define precisely. This makes it challenging to explain our selection process without making it seem like there is no difference between disciplined and arbitrary choices. However, even if the process resists formalization, that doesn't mean it's based solely on vibes.

Let's explore which parts of the process depend on discipline and rigor, how this manifests in concrete terms, and how we make and justify decisions.

Criterion #1: Is this real?

When an idea sounds interesting, the first test is whether it is real or could become real. We are skeptical of ideas that exist only in theory and do not translate into practice. This is the first hurdle.

This is not always easy to do. Most pitches have at least one promising aspect, but the potential is often poorly communicated. In our experience, researchers are rarely skilled at marketing their work, so we must make extra effort to understand what the idea truly offers. This requires us to think from first principles and, in some cases, apply some serious theory of mind.

Criterion #2: Is this a good fit for us?

Once the idea seems like it's real or could be made real, the question becomes “is this a good fit for us”? There are a few criteria here that can be stated explicitly.

• The idea must show untapped potential. If realized, it should create new possibilities that are not yet obvious.
• It should not fit conventional funding schemes. Established institutions with larger budgets are better suited for standard research. Analogue focuses on what others overlook.
• Ideally, the idea seems untapped for the wrong reasons, that is:
  • Too fringe for academia, not commercial enough for venture capital.
  • It's good, only illegible. Others don't see it yet. Perhaps the researcher didn't have the right language to describe it. Maybe they didn't have the right audience.
  • It's good, but it represents a foreign paradigm. The history of innovation is full of ideas that took a long time to be understood and recognized as valuable.
  • It's good, but there's no one to pick it up because there is no immediate path to commercialization.

Once it's established that a preliminary fit exists, several secondary parameters are considered.

• Is there a way to verify this idea without burning a lot of resources? Ideally, there’s a "street smart" way to test it.
• Can a small grant, such as the ones we offer for the first round, make a difference here? If a small grant would be nice to have but not really unlocking, then we might refer the applicant to another fund.
• Does this combine harmoniously with the initiatives we've already funded? This isn’t necessary, but synergy is always nice.
• Wouldn't the person or team behind the idea be better served by a categorically different funding scheme?
• What happens if it doesn't work out?

If the fit is only partial, we may refer the applicant directly to another fund or patron. After all, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste. But it's important we keep this program focused on its mission. This means we must sometimes say no even to good ideas — not because they lack merit but because alignment isn’t there.

Criterion #3: Who is behind this idea?

The work isn't separate from the person doing it. The questions we ask when evaluating an idea:

• Who is the person or team behind it?
• What motivates them?
• Do they seem like they're different and right, meaning they have original perspectives supported by epistemic rigor, or are they just weird?
• Do they attend to their work in the spirit we intend to promote?

We like working with people who get it already.

Looks like we've got a match

If the fit is fully there, we go ahead and write a check. We're a tiny team, and minimal organizational overhead lets us send resources where they are needed without bureaucracy or back-and-forth. Once this is on, we follow up with our explorers from time to time. We don't expect a typical progress report or even a non-negotiable strong commitment to a direction because we know that evolutionary work is full of pivoting and reevaluation. Since we select based on interestingness, we come from the place of sincere desire to learn where the idea led the researcher and how its potential ultimately unfolded.