An important question was ask of me via PM, and felt that posting the reply here was warranted. The author's name has been redacted.
..........................
We are currently less than BTC30 short of having the entire BTC100 promised to them, hence this PM. Any and all donations to 1BTC1oo1J3MEt5SFj74ZBcF2Mk97Aah4ac will truly be appreciated.
How did the overpromising happen?
Thank you for taking the time to present to me your concern in regard to the PM I sent you while conducting in the capacity of
Bitcoin 100.
Because how
Bitcoin 100 is currently structured, prospective non-profits (NPOs) are promised
BTC100
iff they incorporate a Bitcoin donation option onto their respective websites. Designed somewhat akin to to [sic] a kickstarter-type program, coupled with our endeavor to bring more awareness to Bitcoin. As a nascent organisation,
Bitcoin 100 is limited by the amount of donations we have on hand, thereby sometimes reverting to impromptu fund drives to make up the difference, recently using this option to garner the balance needed at the time for Bund.
Granted, we do have more than
BTC100 currently on hand to immediately transfer the promised amount, but that would mean dipping into funds donated by individuals to be dispersed in a rigorous manner. For example, Roger Ver has kindly donated
BTC100 to be doled out
BTC10 per charitable organization. Exactly the same is true with Zhou Tong's donation. It would be unfair to counter how they both expect their donations to be allocated.
I hope the above addresses your question, and look forward to having the opportunity to readdress any future concerns on your part.
In the spirit of full transparency, I will be posting this reply in the main
Bitcoin 100 thread, sans your identity.
Regards,
Bruno
Shouldn't there be a target to get Bitcoin 100 to an end? I mean the way it is handled now, you end up holding more and more coins that are not free to be given to the next charity. Wouldn't it make sense to target for bigger than those before charities with some promise to call B100 a success once the red cross/whatever accepts bitcoin and leave it to that returning the remaining funds?
Yes! But only ending it as the way it's currently structured, oppose to shutting down
Bitcoin 100 completely. In fact, the name--
Bitcoin 100--wouldn't do a 2.0 version justice, for I don't envision settling for some big fish. I want 'em all! And, by no means does that entail a desire to donate
BTC100, or some other arbitrary sum, to every NPO on the planet, albeit that would be a noble undertaking, to say the least.
Considering, for all practical purposes, most NPOs accept PayPal, CC, cash, etc., it's not outside the realm of possibility that those same entities can just as easily embed a specifically designed Bitcoin donation button unto their respective websites once Bitcoin becomes more mainstream. They did it for PayPal, but to do the same for Bitcoin would he a hell of lot easier. During the interim, then continuously thereafter, an entity--formally known as
Bitcoin 100--will be the driving force that ensures ALL NPOs the following: able to collect bitcoins as donations from anybody around the world and without banks; someway/somehow able to transfer bitcoins to fiat with nary spending a satoshi on fees, if opting to not spend them directly to make needed purchases via online stores accepting Bitcoin; no need to go through a rigorous application process for acceptance; ever be concerned about chargebacks; among other aspects, some of which not yet dreamt up.
Tentatively speaking, an immediate goal would be to get ten NPOs under our belt utilizing the current model, thus having a track record, of sorts, enabling us to springboard up to the next level. Amassing donations from this community only works for the way the organization is currently structured, but a more lofty enterprise will demand sourcing funding via other avenues.
No matter what lies ahead, and under whatever name, 100% accountability and transparency will always be enforced. Also, although I may be the founder, I'm keenly aware that I would not be of CEO caliber as we move forward, but I do have an individual in mind, one whose not ever a Bitcoiner, believing that's not a prerequisite to perform said duty. Ideally, I would love to retain Rassah as the CFO, earning a salary further down the road.
Speaking of salary: We've all seen, heard, or read, horror stories of how CEOs of major NPOs receive huge salaries, some while their organization of which they oversee maintain a low efficiency rating, or worse, are constantly in the red. I propose a salary base for any person working in the capacity of
Bitcoin 100 (or some other name) to be of US minimum wage, not exceeding $20K USD/yr (probably plus minimum expenses). And if that individual puts in ten years of service, they would receive their last salary amount for life (sans expenses) if they chose to leave the organization. But that's all tentative.
The bottom line is no matter what salary or other expenses will be in the future, this soon to be 501c3 NPO will have the highest efficiency rating, topping all charts readily available within a couple years, and will be the NPO that all others not only look up to, but musing to beat.
That said, who has a extra million dollars lying around and willing to donate to the cause? Or, who has a plan to get a million people to donate one dollar, ten million to donate a dime, or a billion to donate a satoshi? Either option works. BTW, I have a plan. The only problem I foresee is that it will scare the fuck out of Rassah when so much money starts showing up on the books.
Did I address your concern, giszmo?
~Bruno K~
