Anyone know what happens if some Bitcoins in the Pineapple fund turn out to be illegally obtained (theft, money laundering, ransom ware, drugs, etc.)? Is there any requirement for the donee to return the coins?
Probably not. There's no such thing as title to money, so it's really hard to say "that's my money" in a situation like this. Relevant case[1] re fungibility of money. If money can be tainted, then eventually all money will lose value, which is bad. Especially important for finite supplies like Bitcoin.
A different argument is based on property law[2]. 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).
> Is there any requirement for the donee to return the coins?
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" [1]. (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 [2].
The intention is that all of the nonprofit grantees cash out immediately. Almost all of the nonprofits funded operate on very tight budgets, and this funding is immediately applied to support payroll and recruit for essential positions.
I wish they would consider GiveWell, which has applied.
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.
GiveWell is great, but by their own admission they can't accept all charitable dollars -- there is only a limited amount of capacity to receive funds effectively, and their growing popularity has drastically increased funding for the very few charities they approve. They will need to do more work to identify charities beyond their top 3.
Also, GiveWell's metrics only value human life, not animal life, so don't apply to Ocean fund.
[+] [-] aaroninsf|8 years ago|reply
Pine is pretty much the Alfred Nobel of the blockchain.
[+] [-] sp332|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TaylorGood|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cw67NTN8F|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] keyle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthewbauer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sowbug|8 years ago|reply
A different argument is based on property law[2]. 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).
[1]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
[2]http://law.jrank.org/pages/9188/Personal-Property-Bona-Fide-...
Disclaimer: this answer is the product of law school, which means it is likely of even worse quality than a Wikipedia search.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|8 years ago|reply
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" [1]. (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 [2].
[1] https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/should-charities-rep...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffry_Picower#Involvement-wit...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
[+] [-] DennisP|8 years ago|reply
If I understand this right, if they took the donation as bitcoins they shouldn't be paying taxes on them.
[+] [-] staplers|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justifier|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gault8121|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brownbat|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] DennisP|8 years ago|reply
https://pineapplefund.org/
https://www.givewell.org/charities/give-directly
[+] [-] gowld|8 years ago|reply
Also, GiveWell's metrics only value human life, not animal life, so don't apply to Ocean fund.
[+] [-] math_and_stuff|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edem|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cw67NTN8F|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] milcron|8 years ago|reply