In pursuit of the benefits of cryptocurrency usage and cryptocurrency donations, new philanthropic models will continue to exist. This report focuses on the measurement of the impact of cryptocurrencies on society or the promotion of the well-being of human society through crypto philanthropy.
More than a decade has passed since the Bitcoin white paper was published. During this period, the crypto industry was born, and hundreds of blockchain values were released, with a total valuation reaching trillions of dollars. In the process of development, blessings and misfortunes go hand in hand. Still, there is no clear consensus when it comes to the most basic questions surrounding it all. Does encryption really have value in promoting social change?
At the time of writing, this issue is particularly salient — a sharp macroeconomic downturn that people are questioning again. We think and hope that many fake cryptographic representations will disappear in the near future. But it is clear that the mere disappearance of falsehood has not changed the problems we face as a society today. The network is still largely centralized, network transfers still require third-party participation, and ownership of digital objects remains ambiguous.
Crypto philanthropy is not just another vertical parallel to centralized philanthropy, but has been touched and felt in a way that the Metaverse cannot. Rough estimates suggest that annual giving under its banner has grown from hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2017 to billions in 2022. This puts crypto philanthropy on a scale equivalent to some of the largest foundations in the world. Crypto philanthropy is now the centerpiece of podcasts, conferences, and organizations (many).
This report focuses on how encryption can most directly improve society.
- First, a brief history of crypto philanthropy. How did cryptocurrencies bring so much wealth? Who is a crypto philanthropist? What tools, infrastructure, and mechanisms for wealth redistribution does crypto bring?
- Second, after establishing this baseline, the article will discuss emergent behaviors based on it. What types of things can crypto philanthropists fund and how?
- In the end, this new philanthropy paradigm will be perpetuated, so what is its legacy? How can it be the best development paradigm?
While philanthropy has a reputation close to Davos’, it’s not just charity gala and virtue signaling, it’s an inevitable and understudied attempt at progress — in the subcategory of cryptocurrencies, regardless of their current macro Regardless of the state of the economy, crypto philanthropy affects millions of people.
While the cryptocurrency industry has strayed from its earlier frenzy, it still finds itself in a period of hope and romanticism.While cryptocurrency believers are tempted to make money, many are in the cryptocurrency business because of its world-changing potential. The past few years have shown that the achievements of cryptography are limited if their impact is assessed solely on the basis of their technical advantages. Through an understanding of cryptocurrency philanthropy, we can gain a broader understanding of the impact cryptocurrencies have on the world, and in the process form a more direct answer to how cryptocurrencies can improve human well-being. We may never be able to answer the question “Is encryption good?”? But with crypto philanthropy, we can at least research what brings us the closest to this problem.
What is Crypto Philanthropy
（Crypto Philanthropy ）？
The Philanthropy component of crypto philanthropy focuses on allocating unrestricted capital to the betterment of society, life, the physical world, and everything in between. This is an act of conscious openness to self-definition. Philanthropy (Crypto Philanthropy) can be associated with proactively funding the progress of society, but not quite the same as Charity, which is associated with passively providing aid to those in dire need. There is a reasonable overlap between the two, all philanthropy is for good, but not all acts of good are philanthropic.
Note: Philanthropy and Charity both have charitable connotations; but Philanthropy is more concerned with the causes of problems and the promotion of human well-being. Charity, on the other hand, tends to focus on needs caused by social issues, such as donating money to relief victims. Compared with Charity, Philanthropy is more social, has wider coverage, and focuses more on long-term effects.
As Nadia Asparouhova puts it, “If venture capital is venture capital for private products, then philanthropy is venture capital for public goods.” In an industry like cryptocurrency, where public goods are produced by for-profit entities, true public goods are Deprivation of priority is inevitable. Philanthropy is a way to refocus your attention on the things most deserving of funding.
Most logically, crypto in crypto philanthropy refers to the use of blockchain and its technology itself as a tool to achieve impactful outcomes. An oft-cited example is P2P financial transactions, which help individuals avoid predatory middlemen.Another example could be the potential cryptographic protection used to advance cryptography, thereby enabling digital privacy. Finally, the definitions of “on-chain code” and “off-chain community” in cryptocurrencies are bringing together and distributing charitable funds in new ways. We could call all this “Tier 1” crypto philanthropy.
Less obviously, crypto also refers to the ability to use the technology to create wealth, which can then be organized and redistributed to schemes unrelated to crypto. Think of the early Z-cash investors who used some of their wealth to build an orphan school in Nigeria, or Vitalik Butterin to fund longevity research. We might call it “second-order” crypto philanthropy.
For Kuwait’s Feed For Life business school, Nigeria’s only connection to cryptocurrencies is its funding sources, as well as the various Twitter avatars of donors and their investor friends graffitied on the school’s walls.
Piecing these definitions together, we can begin to understand why crypto philanthropy is more than a combination of two buzzwords. The pursuit of positive impact underlies the past and present appeal of cryptography, although this aspect is obscured along with more nefarious use cases. However, even if cryptocurrency is not tied to first-level influence, it still has a lot of philanthropic potential. We can attribute this to the sheer volume of crypto-generated new wealth, and the inevitable flow of that wealth to philanthropy.
As such, crypto philanthropy should be seen as a new philanthropic paradigm, similar to the upheaval brought about by previous technology-driven wealth booms. Just as the industrialists of the Gilded Age and the tech innovators of the 21st century solidified their philanthropic mechanisms and styles, so will the victors of the cryptocurrency boom we live in right now.
We know this because it has already happened. In the world of individualistic philanthropy, it only takes one particularly altruistic person to create massive philanthropic results that can substantially change the world and set a precedent for others. Consider the mystery of Sam Bankman-Fried, the CEO and founder of FTX and the youngest billionaire in the world when he just became a billionaire. Bankman-Fried has publicly stated that the ultimate goal of his crypto efforts is to “earn money to give,” a philanthropic style consistent with an effective altruism movement (described in more detail below). He has a net worth in the tens of billions of dollars and is somewhat recession-proof. It’s hard to overstate the impact SBF’s niche faith rally has had, and he’s just one of dozens of crypto individuals who have that influence.
However, not all philanthropy is like the effective altruism of the SBF. Just as traditional philanthropy can be a hollow signal, so too can crypto philanthropy. In fact, as we’ll see later in this article, much of what we might call crypto philanthropy falls short of the high standards set by Bankman-Fried.
