Would you rather have this:
I am honored. Thank you. All of my marginal resources are currently directed to a project outside of crypto, and if it is not out of keeping with the intent, I would direct this gift to that purpose. Someone of my acquaintance is working at a xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx in a region of Africa ..........
or this:
Since this thread is about giving, I will suggest that others donate to one of those organizations and let Armory double the value of your money (as it leaves your wallet)! The page linked above includes 5 organizations:
- Free Software Foundation (FSF)
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
- College Cryptocurrency Network
- Chamber of Digital Commerce
- Bitcoin Foundation
,
OR
first have 5 or more people experience THIS:
I'm still astounded by your auspicious gesture Risto, you really caught me at a pivotal and challenging point in my life and I feel stronger than ever now. I'm intending to take the next day or two figuring out how to make the most positive impact.
Sirs, wishing all the best peace and love your way,
God bless
AFTER WHICH, you can still have the first and the second!
--//**//--
Money does not extinguish itself.
(Money extinguishes debt without generating new debt; thus fiat is not money, but this is just a tangential issue here, because in gift economy there is no debt.) Therefore, to generate happiness by means of money, it does not matter how much money you have, because it is not consumed in the process
IF you can make such a process where it is not consumed.
Research shows that money increases happiness in multiple occasions (results are statistical, and as such do not apply in every single case):
EARNING money increases happiness.
SPENDING money increases happiness.
GIVING money increases happiness.
RECEIVING money (impersonally, without connection to your effort or the giver) DOES NOT increase happiness.
It should be very easy to increase happiness, just by sending some money circulating so that people would receive
with connection, gaining some happiness, and then give, and spend, and gain more happiness. It would just go on and on.
Mathematically, if in each round, X% of the money is withdrawn from the circulating pool, the total amount gifted until the pool runs dry, is (original amount)/X.
Therefore, when we approach the point that people withdraw only small amounts, like 20%, 10% or 5%, or nothing at all, some magic happens: the original 10btc donated is multiplied to 50 or 100 btc, making much more people happy and empowered than could otherwise be the case. All the money in the pool is spent (happiness * 10btc), but in addition it is given 5-10 times (happiness * 50-100 btc). Furthermore, because a myriad of people have been able to decide (one at a time) concerning the spending, the money will likely be spent in ways with very high marginal utility. Totally unlike if I tried to spend my money in good people or good projects, because I have no way to evaluate them. Or the government, which is much more miserable than I.
But,
organized charities suck the money from the people in a similar way as governments. The aims are much better, but the means not much different. It is not an organic way of doing things. You get the joy of giving, that is correct. But there the cycle ends. The recipients of the aid are not any happier (don't blame me saying so, it is research). They don't get to earn, spend, or give. It is spoonfed to them.
Also, as I wrote in the introduction of this post, if you have a pet project that needs funding, please consider that everyone has pet projects: if your judgement is that your project is so important that it deserves all the money, you are
wrong. The marginal utility of money is such that someone further down the line, definitely has a pet project that could utilize
a part of the money more efficiently than you. If you are such a big honcho that you don't take the time to find people to give a part of the money, why do you even have unfunded needs
In general, people who say that their project is so important that its marginal utility and internal rate of return is higher than anyone else's, are wrong. If they even understood what they are talking about, they would have become rich beyond imagination by investing in their own project long ago.
And after it emerges to the people who have been blessed beyond their needs in their business or investments that, instead of withdrawing from the pool, they can
donate some more to it, then we have a perpetuum mobile: The pool never runs dry, there is complete accountability with who gives and takes money and for what purpose, and nothing is ever decided by a community vote or any political and corruptible method.
- If you are a wealthy and magnanimous guy, this method gives you praise and adoration (unlike the current tax system which extracts the money out of you at gunpoint, and treats you as a criminal).
- The people in the middle, the ones connected in the society, are empowered much beyond any previous system. Large sums move through your hands and you get to allocate them to your needs if you suddenly have any, projects that need to be forwarded, and less fortunate people whom you personally know are good and honest. Since the middle class historically pays the most taxes, it is possible that these people will also want to be net contributors.
- The poor guys learn the magic of money: the more you let go, the more it comes to you. If you are an all-sucking mouth that keeps all the money that others put in, you realize that soon they will not want to feed you so much. If instead, you keep the necessary minimum to yourself, and give the rest to those even worse off, soon you will not only receive more money, but also need less of it, and actually both you and your friends will soon not be poor at all.
I have been shrewd but not stingy. I have walked instead of bought a discounted bus ticket to save $1-2. But also several times donated 5-10% of my entire net worth to charities, including last year. I have been there, all the way.
This text is long, and there is no TL;DR because the concepts presented are so new, and even understanding what I am after, will require reading it again and again (for most).
--//**//--
This one is just the first one. And we learn what works and what doesn't. I will amend some terms in the OP now. Since no money has yet been sent, it is still possible to change your previous decision, unless the recipient person has already taken the money. Changes:
- Donations to people outside bitcoinworld are counted as your personal spending. The reason is that they are dead ends, and we cannot enforce them to report here how happy they are, and also they cannot give the money on, even if they don't need it.
- Donations to charities or any nonpersonal entities are personal spending.
- All personal spending (incl giving to Mum, or Monero development, or going to beer with friends and telling them how great Bitcoin is) should be documented with reasonable precision, such as David is showing upthread.
- If you have received 200m
BTC or more, you must give to at least 2 different BCT members, other than yourself, at least 50m
BTC each
- If you have received 100m
BTC or more, you must give to at least 1 BCT member, other than yourself, at least 50m
BTC- Every gift has to be at least 50m
BTCIt is OK to reject the gift, but if you spend it carelessly, then I will not give you more later, and hopefully the others don't, either.
