A couple of Gates Keepers have read Philanthrocapitalism.

It is extremely well written. One can read it is easily as a magazine. And it is a helpful introduction to those who need a rapid introduction to big philanthropy. Congratulations to the authors for trying to kick start discussion on the new big money philanthropy.

It is the chapter called Billanthropy that interests Gates Keepers most. Bill and the Gates Foundation are handled very gently here so it is no wonder Bill likes the book. Pierre Omidyar, on the other hand, is skewered for his management style. There is a little jab at the Gates Foundation for not engaging in mission related investing but it occurs several chapters later.

What are the metrics proposed to measure 'leverage'? If other funders pour billions into a Gates Foundation idea that fails miserably, is this waste of resources leverage? Can leverage lead to negative impacts as well as lost opportunity costs? Is the leverage of the Gates Foundation more likely to have negative impacts because of the size of the Foundation staff and they size of the grants they make?

Philanthropists are described as hyperagents who are not accountable to electorates, shareholders, or funders. This is seen as a positive aspect of philanthropy. The same lack of constraints applies to nonstate terrorist networks. Nonaccountability does lead to freedom and it can also prove to be a fatal flaw. Is accountability as important as transparency?

The book proposes a new social charter between philanthropists and the public. In what forum coulds this new contract be hammered out? Who will convene meetings to draft it and who will be invited to the drafting table?