We study and analyze philanthropy because it is a discipline that often escapes the public eye, even though it is fundamentally concerned with the public welfare. Because philanthropy happens after someone becomes rich, philanthropy is often seen as a dessert rather than a main course. But to the individuals affected by it, such framing is irrelevant. Philanthropy can have equally uplifting and terrifying results. However, because it is often illegible, it can be difficult to properly judge whether it is pursued for the right reasons or simply not working. In an industry like crypto that emphasizes so much on the enormous potential of the technology itself, moving to a philanthropy-centric definition of impact can provide a more holistic view of how crypto can benefit society.
Crypto Generates Wealth, Wealth Generates Philanthropy
The first thing to notice about cryptocurrencies is how wealthy certain individuals have become in a relatively short period of time. Rapid wealth accumulation is the inevitable result of speculative bubbles. But are cryptocurrencies a bubble? If so, then it doesn’t quite fit historical precedent.
Speculative activity in cryptocurrencies has been going on for over a decade, despite the fact that things like tulips or railroad mania have only experienced one apparent speculative boom that lasted a few years. There was the Bitcoin bubble, and there was the Apecoin bubble, and they were both related but completely different.
Figure: Hypothetical cryptocurrency bubble is the biggest bubble in history based on relative price gains
It’s important to point out here that whether you call it a bubble, a frenzy, or the Cambrian explosion, cryptocurrencies have found a way to top $1 trillion in value at their recent peak, and in the current economy During the downturn, its value is still at least hundreds of billions of dollars. It aggregates these values in individuals who are willing to take significant risks. The quintessential image of a philanthropist is that of a middle-aged industrialist whose steady dominance over his career has given them the expertise and capital to create their own foundations. What would happen if the image was a twenty-something kid who made a few bets and went from poverty to a generation’s wealth in just a few years?
Down the spectrum of cryptocurrency wealth are individuals whose primary forms of interaction with cryptocurrencies are retail investing, day trading, and various liquidity-providing positions (such as yield farming). The wealth created by cryptocurrencies is in the hundreds of thousands to millions, which is a very large wealth relative to the average citizen of the world, but in terms of philanthropy, this wealth is not large. Therefore, we do not see how many people are willing to give away this wealth. This is due to the fact that people are accustomed to spending their wealth on personal matters before they even consider intentional giving. It’s worth mentioning that bitcoin-buy steaks, yachts, and “Lamborghini” memes are a bona fide incentive for many cryptocurrency investors. Less hedonistically, there are some anecdotes about paying off student loans or buying a house for moms. When altruism does occur, it is often in the form of charity, not philanthropy.
Despite short-term market volatility, Crypto has produced many individuals who have won the game. For these people, their wealth comes not from retail investments, but from positive contributions to businesses and infrastructure within and around cryptocurrencies. People like Brian Armstrong, Changpeng Zhao, or the aforementioned Sam Bankman-Fried, became incredibly rich by creating cryptocurrency exchanges. Another common way to make money is to add wealth through protocol creation and/or management. Uniswap founder Haiden Adams and Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin own hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tokens in the project. All of these individuals, in varying degrees, began to engage in charitable acts of the following nature.
Historically, only this type of billionaire has undertaken serious philanthropy. But cryptocurrencies seem poised to change that, as it makes it easier for those in the lower wealth bracket to coordinate around raising and distributing capital. Will this set the financial threshold for Capital-Public philanthropy lower than ever?
Crypto spawns new wealth distribution mechanism
In the context of cryptocurrencies, wealth is generated “on-chain” (mostly in the form of crypto assets), and we need to understand how this wealth is ultimately transferred to organizations and individuals who can drive influence. Crypto develops new capital staging and aggregation mechanisms, as well as usage models and interfaces that guide this process.
DAOs and other collective decision-making bodies have the potential to take philanthropy beyond its reputation as a closed individualistic discipline. Whether they realize it or not, many DAOs are already involved in philanthropic practices.
Contrary to this, there are still large numbers of individual donors. Sometimes even anonymously. They are also affected by the new ways in which philanthropic capital flows in crypto.
It is crucial to make all of these reference points clearly identifiable as novel phenomena of truly socially progressive significance, even if they currently seem like the passion projects of crypto-internal groups.
Figure: Overview of Crypto Charity Mechanisms
Crowdfunding, DAOs and Incidental Charities
Crowdfunding is a core transaction primitive in cryptography. Crowdfunding is not a new concept under any circumstances, especially in the context of altruism. But cryptography takes this primitiveness and it manifests itself in its ideology and technology. The sentiment seems to be: “We can buy anything together, own anything, and therefore do anything.” Additional tools to streamline financial coordination, such as multi-signature wallets and collective bidding platforms, further this process. Regardless of the level of trust, permission, or financial contribution, all of these tools work together to refine a sense of economic coherence for cryptocurrency users. Merely having a common interest is reason enough to cooperate.
The concept of a DAO has become an overall generalization for any kind of coordinating group in a cryptographic context.This is partly due to its flexibility. The DAO is more than just a shared wallet. They can form many different arrangements, from social clubs, industry groups to individual companies, and simply having a common interest is enough to form a DAO activator. One combination that a DAO can employ is a crowdfunding DAO. In this form, participants coordinate fundraising for collective purchasing power.
A well-known example of this type of DAO is the ConstitutionDAO, which uses a tool called Juicebox to pool funds in an attempt to buy a copy of the US Constitution. Likewise, SpiceDAO raised funds to buy a copy of Dune by Alejandro Jodorowsky. Although only SpiceDAO has successfully purchased its target, the experience gained from both organizations is the same. Since U.S. securities laws prohibit the sale of commercial assets to unaccredited investors, participation in such crowdfunding DAOs does not imply partial ownership by legal entities, which in turn own capital such as rare books or documents. Instead, participants are granted governance tokens, which simply represent control over the strategic decisions that guide the management of owned assets. As such, these organizations can actually be viewed as a form of philanthropy, with the idea of pooling funds purely for the purpose of managing or advancing ideology. In crowdfunding DAOs, a serendipitous philanthropy replaces the promise of financial rewards.
Of course, the philanthropic principles behind SpiceDAO and ConstitutionDAO can also be applied to more meaningful use cases, where users clearly know that they are funding certain initiatives purely for it. There are signs that these types of DAOs are emerging to fund undertakings in fields such as scientific research (more on this below). While their actual efficacy is largely unproven, by introducing mechanisms for group coordination and capital concentration, DAOs serve as an interesting foil to traditional individualistic philanthropic practices. DAOs are attractive not only because they lower the entry cost of philanthropy, but also because they experiment with group decision-making. Philanthropy is not determined based on personal preference, and many individuals can bring a more nuanced conversation to the negotiating table.
