Bitcoin donations no longer welcome on Wikipedia

[LeGaulois]

You see, this is the problem, and the example of Wikipedia is a good one.

Everyone comments here and there that it's "wonderful" and a big step when a company accepts Bitcoin. It's all well and good, but the reality is nobody uses it. In terms of return on investment, why would a company bother adding an option if nobody uses it?

So it may be great to start by admitting that most people are only interested in crypto for speculation. And a lot of you here too.
That's not the purpose of a cryptocurrency at all. Everything else (technology, decentralization, privacy) people don't care about at all. By the way, Cryptocurrency investors are psychopaths, study finds

If you think Amazon for example will start to add BTC as a payment option I can tell you the Apocalypse will be faster to come. There are very few places where people actually use it, such as i.e. Venezuela with its inflation, the Iranian government, or other countries seeking to evade economic sanctions...If we remove the reasons for politics, geopolitics, and economics, what is left? Almost nothing.

According to the 2021 financial year, the donations in bitcoins represented a value of only 0.08% of the foundation's revenues

the community has been voting on the issue since January 2022 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations#Voting
Over 70% voted to stop accepting cryptocurrencies for the donations (unsigned contributions and new accounts were not taken into account to avoid attempts to manipulate votes)

And as donations have been possible since 2014 or 2015, I think people have had enough time to do something. It's a bit sad for Wikipedia, personally, it's one of my favorite sites where I can spend hours on it

[stompix]

If you think Amazon for example will start to add BTC as a payment option I can tell you the Apocalypse will be faster to come.

And there are more people preparing for the Apocalypse than the ones that will buy stuff from Amazon with bitcoin. Oh no, let's rephrase that, there are more horse riders in the book of Revelation than there will be buyers!!!

I already know what's coming, one hundred comments about how Wikipedia is stupid for doing this, how they are losing money, how they will cease to exist, and on the 17th page the lone guy that has actually donated to Wikipedia via bitcoin. Does this make us what was that, narcissistic psychopaths? Probably not, but I think we as a community should start viewing things from the perspective of others before trying to stuff their mouth with cryptos and blockchain and tokens and decentralization.

If we remove the reasons for politics, geopolitics, and economics, what is left? Almost nothing.

Alpaca socks amongst them and I don't why I haven't ordered one of those, I need to check if they still ship outside the US!

[hatshepsut93]

Now I'm curious about the stats of percentage of Bitcoin donations in various organizations. Wikipedia is a very big and very mainstream organization, so it makes sense that Bitcoin donations are just 0.08%. I would assume that percentage is higher in situations when it's harder to deliver money, like donating to political dissidents in Russia, China, Belarus. Bitcoin shines when other options are hard to use, and such cases are rare in stable, free and peaceful parts of the world.

[pooya87]

Your arguments are flawed.

For starters you are comparing donations with revenue. People tend to rarely donate money to others, even free services such as Wikipedia. A correct comparison would be to compare how much donations they received in bitcoin compared to how much donations they received through other payment methods.
Not to mention that 0.08% is somewhere between $100k to $150k free money received which doesn't seem bad as far as donations go!

Secondly you are using donations as a conclusion that people aren't spending bitcoin. It's just apples and oranges! It is like going to a bitcoin mixer and see that 100% of user are mixing bitcoin then conclude that everyone in the world owns bitcoin

By the way, Cryptocurrency investors are psychopaths, study finds

Another flawed study just like your arguments. They basically selected a bunch of "psychopaths" that were investing in cryptocurrencies and asked them whether they invested in cryptocurrencies. It is like going to a bar where everyone is drinking and asking people "how many of you are drinking" then decide everyone in the world is a drinker!

other countries seeking to evade economic sanctions.

You can not evade sanctions using bitcoin!

~ Wikipedia, personally, it's one of my favorite sites where I can spend hours on it

And may I asked out of these hours how much money have you ever donated to Wikipedia?

[davis196]

I already know what's coming, one hundred comments about how Wikipedia is stupid for doing this, how they are losing money, how they will cease to exist, and on the 17th page the lone guy that has actually donated to Wikipedia via bitcoin. Does this make us what was that, narcissistic psychopaths? Probably not, but I think we as a community should start viewing things from the perspective of others before trying to stuff their mouth with cryptos and blockchain and tokens and decentralization.

