Yeah, it doesn't. I did actually think "why didn't that anonymous guy just donate the straight up cash?"

And then I realized "ah, because then I wouldn't have donated my money."

It's not totally honest, but I get why they do it and I don't regret donating the money so in the end, whatever.

It is indeed a marketing gimmick, but if it gets people to give more then that is a good thing. The article you posted is 100% right, and yes in an ideal world everyone would say well I do not need this gimmick, I am going to donate the most I can to the most worthy charities. I think the article also implies that people have a finite donation budget that other charities are going to miss out on but I disagree. I think most people do not donate enough.

It's completely honest in this case, because it's entirely forthright. You know the deal before you donate.

There's absolutely nothing inherent to the concept such that it's dishonest.

It exists to drive others to get involved. It's an excellent mechanism and works very well by getting attention and encouraging people that their contributions will be magnified. It's a deal: you give, I give. There's nothing dishonest about that.

Further, the donor in this case is matching an 'unlimited' sum. There's no artificial cut-off.

This is mostly a moral and ethical judgement, but it appears to be a mild ethical preference, and I wouldn't accept ethical advice from Givewell. They may be trying to do "good" now, but the Wall Street shadiness of their founders shines through.

http://mefiwiki.com/wiki/Givewell