By pooling and distributing individual funds under the banner of a common purpose, DAOs have the potential to engage in charities larger than the sum of their parts.
So we’re also seeing early signs of DAOs, which are not collectively raising funds, but collectively distributing funds. Using its governance features, DAOs are being used by nonprofits like Big Green to facilitate grants. How implementation of this model will improve the standard, non-encrypted structures administered by nonprofits is uncertain. For the “green giants”, the desire is for the DAO to act as a balancing mechanism that upends the relationship between funders and grantees by providing voting power to practitioners who would otherwise be at the end of strategic considerations. DAOs have the potential to ameliorate this age-old problem faced by grant agencies. It’s also possible that “affecting the DAO” is just an example of everything looking like a nail when you’re holding a hammer. This fate can only be avoided by influencing DAOs through a tight feedback loop between the busy work of philanthropy and its real-world impact on beneficiaries.
NFTs — Tokens of Altruism
For a brief period in the mid-2000s in the U.S., everyone seemed to be wearing a yellow rubber bracelet with the word “LIVESTRONG” engraved on them. Nike produced and sold these bands in support of Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong Foundation’s cancer research efforts, too. are fashionable objects because they symbolize one’s altruism. In total, this marketing strategy raised more than $100 million, proving that when positive ethics meets social signals, the result can be a markedly altruistic one.
Figure: NFTs have the potential to play the same signaling dynamics as charity bracelets in the mid-2000s
As NFT technology spreads, we’ve seen snippets of lessons learned from the age of charity bracelets. Just as NFTs can serve as personal artwork, they can also serve as participation badges and in-group signaling functions. POAP (Proof of Attendance Protocol) NFTs are a popular way to signal (usually encrypted) to others that you have attended events and meetings. An NFT displaying a “PFP” (profile photo) as a person’s Twitter avatar is another example of a powerful signaling effect NFT exploited. Likewise, it is not hard to imagine that NFTs signify virtue or altruism. As it turns out, there are a large number of such tokens that actually account for a portion of the highest price NFTs have ever fetched. Here are four examples.
While a non-traditional financial exchange like the $6 million Snowden NFT received the equivalent of a premium gift bag of cryptocurrencies at a high-status charity auction, consideration for charitable participation in non-traditional financial exchanges Feasibility, or maybe just a replica of a fungible token more closely related to Livestrong Bracelets, is still interesting. At the moment, these types of tokens don’t have that powerful signaling capabilities. Due to the ubiquitous appearance of token display interfaces, their ability to display and give positive associations to their owners has been hampered. The only places where NFTs can actually be showcased are NFT marketplaces and Twitter. But it’s not hard to imagine a future where token ownership will be more public and not just enforced by crypto enthusiasts, in which case we might see a similar dynamic develop, as with the Livestrong bracelet. After all, this is just another version of the same dynamic playing out in the fledgling world of digital fashion.
The aesthetics of DeFi flowing into donation platforms
Cryptography embraces both on-chain and off-chain composability. On-chain primitives like DAOs and NFTs come with off-chain customs, behaviors, and aesthetics. Among the off-chain customs of the crypto world, the most important is the graceful interface and wallet-centric user experience of DeFi platforms. Think one-click deals, rounded corners, bright rainbow gradients. The ubiquitous web3 aesthetic means it has started to find its way to crypto-adjacent products like donation platforms that don’t have much to do with DeFi.
One of the apps (top left) is for finance and the other (bottom right) is for donations.
Taking a look at Endaoment, one of the more prominent crypto donation platforms, we can see web3’s aesthetics on full display. Another popular donation platform, Giving Block doesn’t have the same level of interface sophistication as Endaoment, but it retains the web3 UX principles, simplifies transaction triggers, and generally calls for a more financial style of giving (for example, Giving Block offers ” Impact Index Funds”).
The assumption behind the speculative crypto-native donation platforms is that they drive an increase in donations by exploiting the color-changing symmetry of their successor DeFi platforms. Mining has nothing to do with donating to charity. However, if these two types of transactions are only reflected on an aesthetic level, it allows users from a DeFi background to feel like they are making a donation to a charity alongside their mining career.
In cryptography, there are donation platforms that look like DeFi products, and there are DeFi products that have the characteristics of donation platforms. At the simplest level, this manifests as a flow adjacent to the transaction layer, allowing users to make small donations, similar to a coin jar in a grocery store checkout aisle. A notable example is Uniswap’s donation “swap” feature, which was released to support Ukraine’s war effort. The principles behind this donation mechanism are simple. Get as close as possible to the flow of money and let some of it go to charity. The same factor that makes this strategy effective—its high-yield, low-success formula—is also its downside. Sometimes passive philanthropy is appropriate, but sometimes philanthropy requires deeper consideration and more meaningful financial contributions than a simplified penny-jar settlement process can provide. Perhaps wartime aid isn’t the best imitation? Or even if it were, shouldn’t it be just scraps from the dinner table?
Figure: Uniswap’s charity “swap” function
Program Donations and Agreement Fund Allocations
FTX, Sandlock, Ppper, and Bail Bloc all adopt (with varying degrees of seriousness) this transaction layer concept by hardcoding charitable donations into the underlying logic of their use cases. For Sandlock, that means the systematic conversion of proceeds income into tax-deductible donations to pre-determined charities. In the case of Bail Bloc, users can use their PC’s spare computing power to mine Monero, which is then automatically donated to a nonprofit to raise a community bail fund. For FTX, this simply means taking a 1% fee on all transactions (on the platform side) and donating it to a valid charity mix. At the scale of FTX’s operations, this approach has already brought in over $20 million in donations.
In the context of DeFi, protocols and their treasuries are often governed by a community of governance token holders, and one hypothetical decision this voting body can make is to allocate a portion of these funds to charity or public goods.We might call this behavior “headless corporate social responsibility,” but it’s just one of many. Taking Treasury’s charitable donations a step further, it’s interesting to imagine a hypothetical scenario: a governance body votes to implement some feature, such as converting 1% of FTX into charitable fees at the protocol level. This consideration is more than a one-time charitable donation, it’s starting to look like the creation of a bespoke tax system — a convincing way to move ceremonial governance beyond the current state of minimalism.
