Pine is pretty much the Alfred Nobel of the blockchain.
I wish I had the money and Pine's, or Mr Apple's :) attitude: tens of millions are than I'll ever need so I'll donate the rest.
To be fair a lot of rich people donate, maybe even more now that Gates has pushed the idea of not leaving everything to their kids.
A different argument is based on property law. You can't transfer better title than you have, but a "bona fide purchaser" obtains something that's practically pretty close to good title. So you could see the result hinging on whether a charity knew it was receiving stolen money (again, question whether property concepts apply at all to money).
http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2013/05/reid-on-scotlan... -- OP didn't ask about jurisdiction, but this principle seems to be somewhat consistent in various places
Disclaimer: this answer is the product of law school, which means it is likely of even worse quality than a Wikipedia search.
The law doesn't concern itself with the technical implementation of bitcoin. In addition, trackable and "tainted" money is dangerous for people to accept; bitcoin just makes it real easy to identify that.
That's an astounding statement to make without citation or qualification. In general, the law (at least in the form of U.S. appellate courts and congressional bodies) is very good at including public-policy consequences in its decisionmaking process.
my point is that there is no guarantee that bitcoin will receive favorable decisions. it's hard for the lay person to understand (why not just print more?) and if ever declared a currency-non-grata could actively be attacked in this way.
i should add that i have engaged in btc currency speculation and had a positive result. the long term value/health of btc is of great benefit to me. but, it would be foolish for me to assume that because it would good for it to be so that it will be so.
The trustee of Mr. Madoff's estate sued a benefiting charity in 2009, in part "under the law of fraudulent conveyance" per which "there is a six-year lookback" for being "sued to return...money" . (The chief problem with these lawsuits, the article notes, is the "traceability of the money." It remains to be seen whether Bitcoin's public ledger negates this problem of traceability.) They ended up setting for billions .
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
If I understand this right, if they took the donation as bitcoins they shouldn't be paying taxes on them.
The bitcoins have been transferred and cashed out
The use of the incorrect form of recruitment appears to be one instance of a similar phenomena for many words that is perhaps some sort of American or Silly-Valley grammatical neologism. Does anyone know whether this has an established/accepted linguistic description or whether it has been noted in academia?
> to support payroll,
> and recruit for essential positions.
GW is in the business of evaluating the effectiveness of charitable giving to maximize impact. If you have a bunch of money to give away, it's probably tempting to think you can outperform the impact of professionals, just as if you suddenly have a bunch of money to invest, you might assume at first you can outperform professional investors.
Sadly the feedback isn't quite as pronounced in charitable giving. It can feel rewarding giving to an organization that makes a smaller impact than its rivals, so long as it has great promotional materials and you don't ask too many questions.
Also, GiveWell's metrics only value human life, not animal life, so don't apply to Ocean fund.
Also, feel free to disagree, but you might find their argument that expense ratios should not be the most important charity metric interesting: https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/01/the-worst-way-to-pick-a...