At this point crypto is absolutely not associated with regeneration/poverty reduction (in fact, it’s probably more closely associated with the opposite). It’s vital for a GreenPill Movement to show how crypto can do good – now, and for real people/places, not just in the abstract.
At the same time, many parts of the world are experiencing a cost of living crisis with record high fuel costs and soaring inflation. It’s not a great time to be asking people to donate.
I think centring Invisible Giving could be a solution.
It directly benefits people and places in need
It shows how crypto technology can enable something genuinely different to the existing financial system
It doesn’t cost the participants anything (apart from an opportunity cost)
These strike me as “frictionless” or “passive” or “set-it-and-forget-it” approaches to giving, not necessarily “invisible” ones. To me, “invisible” implies that no one else would know that I’m supporting a project.
Stoked to see Spirals on here! And excited for Glo’s launch.
I would point out that this is the endowment model that universities and some nonprofits use (read all about it). On the donor side, it would be called a charitable trust. Admittedly these are not easy to set up in many countries, so smart contracts could certainly be democratizing here.
Whether it’s a good idea ties in to the “give now vs give later” decision that comes up all the time in “effective altruism” as well as the broader philanthropy community. Both nonprofit plays and for-profit plays ideally create positive feedback loops. Broadly, the way you would think about it is comparing discount rates.
Is the giving opportunity urgent or can it slow roll into perpetuity?
Look at the 30y or 100y risk-free discount (these are significantly less volatile compared to near-term rates). Ask whether giving now would yield more or less compounding return over that timeframe for the recipient community. If more, give now; if less, give later; if about equal, consider endowing.
One could even define “regenerative” giving as giving that has a lasting and compounding long-term impact, and non-regenerative giving as giving that has an impact which fizzles out and fails to break the cycle. Under this financial framework, an outstanding regenerative giving opportunity should be spent all-in on immediately, whereas a non-regenerative giving opportunity should perhaps never be given to.
There’s a psychological aspect that I haven’t mentioned, of course. Some people, for whatever reason, gravitate to certain fixed-income structures such as trust funds, annuities, and prize-linked savings accounts even at worse Net Present Values. Perhaps they serve as spending guardrails for the less disciplined. So you may be able to get outsized allocation from these people by structuring things this way.
The endowment model has been an important foundation of the nonprofit economy. But I hesitate to say whether it’s unilaterally the future of giving. I would at least urge caution in terms of rebranding it (in the long term, it will get found out).
Hi everyone! Seth from Glo here. Very glad to be considered in your initiatives and mentioned in such outstanding company! Happy to answer any questions you might have about how the coin works, our plans, etc.
One way you can make giving ‘invisible’ is actually by way of a fiat-crypto bridge. The recipient can actually know who made the gift, but on-chain it’s the payments provider to recipient making the transfer.