Nobody says that the Wikipedia team is stupid for abandoning BTC donations.
The guys and girls behind Wikipedia can do whatever they want,when it comes to using payment methods for accepting donations.Acting butthurt just because some website decided to dump crypto payments seems really immature.
How many of the Wikipedia users are young people,who are actively using cryptocurrencies?Not that much,if you ask me.I don't have valid statistical data,but I assume that more than 90% of the Wikipedia users are boomers,who wouldn't even touch Bitcoin with a ten meter stick.
And yes,the shitcoin/NFT investors are psychopaths.

[mk4]

Your arguments are flawed.

For starters you are comparing donations with revenue.

*snip*

This. Quick note that while Wikipedia is non-profit, it doesn't automatically mean that literally 100% of revenue is going to come from donations. Apparently Wikimedia(Wikipedia's company) does invest and also gets revenue from merch sales.

[Leviathan.007]

The story of amazon accepting bitcoin and cryptocurrency payments is pretty old and since there are many people demanding this, I'm not surprised if that's to happen soon but since there ear some regulation and adoption issues about amazon accepting this payment method I think this will take some times and there will need some regulation before doing this, but in the case of Wikipedia, since I was expecting to see more people and more donation via bitcoin, I guess that's normal to see them stopped accepting bitcoin payments for their donations.

[Welsh]

You'll get the initial support of accepting Bitcoin, so the publicity is good, and you will have some users willing to donate to you just for the fact that you accept Bitcoin. However, most of us are treating Bitcoin as a reserve currency, and therefore don't easily part with it, especially with donations, and the like. That's just the unfortunate truth.

Although, I'm not sure I agree with suspending Bitcoin donations, its not like it requires any up keep to keep a donation address on your website, does it? The only upkeep would be if they're using a payment processor which charges for a special way of donating. I'll be honest, I never checked how it was implemented on Wikipedia.

[Fortify]

You see, this is the problem, and the example of Wikipedia is a good one.

Everyone comments here and there that it's "wonderful" and a big step when a company accepts Bitcoin. It's all well and good, but the reality is nobody uses it. In terms of return on investment, why would a company bother adding an option if nobody uses it?

So it may be great to start by admitting that most people are only interested in crypto for speculation. And a lot of you here too.
That's not the purpose of a cryptocurrency at all. Everything else (technology, decentralization, privacy) people don't care about at all. By the way, Cryptocurrency investors are psychopaths, study finds

If you think Amazon for example will start to add BTC as a payment option I can tell you the Apocalypse will be faster to come. There are very few places where people actually use it, such as i.e. Venezuela with its inflation, the Iranian government, or other countries seeking to evade economic sanctions...If we remove the reasons for politics, geopolitics, and economics, what is left? Almost nothing.

According to the 2021 financial year, the donations in bitcoins represented a value of only 0.08% of the foundation's revenues

the community has been voting on the issue since January 2022 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations#Voting
Over 70% voted to stop accepting cryptocurrencies for the donations (unsigned contributions and new accounts were not taken into account to avoid attempts to manipulate votes)

And as donations have been possible since 2014 or 2015, I think people have had enough time to do something. It's a bit sad for Wikipedia, personally, it's one of my favorite sites where I can spend hours on it

I think you raise some very good points and I'm not sure the crypto market will ever be big enough to support what the relative minority here are looking to get. Until Bitcoin can become instant, rather than relying on multiple confirmations, there will always be a faster payment network out there and in the age of instant gratification that will be unbeatable. Maybe exchange wallets will allow that sort of functionality, but again that defeats the point of having a separate decentralized network. Energy usage is also an ongoing concern in a world where oil is funding warmongers, so anything that is inefficient will naturally have to be left behind and that is the very basis for solving the puzzles to unlock new Bitcoin.

[Flexystar]

What’s the point here? I mean Wikipedia do not want to accept bitcoin as donations. I see nothing surprising on this statement. It’s their managements decision if they want to get donated with bitcoin or not? On the other hand we will always be discussing something which may not be first hand thinking of that management. For example, the management might have just discontinued bitcoin because it’s way volatile to maintain their treasuries and use it as and when required with decent amount left. Like on one fine day they may have 1 million in their pocket and on the following they may have 90k. May not be feasible to work up every time if that continue. (Just an example).
There is nothing serious about this. That’s why bitcoin is decentralised. You use it or you leave it, bitcoin does not care.