Quadratic Voting and Traceability Public Goods Financing
Quadratic voting and retroactive public goods funding are very specific, but have implications for the charitable funding process. Both companies are using incentive design as a means of driving greater participation in the financing of public goods, but neither has much to offer when it comes to better selection of public goods.
Quadratic funding is a system whereby financial donors to a group of projects are matched for funding based on the number of donors per project. The idea is that more people contributing smaller amounts to a project is preferable to fewer people contributing larger amounts to a project. This helps to incentivize project diversity and “push power to the fringes, away from whales and other central power brokers.” Quadratic funding has apparently become a core mechanism for DoraHacks and Gitcoin’s grant program, which seeks to improve traditional1 The risk of nepotism in the dollar-1-vote matching model.
Unlike funding at the inception of a project, retroactive public goods funding involves funding a project after it has existed for a period of time, based on evidence of its impact. The amount and direction of funding is based on an outcome oracle, which is currently a fancy word for a voting committee with expertise in the subject area. This mechanism finds notable application in optimistic ether-scale ecosystems.
While quadratic voting and retrospective public benefit funding are useful in funding Ethereum public goods, they should not be mistaken as solutions to finding funding sources or identifying which types of problems are worth funding in the first place . If DoraHacks, Gitcoin, and Optimism want to be considered appropriate philanthropic tools (and not just new systems of open source sponsorship), they can expand their definition of influence. So far, its initiatives are still — software-centric.
Combination of legitimacy and anonymity
Crypto philanthropy presents us with an unusual dynamic of anonymity. In a traditional philanthropic context, we are used to knowing who the funders are. This is partly for self-identification reasons, such as the fact that a family’s name is inscribed on the art museum’s flank. Also for legal reasons, registered nonprofits, even if they don’t disclose who their donors are, are subject to KYC for liability and tax reasons.
Outside the jurisdiction of Crypto, the decentralized nature allows the idea of true anonymity to be fooled. Charities open their wallets and publicly list donation addresses, essentially creating a one-way channel through which any individual can donate. The most historic example is the $55 million Pineapple Fund, which awarded grants of up to $5 million to 60 different charities vetted by anonymous donors.
This is a farewell post from anonymous Bitcoin donor Pine, whose Pineapple Foundation donated $55 million to charity.
The Pineapple Foundation is hailed as a shining example of impactful philanthropy, presumably by choice of anonymity.But could anonymity lead to an uglier situation? More recently, a crypto hacker stole $181 million for a Beanstalk exploit, but before that, he donated $250,000 to the war in Ukraine. If the funds were donated, we would know their malicious source, but what if hackers used a “tornado” to successfully launder some of them and then donated them in a newfound anonymity? What if the donation was not for the morally acceptable cause of the Ukrainian war, but for the Russian war effort? We can see how anonymity will start to backfire. While I personally don’t think the potential negative effects of anonymity outweigh the positive ones, it’s important to understand the unintended consequences of this mechanism.
The Emergence of Charity in Crypto
So far, we’ve seen how cryptography can generate enormous new-found wealth and a corresponding class of philanthropy. We also saw how cryptography is leading to new ways to pool and donate money. We’ve discussed the “how” of crypto philanthropy, but we haven’t really discussed the “what” crypto philanthropists actually fund what interventions? In what ways are crypto philanthropists trying to change the world?
In the not-so-distant past, you could count all the historical instances of donations from cryptocurrency proceeds by finger. Now, this given niche has become so diverse and large that it is difficult to describe how it works with a single linear description. So I’ll try to document a non-exhaustive, discrete list of what I think are the most compelling stories to emerge from the world of crypto philanthropy.
First, I will discuss interventions that can be considered Tier 1 crypto philanthropy, as indicated in the introduction. These projects revolve around projects of charitable foundations, the main feature of which is the use of cryptography.
From here, I’ll expand to secondary crypto philanthropy, projects that are fueled by wealth from crypto, but not necessarily involving the use of crypto.
Level 1 Crypto Philanthropy
Consider first the original battle cry of cryptocurrencies: permissionless financial instruments and instruments, ranging from safe stores of value, to cheaper and more accessible loans, to stablecoins, and more. While most current use cases for DeFi focus on self-trading and hyper-financialization, it’s not hard to imagine a version of DeFi serving those effectively disenfranchised by the traditional financial sector. Consider, for example, the role of digital currencies, and stablecoins in particular, in active war zones like Afghanistan, where financial service providers have fled for fear of fraud and money laundering. “By allowing cross-border payments to flow outside the existing correspondent banking system, cryptocurrencies offer a way to overcome Afghanistan’s de-risking challenges,” Michael Pisa wrote in documenting Afghanistan’s current humanitarian crisis. The path to hope.” In the City of Herat, Pizza believes that $40,000 to $100,000 of crypto is traded every day. It is safe to assume that many of these transactions are humanitarian aid from countries where fiat-to-fiat remittances would have been blocked.
The nonprofit GiveCrypto takes a more direct approach to the financial barrier use case, doing exactly what its name implies. By providing crypto services to those in need, initiatives like GiveCrypto are testing the hypothesis of a nonprofit like GiveDirect that believes those living in poverty can understand how best to spend resources on themselves body. The main difference between GiveDirect and GiveCrypto is obviously that GiveCrypto introduces a major jump ring for beneficiaries by offering cryptocurrency instead of local currency. It is through this vital constraint that the dynamics of neocolonialism emerge, like those that have happened on El Salvador’s infamous Bitcoin Beach. As such, it is unclear whether crypto-native direct cash transfer schemes have the same arguments in terms of impact as their fiat-centric counterparts.
Photo: Will bitcoin one day be a fairer version of m-pesa? m-pesa is a mobile cash transfer app that is very popular in developing countries?
Another way to frame the fair utility of cryptocurrencies is as a public good. In fact, this lens has taken hold of a sizable share of cryptocurrency proponents. However, as Hart, Lottie, and Schorling point out, the framework for treating crypto-goods as public goods is susceptible to short-sighted definition games. What one calls a public good may actually be just an open source software framework that actually benefits only a small group of people. In order for something to be a truly public good, its benefits must be freely available to everyone in the said public, not just hypothetically available.
Besides DeFi and public goods, there are other types of cryptography with theoretical first-order effects that I won’t delve into in order to save time. The gains from these other sub-sectors such as DAOs, ReFi, and art sponsorships are similar. The argument for weighing the impact against the implied promise of economic returns, not to mention the various serious negative externalities surrounding cryptocurrencies, such as their carbon emissions profiles or the harmful Ponzi schemes they incubate, most use cases don’t hold their weight as a worthy charitable initiative. Even when an organization like ReFi has an unassailable argument for influence, its speculative revenue model means that ReFi organizations are often well funded without an infusion of philanthropic capital. Imagine donating to Tesla.
