This is a good raw starting point — you’ve got the core ingredients, they just need reorganising and filling out. Here are my thoughts.
Suggested structure
Right now the draft reads as a stream of consciousness, which is fine for a brain-dump but means a funder has to work hard to extract the key information. I’d reorganise around these sections:
1. The Ask (1 paragraph) — Lead with the specific request: how much money, for how long, and what it buys. Funders want to know this immediately. Right now you never actually state an amount or a concrete duration — “1-3 year” is very wide. Narrowing this and giving a budget (even rough) would make it much more credible.
2. Who I Am & Track Record (the strongest section to expand) — This is where the Ethan Alley quote belongs, along with fleshed-out references from Brent, Attila, Longview. But don’t just point to external links — pull the best 2-3 sentences from each reference directly into the document. A funder may not click through. The 330,000 words of writing is genuinely impressive as “unfakeable signal” — but give them a way to quickly verify it. Link to 2-3 of your best pieces, not just “this website.”
3. The Problem / Gap — You touch on this (“poor education, limiting beliefs”) but it reads as self-deprecating rather than analytical. Reframe it: you have demonstrated high agency and metacognitive ability, but lack the formal technical foundations (maths, logic, software engineering) that would let you operate at a much higher level. The gap between your demonstrated potential and your current technical toolkit is the thing funding would close.
4. The Plan — This is largely missing and it’s what will make or break the application. Funders want to know: what will you actually do each day/week/month? What curriculum or resources will you follow? What does “learning math” mean concretely — Khan Academy through to linear algebra? A specific textbook sequence? Working through MIRI’s research guide? Will you have a mentor or accountability structure? You mention Attila — will he be supervising this? Spell it out.
5. Milestones & Accountability — What will you have achieved at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months? How will you (and the funder) know if this is working? This could be concrete things like “complete course X,” “publish Y pieces of technical writing,” “build Z project.” This is probably the single biggest thing missing from the draft.
6. Why This Is High-ROI for the Funder — You need a “theory of change” paragraph. You want to become a founder / entrepreneur / “Doer of Great Things” — in what domain? Toward what ends? If this is aimed at EA-aligned funders, connect it to impact. What kind of things might you found or build? Even speculative answers are better than none.
Other things I’d add or change:
The “non-compounding work” section reads as complaining about a job offer. I’d either cut it entirely or reframe it much more briefly as: “I have the option of part-time employment, but believe full-time focused study would yield dramatically higher returns.” One sentence, no exclamation marks.
The phrase “Useful Idiot” is self-undermining. You’re asking someone to invest in you — don’t give them reasons to doubt the investment. Same with “how bad I’ve been at thinking.” You can be honest about your starting point without framing yourself negatively. Try something like: “I’ve achieved X without formal technical training; with it, I believe I can achieve Y.”
The MHC (Model of Hierarchical Complexity) framing might not land with all funders. Consider either explaining it briefly or using more widely understood language alongside it.
Finally — who is this for? The tone and framing should shift depending on whether you’re applying to an EA fund, a specific patron, an organisation like LTFF, or something else. Knowing your target funder would help you tailor the emphasis considerably.