[jrrsparkles]

Your arguments are flawed.

For starters you are comparing donations with revenue.

*snip*

This. Quick note that while Wikipedia is non-profit, it doesn't automatically mean that literally 100% of revenue is going to come from donations. Apparently Wikimedia(Wikipedia's company) does invest and also gets revenue from merch sales.

AFAIK, Wikipedia only generate income via donations even in the last year or before Wikipedia asked the people to donate funds publicly because they ran out if funds to run the site. Its new to me that they own a media company and making money from it as well but basically they didn't get enough money with bitcoin as they expected so they stopped accepting it for now but who knows in future the things will be changed.

[uneng]

The justification of "receiving insignificant donations through bitcoin" to forbid people from donating bitcoins doesn't make sense*. 71,17% of Wikipedia community just showed to have developed a free hate for bitcoin that simply can't be explained. Maybe they were brainwashed by the influent people on the environment they usually access and attend.
I believe donations are donations, doesn't matter their value or in what currency they are coming in, what matters is the intention of donators and since it doesn't hurt anyone to receive a free amount of bitcoin, their decision is mannerless, rude and snob. Anyway, donators shouldn't worry, because there are many other sites and places where their bitcoins will be very welcome.

*Actually, Wikipedia community used the fallacy of bitcoin mining operation destroying the nature to go against the digital currency. Of course, members of the mainstream educational system worldwide are part of this community, so it's normal they consider ideas like that legit to delegitimize bitcoin. The mainstream educational system gives support to the traditional fiat system.

[pooya87]

AFAIK, Wikipedia only generate income via donations

They are receiving donations but it is not their main income. Their main income is around $157 million and is earned through goods sales and investments. The donations are actually a very tiny bit of their whole revenue.

even in the last year or before Wikipedia asked the people to donate funds publicly because they ran out if funds to run the site.

That was actually a very controversial fundraising that raised a lot of questions that where they hell are they spending all this money since they already earn a ton of it.

they didn't get enough money with bitcoin as they expected so they stopped accepting it for now but who knows in future the things will be changed.

I wouldn't be too quick to jump into conclusion about why they stopped accepting bitcoin. After all Wikimedia Foundation is located in US and we all know they have to answer to an authoritarian regime that is known to be the biggest enemy of privacy and more importantly anything that can threaten the dollar's dominance. #carrotcountry 'nough said...

[mk4]

AFAIK, Wikipedia only generate income via donations even in the last year or before Wikipedia asked the people to donate funds publicly because they ran out if funds to run the site. Its new to me that they own a media company and making money from it as well but basically they didn't get enough money with bitcoin as they expected so they stopped accepting it for now but who knows in future the things will be changed.

Spend a few minutes into searching around the web a bit about Wikimedia, the parent company of Wikipedia – them solely generating income via donations is simply not a fact.

[romero121]

The real-time usage is quite low which is the truth. In terms of acceptance it is possible to see a good number of stores and services accepting bitcoin, but those were happening through an intermediary which instantly convert bitcoin paid by the consumer to the seller in terms of fiat. As in the OP when large scale companies make their entry, it turns to be a big news. In reality thats just a form of speculation and it is an investment for the company. Maybe things can change in the future.

[larry_vw_1955]

You see, this is the problem, and the example of Wikipedia is a good one.

Everyone comments here and there that it's "wonderful" and a big step when a company accepts Bitcoin. It's all well and good, but the reality is nobody uses it. In terms of return on investment, why would a company bother adding an option if nobody uses it?

another good reason to not donate to wikipidia as far as i can see.