If there’s one thing to be said about the first-level impact of cryptocurrencies, it’s that its potential is huge, but it’s still hampered by an inability to focus on how to benefit those who need it most. In order to counteract the misleading progress of cryptocurrencies and avoid price volatility around technologies that do not realize end-value for users, cryptocurrencies need a clearer purpose-driven profit model, rather than being constrained by the interests of whales. It will also benefit from more nonprofit research institutes centered on human utility. Tier 1 crypto charities have the opportunity to fund and create more of these entities.
Secondary Crypto Philanthropy
While encryption has the potential to fill some gaps, it is not a panacea for serious development challenges such as providing clean water and sanitation. Rather than a solution, it’s just a starting point? Likewise, the Rockefeller Foundation has little to do with promoting oil, secondary cryptocurrency philanthropy is merely the use of cryptocurrencies as a means of wealth creation and charitable currency, not necessarily the content focus of philanthropy itself.
Organizing Philanthropy and Philanthropic Capitalism
——Take Malta’s Binance Charity as an example
We can start by isolating “charitable capitalism,” which some people use to refer to philanthropy pursued for the purpose of explicit self-interest. An example of this is a business that is undertaking green CSR work aimed at strengthening public opinion. Think of the Shell Foundation’s international development program, or Mr. Bicester’s content-driven philanthropy.
There is no shortage of philanthropy in the crypto space, and it looks like philanthropic capitalism. Most of the time, it happens before transactions of companies and projects, not individuals. Organizational philanthropy in cryptocurrency has the same premise as individual philanthropy: someone mints and controls a large number of tokens that have experienced historic price increases. Like project founders, crypto organizations themselves hold significant amounts of their own tokens, often through the tools of grant-capable foundations. A notable example of this behavior can be seen in the exchange company Binance and its Binance token. When it launched four years ago, a Binance coin was trading at $4, and now it is trading at $280 even with the market slumping sharply. This huge speculative upside provides companies like Binance with essentially free ammunition to advance their causes, so long as those causes accept cryptocurrency donations.
Over the past few years, we have seen Binance use this very tough tactic when dealing with the country of Malta. Against the backdrop of global regulatory uncertainty in 2018, Malta tacitly announced that it will establish the headquarters and business base for EU activities on Binance. This was followed by a donation of $200,000 worth of tokens (at the time) to the Malta Community Foundation through Binance and the Binance Charitable Foundation. The Binance Charity Foundation is a custom donation platform created by Binance to distribute funds to a pre-set list of programs. Two years later, the Malta Financial Services Authority began pulling back its open-arms stance, in part over concerns that Binance was being used for money laundering. It was also around this time that Binance withdrew local donations that were used to fund treatment and support terminally ill patients. After Malta Charities sued Binance in 2021 — the donations had appreciated to 8 million euros — Binance claimed that they withdrew the donations for not fulfilling the terms of the original donation. It states whether donations will be able to transfer Binance tokens directly to the beneficiaries of the charity. Granted, this seems like an acceptable principle to follow, but it would be impractical if an $8 million donation were to depend on 15,000 terminal cancer patients, each of whom had a crypto wallet backing Binance Coin of.
Helen Hai, head of Binance Charity agency, poses for a photo with former Malta president, Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.
The point of coming up with this confusing story is not to teach Binance’s role in this situation, but to shed light on its charitable motives. It’s impossible to say that Binance is completely “bad” when it comes to donations, especially since the company appears to be honoring its terms in good faith (through the threat of lawsuits or otherwise). Just because philanthropy is pursued for the sake of public relations, doesn’t mean that philanthropy’s influence is automatically rendered ineffective. Other projects under the Binance Charity platform seem to be really influential. But they still open the door to the possibility of different outcomes for downstream beneficiaries. Therefore, the main motivations of philanthropic capitalists (overt or undisclosed) need to be investigated by watchdogs to reduce the likelihood that their initiatives will backfire.
Unstable currency and legal risks ーー
How donating (and receiving) cryptocurrency complicates philanthropy
Another interesting anecdote from the above story is the dramatic appreciation donation Binance made to a small charity.The charity’s Binance Tokens ballooned from $200,000 in 2018 to nearly $10 million in 2021 after failing to receive donations and thus cashing in. It’s less than half so far. A month from now, millions could easily be up or millions down.While this is a somewhat unusual situation, it’s an interesting case study for organizations embracing crypto philanthropy.
The vast majority of crypto charitable donations are transferred in cryptocurrencies rather than U.S. dollars. Part of this has to do with the creation of cryptocurrency wealth, which is derived from large reserves of project-specific tokens that have seen their prices surge. It is also related to the tax benefit of donating assets directly rather than cashing out first, which triggers a capital gain event for holders.
By accepting cryptocurrency donations, nonprofits are tasked with converting those funds into fiat currency. The process is neither easy nor cheap. Its difficulties have given rise to an entire cottage industry of middlemen, which can be exchanged quickly and for a small fee. These fees are often bearable compared to the net benefit of being able to accept donations from a rapidly growing donor base. But the technical barriers to establishing such intermediaries are often too high for nonprofits already struggling with technical debt. Even with the exchange mechanism in place, what would happen if the non-profit organization had to deal with a sharp drop in prices while stuck in exchange hell if it wasn’t instant? It is important to focus on the inequalities that arise between nonprofits that can jump through these rings and those that cannot.
The volatility of cryptocurrency-denominated donations makes reporting extremely difficult. Nonprofits must meet high standards of transparency and reporting. In many jurisdictions, they are required to file annual reports with the public and tax authorities to document their financial health. Volatility in cryptocurrency prices has made this PDF-centric practice of instant reporting a real headache for nonprofit managers. Likewise, changes in the value of donations make it very difficult to analyze the practice of philanthropy.
There is also a case where stimulus groups base their business on the distribution and exchange of volatile cryptocurrencies. GiveCrypto, various “crypto city” projects, and most notably El Salvador, are all examples of cryptocurrency as an ambitious tool for economic growth. In the eyes of donors, using bitcoin as a charitable currency could be an innovative strategy to pass on the proceeds to beneficiaries. But token prices don’t always go up, and a price collapse could spell disaster for a population already facing financial vulnerabilities.
