Do you care whether a cause is overexposed? Is that a strike against it?

Not necessarily. We want to be catalytic. When we enter a market, we obviously want to have this large-scale impact, and we want to bring our skills beyond just the capital. If our only value-add is the capital, it’s probably not that useful for us.

Does that verge on philanthropic vanity—wanting to cause a big bang in a sector?

If a funder begins to jump around so they can be the first in a field, then I think that’s a real problem. We want to work with a smaller number of partners, on a larger scale, over a longer period of time. That means it’s going to be a longer-term investment.

Do you believe in pressuring your peers into philanthropy?

I hope that one of the things we’re going to do is lead by example. It’s not the previous generation’s version of philanthropy, which is a little more hands-off. This kind of philanthropy that we’re doing is highly engaging. It’s very intellectually stimulating.

So you’re not cornering people at cocktail parties?

What we’re doing is really fun. It’s really innovative. And it’s going to have a very large-scale impact. We’re having a ball. If they want to come to the party, great. But I don’t feel the need to have to yank people and say, “Hey, come over into this dark room, and let’s think about being more responsible.”