[franky1]

as some have mentioned. comparing donations of one currency. vs complete revenue of all currencies is a flawed measure.
with merchandise and other investments this already makes revenues a larger number than donations(of any currency)

however there are multiple reasons why businesses over the last 7 years have been dropping bitcoin acceptance.
the false promises of cheap easy payments or then offering alternative networks as the stupid solution to the stifled code that prevents bitcoin payments..

yep bitcoin was a currency for the unbanked where even poor countries could afford the fee's in 2009-2015.. but bitcoin has moved away from a currency proposition and now flipped over to a 'reserve' system where certain idiots want to stop bitcoin being used by the masses and instead keep it in-house to the elitist to then use other networks for the average user.
..
people only want to donate $1-$5 most of the time. and guess what. certain idiots dont want bitcoin to handle $1-$5 payments. they instead want people to use other networks to do that sort of payment. so i am not surprised that retailers and services asking for donations are dropping bitcoin

we need to get back to concentrating on innovating/scaling BITCOIN(not to be confused with altnets pretending to be bitcoin). we need to get back to making bitcoin a currency that is made to help the unbanked and people to use bitcoin daily.

if people dont want to donate due to the fee's being $1+ .. then people also need to realise that bitcoin is not useful for the BILLIONS of people where $1 is a days wage..

and no this is not an opportunity for certain silly people to advertise their altnets for retailers/services to use instead, this is a chance for people to WAKE UP and realise the altnet supporters are loving that bitcoin is losing utility and to instead of joining the altnet idiots.. actually try to proposition the bitcoin devs to do something about bitcoin

[Artemis3]

Isn't an "altcoin" person using 5 million USD for a fud campaign responsible for the sudden anti bitcoin attitude of certain "foundations"? Maybe they got a "nice" donation from said person huh?

Their loss.

franky1: Donations don't need speed, just use 1 sat/B. Your transaction will cost like 3¢, it may take an hour or six, who cares? They'll get it.

The issue is not Bitcoin, its wallets defaulting to "network guessing" algorithms on how fast a transaction should be. I have said it before, the wallets (and trading bots) feedback themselves creating artificial tx price spikes. People need to be educated and not let a wallet decide the transfer fee, many transactions can perfectly take hours. its still much better than many payment methods excluding debit/credit cards.

Guess what, there are countries where you can't use debit/credit cards in foreign currency, and having the worst fiat currency in the world doesn't help either, nobody accepts it. So no visa/mc/paypal/zelle/swift whatever fiat banks abroad process.

You think the use of bitcoin stopped somehow in 2015, but its still being used today for these things, even if you don't, others do, because it still works fine, even without lightning which is optional.

[Vaskiy]

The stopping of bitcoin acceptance by Wikipedia is once again confirmed. The organization believes that the two largest proof of work cryptocurrency bitcoin and ethereum will serve as a threat to the environmental sustainability goals of the foundation. The largest cryptocurrency consumes 204.5 terawatt-hours of electricity per year. Wikipedia have received a very simple amount of 0.08% and that's the reason why bitcoin acceptance is no more.

[LeGaulois]

Whatever you try to differentiate a revenue or a donation, it's still an income. Something companies take into account while accounting. It's also taxed (perhaps less but by principle it is). In any business, if you have a product that nobody uses you have to remove it.
Ask medium and large business owners, they will tell you the reality. Oh, wasn't it Microsoft or Overstock (I don't remember) that decided to stop accepting Bitcoin? Guess why.

Using the transaction's cost is not a valid argument. Usually, businesses accepting Bitcoin also accept a few other cryptocurrencies, some with cheap fees. So if people really cared about the fees they could pay with Doge or anything else cheaper than BTC, but even with this, it doesn't attract people.

You shouldn't ignore the reality that very few people truly use it and that was my point. Not about debating between revenue or a donation.
2/3 of the transactions are related to trading activities (I'm lazy to post a blog post about it, sorry) It means the majority is only interested in the cryptocurrency market to speculate, not because they need it IRL. Look with El Salvador, they started to think they need BTC, now it's done the citizens are not interested to use it. The ones that used it were people only interested in their $30 airdrop

 @Vaskiy
Half of the energy spent on mining comes from renewable energies. Energies that would be waster anyway since we can't store electricity.
Easy to make Bitcoin look like the villain when the media and (supposed) experts do not say the truth.
The energy needed for the banking system is a lot higher, yet I've never seen them crying for that

~ Wikipedia, personally, it's one of my favorite sites where I can spend hours on it

And may I asked out of these hours how much money have you ever donated to Wikipedia?

I do every 3 years but that doesn't matter