Finally, funding charities with cryptocurrencies means charities can face legal challenges. Encryption exists in a regulatory gray area. In jurisdictions like the U.S., that could just mean tax uncertainty, unless the SEC provides clearer guidance on which cryptocurrencies are actually currencies and which are securities. In places like India and China, exchanging cryptocurrencies is technically illegal. There are ways to get around this, of course, but in practice it means prudent philanthropy avoids operating in politically sensitive jurisdictions altogether. This hurdle is an important one considering that it is in these regions that unlicensed currencies tend to have the greatest potential impact. Given these challenges, and the general stigma that crypto has brought to some, some nonprofits have flatly refused to accept cryptocurrency donations.
Into Philanthropy, Into Progress — The Psychology of Crypto Investing
A trademark of the crypto zeitgeist is mobilizing quickly around flipping opportunities whenever you see it. When anything can be tokenized and traded permissionlessly, anything can be turned into an investment that provides a first-mover advantage. It’s not just an investment strategy, it fosters a new habit of thinking that carries over into a variety of non-investment behaviors. You can emulate a new NFT project your friend tweets about, but you can also emulate a career opportunity, an evening plan, a quick walk around the block. When this mindset is combined with “FOMO” (fear of missing out), it becomes even more irresistible. What you get is not just the individualistic incentive to imitate certain things, but the pressure of all the other people who do them. This psychological cocktail can make team mobilization time very fast. In crypto, all it takes is a viral tweet, an ETH address, and a few hours for hundreds of millions of dollars to flow into an entirely new asset or tool.
This attitude applies not only to asset investments, but also to donations. While it can lead to more engagement, is it the best mindset to pursue philanthropy? Or is it more suitable for distributing aid?
A somewhat cynical reading is that imitating an act of charity looks like any other self-serving crypto act. It is a transaction in which the primary motivation is financial gain and the secondary motivation is loosely doing good deeds. Examples here include the aforementioned charity tokens or NFTs that donate transaction fees to charities. A more explicit example is someone donating ETH to the war effort in Ukraine in hopes of getting a whitelist through a rumored token airdrop.
Ukrainian war donations have risen sharply following rumors that the country will facilitate airdrops. Individuals donated because they believed the action would “whitelist” them to accept tokens (which didn’t happen). [source]
But there are a lot of charitable acts from the crypto community that come with no quid pro quo. During the spring 2021 outbreak of the Delta coronavirus disease variant in India, we saw the crypto community move very quickly and impressively around aid distribution. CryptoRelief was built seemingly overnight, with Vitalik Buterin airdropping $1 billion worth of Shiba Inu coins to him. Although the group encountered some initial hurdles in turning crypto donations into impact on the ground, they were eventually able to distribute more than $55 million in grants.
The expediency of CryptoRelief to form and absorb capital is partly related to the looming crisis in India. Even if it feels like a distant memory now, back in the spring of 2021, the misfortune of the coronavirus disease in India became a source of sympathy around the world. While this empathy is pervasive, cryptocurrencies do, in terms of quickly coordinating, pooling capital and distributing it to those who need it, and do have the potential to separate from other groups. From this perspective, you can think of the entire crypto twitter as a powerful GoFundMe page where intermediary removal combined with ape/FOMO thinking adds lubricant to the flywheel of philanthropy.
While it’s worth noting how much and how quickly cryptocurrency organizations can raise money for coronavirus disease relief or Ukraine war efforts, it’s important to recognize that these rapid mobilization times can also have negative consequences. Although sending ETH does not require an intermediary, it is fundamentally required to create positive charitable outcomes. This is the case both for logistical and expertise reasons. Crypto donations need to be converted into local ordinances, and most importantly, someone who can competently assess the best places to send the money. The danger of over-lubricating the philanthropic process is that the importance of funding strategies can be overlooked.Philanthropy may be as easy as hacking into a website and a wallet, but doing it well is a process of careful consideration of costs and benefits, and even experts can get it wrong.
This insight shows a growing need for crypto-native philanthropic middlemen. These actors are able to straddle both worlds equally, reliably guiding well-meaning donors to the most impactful outcomes. Crypto-philanthropy platforms like Endaoment can only do the job to a certain extent, because ultimately there is no automation that can replace on-site expertise.
Finally, it’s worth considering that cryptomining applies not only to humanitarian-type aid, but also to philanthropy without pre-determined funding channels and donors’ personal ambitions. As mentioned elsewhere in this article, it is difficult to describe non-anecdotal philanthropic trends. Philanthropists operate in a diverse environment, and their financial independence means that everything is fair. Cultural consistency among crypto entrepreneurs means they take the same approach to problem solving, even if they focus on different causes. In this sense, we can put crypto workers in a broader context, as they loosely inherit the rationalist pedigree of tech workers, but add a sense of entropy, nihilism, and weirdness.
Many of the hallmarks of the tech zeitgeist of the 2010s have made their way into foundations where tech originated, such as Open Philanthropies and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. These organizations call for evidence, metrics, rationalism, and enormous ambition that can only come from a sincere belief that not only is software eating the world, but it is my software that is eating the world. What would an encrypted version of these industry mirror philanthropic values look like?We might expect some lingering rationalism to emerge, but the crypto industry is most notable for its irrationality.
What might “change the world in the most prosaic way” show? Maybe building a widely adopted rainbow-style crypto wallet is just right. But does that also mean handing out the largest amount of free cakes in history? While we cannot predict the specifics, crypto philanthropy will likely move further into the Chaos Good quadrant than any previous philanthropic paradigm.
Cypherpunk Visions, Technological Advances, and Longevity Research
More specific than “Lulz,” so far, crypto philanthropy can be grouped into a few thematic clusters. These segments show us that a lot of money to change the world has flowed into certain types of philanthropy.
One of these groups is loosely centered around the spread of cypherpunk ideology. Not coincidentally, this is one of the first shared philanthropic directions in cryptocurrency. In 2011, when Bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency that mattered, various donors donated a total of 3,505 BTC to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (about $3,500 at the time, though Bitcoin appreciated significantly over the next two years) . Nearly 10 years later, the top NFT sale price will be Edward Snowden’s “Stay Free,” which sold for $5.4 million. A year later, the FreeRoss DAO Group is set to break the record again, acquiring NFTs for $6.2 million in support of Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. Despite these high profile donations, it’s hard to determine how much crypto philanthropists are drawn to cypherpunk values. There are no crypto-native EFFs, or even nonprofits that teach information security best practices. Perhaps this is a product of the value drift that cryptocurrencies have experienced over the past decade. Perhaps the pro-privacy crusade will have new implications for future changes in the geopolitical landscape.
