Visit unknown.fund now and all you get is a Squarespace "website expired"...
Bonus: The Squarespace "website expired" page loads 9.22 MiB of assets (2.29 MiB gzipped) in order to display <20 words in total (not a thing is rendered until that 9.22 MiB are fully loaded). Including this 6.29MiB script:
>Bonus: The Squarespace "website expired" page loads 9.22 MiB of assets (2.29 MiB gzipped) in order to display <20 words in total (not a thing is rendered until that 9.22 MiB are fully loaded). Including this 6.29MiB script:
The brief mention of the recipient which, in response to a one-time boon, scaled up significantly is a little saddening. That’s a very common failure mode.
It seems like in many of these cases The organization why did the scale up anyway, but never had the capital to make the required infrastructure/technology/manpower investments. At least one of them said scaled up significantly and as a result attracted a new class of donors.
How great to have adopted cryptocurrency/in something early enough where you're able to give back in such a substantial way. That feeling they have must be deeply rewarding.
Sell it on any above-board exchange, wire the money to your bank account, if there's any income (either when receiving these coins for something, or capital gains due to them appreciating in value), file the appropriate documentation with IRS or whatever your local tax authority is. If the income is substantial, then (just as with any less common substantial income) a tax lawyer might be helpful.
It doesn't really function without JavaScript enabled, either. The page loads, but the article is cut off, and graphics/logos don't seem to load completely. There is evidently a lot of JavaScript doing the heavy lifting to display ordinarily static content here.
I think it's fair to believe them unless you have personal experience (or statistics) that contradict what they're saying.
I've never understood why "that sounds wrong to me, a person with no first-hand knowledge of it" would ever trump another, credible person's "this is what I've experienced".
Anyway, it doesn't seem like a make-or-break detail in the article.
That line read to me more as “[we have found that] donors are reluctant to donate large amounts to female-led organizations”, but I am also hesitant to accept that at face value
> "My aims, goals, and motivations in life have nothing to do with [. . .] being [. . .] mega rich. So I'm doing something else: donating the majority of my bitcoins to charitable causes.”
The very act of large scale giving is an act of power which uniquely characterizes the mega rich. Such giving invariably has an agenda attached, whether it's one that you like or dislike. That's the case for mega rich donors as seemingly disparate as the Gates Foundation or th DeVos foundation.
In the case of this fund, the agenda appears to be to push Bitcoin. Otherwise they could have just liquidated the Bitcoin to legal tender before donating thereby relieving the recipient institutions of the challenges associated with it. Having spoken people at one of these organizations, they had zero desire to hold Bitcoin, as they need cash for day to day operations.
From a tax perspective donating an asset is much better than liquidating it and donating the cash. Charities don’t have to pay capital gains, you do, even if the money is eventually going to a charity.
Why would he give away bitcoin just to promote Bitcoin? Are you suggesting he had an even larger sum of Bitcoin hidden somewhere? Or he just wanted to promote Bitcoin at a personal cost?
>Otherwise they could have just liquidated the Bitcoin to legal tender before donating thereby relieving the recipient institutions of the challenges associated with it.
And give up their anonymity in the process. He clearly cares about such things.
My riposte would be that $1M donations aren't uncommon - but million-dollars-in-bitcoins-from-mysterious-person are, they're interesting, we write this thread about them. Additionally it emphasizes where the money came from - this isn't a million shaved off a few billion of MS company stock. It's come from somebody who took a punt and it paid off handsomely. Equivalent to a lottery win. Finally he gave it to smaller charities and asked them to do something significant with it.
I'm not in the least religious, but taps into the tropes about reaping, sowing, sharing, blah blah - and as the article points out, it inspired others to do the same.
At least be honest and say that this is your guess / speculation on the motivation of Pine. Not sure how you can claim that donations like this are "invariably" of selfish nature. Some people actually do want to help others for no alterior reason.
>Otherwise they could have just liquidated the Bitcoin to legal tender before donating thereby relieving the recipient institutions of the challenges associated with it.
Pine's money is likely in a not-fully-legal status. That's why Pine needs to donate bitcoin, and needs to donate it anonymously, and doesn't care about receipts from the charities. If the money is not-fully-legal, it's going to be hard to convert it to dollars.
[+] [-] oefrha|6 years ago|reply
https://www.unknown.fund/press-release
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21538748
https://web.archive.org/web/20191114165212/https://www.unkno...
Visit unknown.fund now and all you get is a Squarespace "website expired"...
Bonus: The Squarespace "website expired" page loads 9.22 MiB of assets (2.29 MiB gzipped) in order to display <20 words in total (not a thing is rendered until that 9.22 MiB are fully loaded). Including this 6.29MiB script:
https://assets.squarespace.com/universal/scripts-compressed/...
[+] [-] solotronics|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgotmypw|6 years ago|reply
Only if you have JS enabled.
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16487159
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16377543
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16273496
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16121306
2017: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15917598
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15995391
[+] [-] foobiekr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comicjk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TaylorGood|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trollied|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterisP|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aprao|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmporter|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marczellm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaymath|6 years ago|reply
Not that this is uncommon, as we approach 2020...
[+] [-] sml156|6 years ago|reply
My mileage may vary from yours since I use Ublock and uMatrix and I also block add sites with my own DNS server.
[+] [-] curiousgal|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smt88|6 years ago|reply
I've never understood why "that sounds wrong to me, a person with no first-hand knowledge of it" would ever trump another, credible person's "this is what I've experienced".
Anyway, it doesn't seem like a make-or-break detail in the article.
[+] [-] joshspankit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|6 years ago|reply
> Bitcoin is currently valued at around $8,250.
The price hasn't been that high for over a month.
[+] [-] sbierwagen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rolltiide|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sodafountan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danans|6 years ago|reply
The very act of large scale giving is an act of power which uniquely characterizes the mega rich. Such giving invariably has an agenda attached, whether it's one that you like or dislike. That's the case for mega rich donors as seemingly disparate as the Gates Foundation or th DeVos foundation.
In the case of this fund, the agenda appears to be to push Bitcoin. Otherwise they could have just liquidated the Bitcoin to legal tender before donating thereby relieving the recipient institutions of the challenges associated with it. Having spoken people at one of these organizations, they had zero desire to hold Bitcoin, as they need cash for day to day operations.
[+] [-] peter422|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Acrobatic_Road|6 years ago|reply
>Otherwise they could have just liquidated the Bitcoin to legal tender before donating thereby relieving the recipient institutions of the challenges associated with it.
And give up their anonymity in the process. He clearly cares about such things.
[+] [-] goldcd|6 years ago|reply
My riposte would be that $1M donations aren't uncommon - but million-dollars-in-bitcoins-from-mysterious-person are, they're interesting, we write this thread about them. Additionally it emphasizes where the money came from - this isn't a million shaved off a few billion of MS company stock. It's come from somebody who took a punt and it paid off handsomely. Equivalent to a lottery win. Finally he gave it to smaller charities and asked them to do something significant with it.
I'm not in the least religious, but taps into the tropes about reaping, sowing, sharing, blah blah - and as the article points out, it inspired others to do the same.
[+] [-] baobabKoodaa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Buge|6 years ago|reply
Pine's money is likely in a not-fully-legal status. That's why Pine needs to donate bitcoin, and needs to donate it anonymously, and doesn't care about receipts from the charities. If the money is not-fully-legal, it's going to be hard to convert it to dollars.