[fuelled6532]

You know these people are volunteers, right?

Even the ones getting paid, are making a tiny fraction of what they could in the private sector doing something more greedy with their time.

Life is not all startup exits and stock options. Some folks are actually trying to do good in the world.

Sure, they should have kept the 100k, but giving it away was well aligned with their mission.

[ljm]

There is a world beyond startup exits and stock options and it is a sustainable non profit public good entity. It blows my mind that HN doesn’t have this nuance but I guess the fog of war sets in outside of the Bay Area in California and nobody can see shit outside of the lingering mist of Silicon Valley.

Is it not better to be supported in your effort to do good by being able to volunteer for a stable non-profit over many years? That organisation would have a long term presence and huge influence. It could even lobby the local council or government.

In case you’re confused - the church does that and it is 100% dependent on volunteers who believe.

[SR2Z]

People see it just fine.

The difference is that startups are generally very motivated to spend their money well, and non-profits are... not.

It's the difference between the profit motive (simple and easy to understand) and just hoping that the nonprofit leadership is individually motivated (which is much more communicated and hard to verify).

When a startup blows up from overspending, a few investors are out their own money. When a nonprofit does, it tends to stiff the well-meaning public that trusted it with their cash.

The two are not the same. Nobody cares about the rich making a bad investment, but whenever a nonprofit blows up it gets so much harder for the remaining ones to raise money.