But there is a very clear modern thread that goes back to the cypherpunk origins of cryptography. It comes in the form of scientific advances, particularly the transhumanist niche known as “longevity research” – the science behind slowing (or even reversing) aging. Before Bitcoin, crypto enthusiasts like Hal Finney showed interest in the space, and the connection never really went away. If Vitalik Buterin is the philanthropic figurehead of cryptocurrency, longevity is one of his top priorities, for which he has provided hundreds of millions of dollars.
We’re seeing more than just Vitalik’s generous support of longevity research. VitaDAO and NewLimit show interest mainly from a profit perspective, but maintain charitable businesses through scholarships. Impetus Grants put tens of millions of dollars in longevity research. Most of its funding comes from cryptocurrency wealth.
Perhaps in addition to its cypherpunk sensibilities, longevity research is also attractive to donors because it meshes well with the contemporary movement to accelerate the pace of scientific research. Whether it’s a “fast-grant”-style grant or a secretive “decentralized science” movement, both approaches support grants that are not NSF’s first choice for grants.Given its novelty, potential benefits, quirkiness, and niche status, it makes sense that longevity research would become a favorite target for crypto philanthropists.
Effective altruism and the SBF effect
In addition to longevity research, another clear focus of crypto philanthropy is effective altruism (EA). Effective altruism is a philanthropic discipline concerned with using your time and money to do as good a good thing as possible. It selects the cause area based on the evidence and the cause of the impact. Oftentimes, EAs end up working to reduce existential risks, such as AI dysregulation, or intervene in neglected areas of global health. While EA has become quite popular among tech-related populations in recent years, the link between crypto and EA is primarily a story about a specific individual and small sample size. Vitalik’s $54 million donation to GiveWell deserves another mention. So did Ben Delo, founder and donor of the BitMEX exchange. However, whenever EA and crypto philanthropy are discussed, the most worthy name to quote is undoubtedly Sam Bankman Fried.
SBFs are outliers in crypto space. Long before he started working on exchanges (FTX), SBF was committed to the principles of EA, in particular a career path known as “earns-to-give”. In this career path, the individual seeks to make as much money as possible, with the express aim of donating the majority of the money to effective charities. After setting this goal for his career, many factors conspired to put SBF on the road to becoming the world’s richest man under 30. The first was a historically bullish market topping out with a sharp rally in crypto assets linked to an early-stage coronavirus disease recovery in the economy. Next came the strategy of SBF and his colleagues to not only build FTX, but aggressively capitalize and market it, taking it from obscurity to the second most traded transaction in just over a year. Place. In the process, SBF has amassed tens of billions of dollars, while maintaining a clear goal of donating all of it.
While the SBF has made and will continue to make substantial political donations, he recently revealed his first major vehicle for supporting EA’s values. In early 2022, the FTX Foundation launched its “Future Fund,” a $100 million-a-year grant facility that aims to address a series of companies that seem to have one foot in EA and the other A career field in progress research. Although the recipients of the funding have just been announced, it is already clear that the Future Fund tends to fund projects that are equally impactful and unconventional, a balance that is often struck by philanthropy at its best. “Space governance” is an example of a new area of business that the Future Fund is seeking to support.
SBF is in a class of its own with its enormous wealth and high commitment to philanthropy. Although SBF is a household name, it doesn’t clearly inspire others in the crypto space to follow in his EA footsteps, or even to emulate his “earn and donate” style in other charities. Some people might like SBF’s cargo shorts lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean they’ll adopt his utilitarian values. Perhaps this is because his status has only risen recently; he needs more time to influence the philanthropic ambitions of his crypto peers. Perhaps there is an insurmountable gulf between the lofty ideals of SBF and the material motivations of ordinary crypto brothers. Many others have little interest in philanthropic effective altruism, believing that SBF’s “win-to-give” path is just another chapter in the long history of the charity game. This camp questions whether “doing good” justifies aggressive profit-seeking behavior.
For self-proclaimed “degen”-level cryptocurrency retail traders, the SBF’s effective altruism is seen as a cover for extractive business tactics, such as deliberately causing market downturns to liquidate margin trades and acquire distressed business assets.
The Future Legacy of Crypto Philanthropy
Philanthropy is often criticized for its inherent hypocrisy. If downstream philanthropy’s funding sources are causing harm to society, what good is downstream philanthropy? For Carnegie, that meant comparing the downsides of his union-breaking strategy to the upsides of his library. Such a difficult comparison makes it difficult to generalize the legacy of many philanthropic projects beyond “complexity.” For SBF, FTX’s reputation as a Ponzi-style digital asset casino complicates the moral standing of his philanthropy. In the eyes of some types of anti-establishment value investors, SBF’s business practices are as unethical as those of the bankers that sparked the 2008 financial crisis. At the same time, there may never have been a single person devoted to large-scale, impactful philanthropy like SBF.
Facing the paradox of philanthropy is a healthy reflection of a society questioning how to address its nefarious problems.Worst of these are wealth inequality and the corresponding occupation of elite institutions. But the question “Is billionaires bad?” or “Is encryption bad?” is clearly different from “Is philanthropy bad” and those who care about progress need to be able to separate the two categories. Measuring the SBF’s so-called negative business externalities against the positive externalities of its philanthropy is a daunting task. In the United States (and the Bahamas), tax and securities regulation is currently being established in a way that fully legalizes free trade. The Foundation Law allows the FTX Foundation to spend as much money as it wants. Until these laws are changed, or until the SBF is found to be violating them, we should see philanthropy as a nascent by-product of the system, a separate act that should be judged on its own merits.
While there are some examples of philanthropy, especially corporate philanthropy, simply promoting a negative corporate reputation, most philanthropy, while arguably not inflammatory, is well-intentioned. This even applies to crypto philanthropy. But there is only so much good intentions. It is up to the public, working with Tier 4, to assess the difference between the good will and the positive impact of any given philanthropic project. If philanthropy is an inevitable by-product of wealth creation in the context of legislation like the US, then we have built a society where wealth creation is the primary driver. We need to see philanthropy as a core driver of collective progress, not the darling of the rich.
Disadvantages of Crypto Philanthropy
In the case of crypto philanthropy, on average, goodwill alone produces a style of philanthropy that actually converges with philanthropy, even if there are outliers. In this post, I have hinted at the difference between philanthropy and philanthropy, but for the sake of summary and clarity, here are some of the main drawbacks of crypto philanthropy.
