[lucbocahut]

The source of the funds should be a concern for the charities involved in my opinion. I find the recipients a little quick to praise the donor with little being said about how the bitcoins were obtained. Maybe this information was simply not made public, and that would be fine if there was due diligence. However the fact more established institutions did not receive gifts is an eyebrow raiser: it is more likely these larger institutions would have taken steps to ensure the funds were legit to start with.

[celticninja]

The blockchain is public, the source of the coins can be tracked, not to an individual, but if they were 'tainted' coins e.g from a known silk road wallet, or from a major hack we would already know. Even if they were tumbled or rinsed through alt coins it would throw up some flags based on the transactions that fed into the main wallet address(es), and you can bet people have trawled through the transaction history of the pineapple fund wallets by now.

[BugsJustFindMe]

If someone tells you that they personally dug up some gold in a mountain in Colorado, how exactly would you go about verifying their claim?

[lucbocahut]

Mining rights, proper registration and certification of the gold nugget, etc., etc. It’s fairly common in the financial industry to check where funds come from (“know your customer”). It’s done to prevent money laundering and make illicit activity harder.

[garmaine]

Honest question: why should they care?

[lucbocahut]

Ethics: if the money comes from theft, child pornography or selling crack cocaine (extreme examples, not saying this is the case here), you can hardly say you are making the world a better place.