Frequently Asked Questions
This is a FAQ for Balsa Research. It was last updated on January 23rd, 2026.
Q: What does Balsa Research do?
Balsa Research is a nonprofit think tank focused on identifying particularly low-hanging fruit in American federal policy where key bridging work is not being done. We are currently focused on maritime policy reform.
We strive to find changes that would be big wins, find the ways those changes might come about, and to do the work required to allow others to seize such opportunities.
To that end, we intend to specialize in identifying not only potential changes but also the right questions to ask about the present problem and the impact of those changes. We then fund credible academic work to find and quantify those answers. The questions that matter are often going to be the ones that are going to matter in a Congressional staff meeting or hearing, breaking down questions that particular constituencies and members care about. We aim to eventually expand to a full stack approach for policy advocacy.
We think there is far more hope for improvement than almost anyone realizes. Many marginal improvements are highly valuable, with no substantial downsides and compounding benefits.
Q: What will you do differently to succeed at this hard problem where most others fail?
Our focus will be on cutting the enemy, not growing, fundraising and hitting vanity metrics. We plan to do a bunch of things differently, including but not limited to:
Backward chaining from success. Most projects don’t do this.
Focus on champions. As part of backward chaining, most lose sight of this. As an example, Scott Wiener was this for YIMBY.
Correct incentives. Most projects focus on enabling fundraising and growing. We won’t. We believe our motivations are unusually robust and that we can preserve that.
General interest motive. Having a general interest ‘special interest’ group helps solve the diffuse benefits problem for many useful actions. Someone needs to be the champion.
Funding academic studies and quantification of things that matter to legislators and key interest groups. Many things that would be very helpful simply aren’t being quantified right now.
Drafting legislation. If you don’t write the bill, don’t expect someone else to do it.
Unique intellectual approach. Almost no one takes a similar intellectual approach to the one motivating Balsa, which can also be seen on Zvi’s Substack. This has already created unique useful resources that many people rely upon. If that approach can be scaled sufficiently, the sky's the limit.
Do something, not be someone. Credit matters for momentum effects but ultimately what matters is cutting the enemy, not who everyone remembers as doing the cutting.
The right moment. This is a unique moment both in terms of the power of LLMs/AIs, and also in terms of growing support for the abundance agenda and supply-side progressivism; what the Institute for Progress simply calls “progress.” The degree to which, after consideration, people embrace the underlying goals, and also see the need to push for them, is remarkable. So is the level of resources available on the sidelines that could be unlocked, but has mostly been rightfully disillusioned with past attempts.
Q: Won’t you probably fail anyway?
Yes, the effort probably fails. Most startups and ambitious projects fail. It is still worth trying. The willingness to accept this rather than create a story to claim a fake ‘win’ is part of why it might work.
Q: Practically speaking, what does your work look like on a day to day basis?
We consult others doing work in our research areas, and review the literature and the discourse to get a sense of how to best advance reasonable policy goals within them. Considering our own areas of expertise, this currently shakes out to designing and fundraising for academic studies to fill knowledge gaps, and eventually, working with lawyers and policy professionals to draft legislation when we are satisfied that we have an adequate understanding of the issue, and realistic solutions.
Q: How big do you intend Balsa Research to get and how fast?
We intend to take it relatively slow, and add a few full-time employees when we find the right people. We’re not afraid to wait until we find the right ones, or to keep it small and low-cost until we hit a critical moment.
Q: How do you prioritize issues?
Issue selection balances many criteria, with the most important being how big a win is available and the estimated difficulty of the win, where win includes both the direct physical impact of the change and the momentum effects it generates. We also want to aggressively avoid overly partisan issues, especially when they represent value disagreements, and want to start by focusing on areas where the win seems ‘clean’ and overwhelmingly clear, where the failure to have already addressed the problem is a visible sign of our civilizational inadequacy. We want win/win situations where there are few if any losers, and what losers there are could be reasonably compensated. We find that sometimes the people opposing the change are making a mistake on their own terms.
Also we want to focus on where we would be a good messenger and can reasonably quickly and affordably ‘make the case.’ If we have strong expertise making itself available on an issue, it will get higher priority. Finally, one must admit there is some amount of what catches our attention and makes us care. Some of that is that it will inspire others too, some of that is that motivation matters.
Q: What will be your top issue priorities?
Our first priority is Jones Act repeal. Later we intend to pursue an ambitious approach to NEPA reform and otherwise enabling new energy infrastructure, and innovative ways for the Federal government to enable building more housing where people want to live. All three are areas where there are clear cases to be made that aren’t being made and things to try that aren’t being tried. All three are immensely valuable, and can be done at the Federal level.
We do care deeply about AI policy and mitigating AI-related existential risks, which is the subject of most of our founder’s other work. However, we believe the right way to support that cause at this time is through other organizations, not starting yet another one.
That does not mean there aren’t better opportunities out there, and we encourage anyone to make the case for that.
Q: How do you overcome the problem of concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs when trying to approach something like Jones Act repeal?
One approach is to organize the diffuse beneficiaries so they can effectively counter the concentrated interests that benefit from the status quo, by providing a reasonable rallying cry backed in robust policy analysis. When we quantify the actual scale of both the costs and benefits, the concentrated benefits are much smaller than assumed.
In some cases, it's possible to buy out or compensate those with genuine concentrated interests. For the Jones Act specifically, the total financial value of shipbuilder and ship-owner interests is small enough that compensation is feasible (including through navy contracts), as is support for affected workers and unions. Meanwhile, unions broadly would likely benefit from repeal through job creation in related trades and reduced transportation costs for American manufacturing.
Q: How will you avoid losing epistemic rigor/becoming just another partisan advocacy group?
We are keenly aware of this danger. It is Balsa’s second most likely failure mode behind a basic failure to get traction or raise funds. We are happy to make major sacrifices, in terms of ability to raise money and grow and notch short term optical wins, in order to avoid or at least postpone this. If it did happen, Zvi would hope he would notice, consider the project no longer interesting or worthwhile, and walk away. Careful and slow hiring with this danger in mind is a crucial aspect here, as is raising money with a keen eye towards those who would move incentives in this direction. Effort will continue to be made to build up a brand that is not compatible with partisan advocacy. If we became another partisan advocacy group, that would destroy what makes us special. Periodic reminders of the unique destructive madness of both parties should also be helpful.
Still, despite all this, the danger remains. Over a sufficiently long time horizon, especially over decades and as founder effects fade, things like this become increasingly inevitable. It is the fate of all organizations, in the end. When that happens, one must learn to start over again.
Q: How are you structured legally?
Balsa Policy Institute is a 501c(3). We anticipate potentially having a second entity in the future, likely a 501c(4), to help with lobbying and campaigning, if the project overall is sufficiently successful and there is sufficient financial support for that idea.
Q: Will you be affiliated with a particular party?
No. One of our top priorities, as noted above, is to avoid becoming one more partisan advocacy organization.
Q: How are you funded?
Balsa Research is a 501c(3) funded by donations.