- For interventions like wartime aid or coronavirus disease relief, sensationalism, internal parody and emotional resonance drive engagement more than any positive progressive vision. These drivers are fine, but they make the impact a lower priority.
- Likewise, perverse incentives for positive PR outcomes have the potential to reduce impact when crypto projects and companies themselves facilitate philanthropy.
- Philanthropists who are overly dependent on cryptocurrencies put their funds on projects that need to use cryptocurrencies as a means of influence (Tier 1), ultimately leading to smaller outcomes. While cryptocurrencies unlock novel and compelling philanthropic mechanisms and remove financial barriers, not all interventions require the use of cryptocurrencies. In the case of the first-order argument that cryptocurrencies do have an impact, that impact is often hindered by highly speculative underlying tokens that create instability for nonprofits without the technical capacity or financial health to mitigate risk sex.
- Crypto claims to be highly supportive of public goods, however its version of public goods is not very public and does not always serve a clear benefit. In reality, crypto public goods often mean open-source software libraries that, while neutral in their own right, are used in practice to extend DeFi-adjacent applications, with indirect human utility. Not to mention, the non-exclusivity of encrypted public goods often depends on only a small portion of the public understanding smart contract engineering.
What’s so appealing about crypto philanthropy
Not everything about crypto philanthropy is bleak. First, the value exchange and group coordination mechanisms that form the basis of crypto have clear reasons to improve some of the inefficiencies and inequities that philanthropy has long had. In programming, ambition can be found in some special donors. Because these folks are not only ambitious relative to other crypto philanthropists, they also steer the entire philanthropic field in more interesting directions.
All in all, here are the main aspects of crypto philanthropy that stand out.
- In a world where the cost of building payment networks and cryptocurrency transactions falls, nonprofits will benefit from more flexibility. For a small subset of the biggest winners of the cryptocurrency boom, entrepreneurial visions are tied to philanthropic visions. For Sam Bankman-Fried, this idea was taken to such an extreme that the whole reason he was in the cryptocurrency business was to create wealth for philanthropy. For less extreme cases, like Vitalik Buterin’s funding of longevity research, there is a clear drive to use earned wealth to create beneficial outcomes for society. While many of these individuals have yet to fully demonstrate their philanthropic ambitions, we can expect to see more in the medium term as the crypto industry reaches a peak of acceptance and founders set their sights on new ventures charitable activities.
- Beneath the surface of cryptocurrency greed, cryptocurrency advocates have a sincere desire to change the world.The mere expected financial return rarely sparks a frenzy, but the seductive song of money and progress is another.Crypto’s direct revolt against web2 platform breaches still lingers. But web3’s weak application to web2’s problems has caused some encryption to feel far removed from its original strong ideology. If the development of cryptocurrency as a primary solution continues to falter, secondary cryptocurrency philanthropy will grow in popularity as a way to provide clearer answers to the benefits that cryptocurrency philanthropists can realize.
What’s new and uncertain about crypto philanthropy
Finally, we touched on a few aspects of crypto philanthropy that are not necessarily good or bad, just different. Regardless of the outcome, they are changing the way philanthropy is practiced.
- While charities trading in volatile currencies can create instability in donation valuations, in their short-term history, these crypto philanthropies have given nonprofits a very large financial upside. From a cost-benefit perspective, if such a potential benefit exists, it may be beneficial for nonprofits to deliberately not immediately cash out certain crypto donation types.
- DAOs for philanthropy are an interesting way to experiment (at least) with grant deliberation. Will a more participatory charitable distribution process struggle with the friction of decentralized governance like DeFi protocols do? Or will horizontal philanthropic structures produce more equitable and democratic funding outcomes?
- Protocol philanthropy may be considered a subset of “headless corporate social responsibility,” which involves a voting public’s control over assets held in a decentralized protocol vault. This is technically similar to a charity DAO, but in practice along a different line or scope. While the main responsibility of the DAO for Philanthropy is to allocate philanthropic capital, this work may be low priority for the Treasury of Protocols, if it is considered a work at all. It is in this affirmation of “this is our money, we spend it how we want” that seemingly non-aligned deFi protocols like Uniswap can choose to pursue charitable outcomes. The potential is there, but for a voting public concerned with fiscal conservatism, the potential is anything but a promise.
- The crypto community exhibits an extremely rapid collective mobilization, roughly captured by the psychology of “mock” decision-making. Just as this sentiment can be used to sell token sales, it can also be used to garner more donations and charitable participation. But just because it’s easy to hit “send,” doesn’t mean you’re sending something that’s properly reviewed. Generally speaking, the types of initiatives that are more susceptible to this FOMO logic are those that are sensational, which also tend to lead to bad philanthropy.
What is the future legacy of crypto philanthropy? Philanthropy is a decentralized discipline. It’s hard to say the combined goodness of the entire philanthropic sector. But if you have to draw a regression line between its data points, crypto philanthropy can largely be understood as a rising, nascent, and sometimes misleading niche.
This is just a current interpretation, and crypto philanthropy is likely to develop into a greater cause in the future. The capital is there, even if the ambition is still brewing. If there is such a shift, it will be because crypto philanthropists have decided to reduce the importance of crypto as a means and an end, and focus on it only as a means. Ultimately, the biggest impact will come from the idea of seeing encryption as one of the many tools that can be used to create progress.
Philanthropy beyond Level 1 encryption is not just a matter of the right tools, it requires philanthropists to definitely envision what kind of world they want to live in and what kind of problems they want to solve. Perhaps the vision is for a world where financial barriers are lowered and poverty is radically reduced. Maybe it’s a world where age-related diseases don’t exist. Whatever it is, well-meaning crypto philanthropists should pursue their cause in a way that is a serious effort to make progress. PR campaigns, virtue signaling, and tokenization strategies are all viable as long as they don’t come at the cost of influence. However, this is rarely the case.
If philanthropy is done well, it has a way to replace the baggage that billionaires carry with the idea of building the world according to their vision. It crystallizes the narrative of elite takeovers when things go wrong. Take MacKenzie Scott, whose recent giving craze has overnight set a new benchmark for the potential of elegant philanthropy. We may never conclude that cryptocurrencies are good money, but we can at least strive for good cryptocurrency philanthropy.
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/the-history-leaders-cases-tools-and-future-paradigms-of-crypto-philanthropy/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.