Author Topic: Decentralized Autonomous Charity  (Read 8117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline fuzzy

When you go to NYC present your idea to Stephanie Murphy from Let's Talk Bitcoin who is also part of Fr33, they could point out good charities / causes and help promote the idea.

Making sure to help already established crypto and internet freedom  related charities would make the word bitShares ring as benevolent as it is profitable...which makes it a pretty good idea in my book
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline werneo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • View Profile
    • chronicle of the precession of simulacra
  • BitShares: werneo

Hmm I would maybe give 30% to charity, maybe 5% to shareholders and 65% to players but I would just call it a normal lottery and advertise the charity element strongly.

Then we can say we give more than regular lotteries to everybody! We give more to charity (and directly to charity not via government which is a big plus), more to players and more to shareholders, all made possible by efficiency savings!

 +5% this.

I would add that use of the phrase "political cover" in this context could be interpreted as cynicism.

Offline bytemaster


While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.

If one is donating to consumption goods and services, yes. However, one could donate to capital projects, like an incubator that supports budding entrepreneurs in economically deprived areas, that do not necessarily fuel the cycle of dependence.

This should be done at a profit least you support a loss making activity.   Angel investors still expect profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline CWEvans

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.

If one is donating to consumption goods and services, yes. However, one could donate to capital projects, like an incubator that supports budding entrepreneurs in economically deprived areas, that do not necessarily fuel the cycle of dependence.

Offline bytemaster

Those buying tickets select the charity, not the DAC operators.   DAC operators only approve potential charities, but the allocation is in the hands of the players.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Rebranding Lotto + Bingo in a way that will grow garner positive press ( I hope ). 

http://107.170.30.182/charity/

This would be a for-profit charity... it makes money while helping charities.... good for all.

Why rebranding and not use all aspects?

Lotto
Bingo
Charity Lotto
Charity Bingo
Random Charity
Choose your Charity
etc.

I said that because I thing that many would prefere one particular aspect...

As an example I think many would not prefere Charity insteed of pure Lotto because in the beginning I would guess they dont trust 100% how the money will distrubuted among charity organizations and they don't trust charity orgs itself like in past because they have the feeling that money don't ends up to the poorest in the world beacause of corrupted operators*... So I think that would work better later when DACs have won Trust (because of using lotto,bingo DACs ). The first motivation of using DACs is profit and greed, like it or not.

* http://www.disasternews.net/news/article.php?articleid=2944
« Last Edit: April 05, 2014, 09:16:08 am by liondani »

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?

Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.



I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.

Well, a charity DAC lottery could give 50% to good works, 49.5% to winners, and give the remaining 0.5% to shareholdsers.

Hmm I would maybe give 30% to charity, maybe 5% to shareholders and 65% to players but I would just call it a normal lottery and advertise the charity element strongly.

Then we can say we give more than regular lotteries to everybody! We give more to charity (and directly to charity not via government which is a big plus), more to players and more to shareholders, all made possible by efficiency savings!

If you give 5% to shareholders you will probably be forked and outcompeted (Think about how many millions the LOTTOS of the world are taking in on ticket sales if just the prizes can be multiple millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. 0.5% of that for shareholders could be VERY lucrative)

What excites me is that all of these ideas will be tried in every conceivable permutation!  The fittest will survive.

And we now have a way to invest in the industry, and hence all of the fittest, without needing to know which they are in advance!
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile

Offline onceuponatime

Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?

Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.



I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.

Well, a charity DAC lottery could give 50% to good works, 49.5% to winners, and give the remaining 0.5% to shareholdsers.

Hmm I would maybe give 30% to charity, maybe 5% to shareholders and 65% to players but I would just call it a normal lottery and advertise the charity element strongly.

Then we can say we give more than regular lotteries to everybody! We give more to charity (and directly to charity not via government which is a big plus), more to players and more to shareholders, all made possible by efficiency savings!

If you give 5% to shareholders you will probably be forked and outcompeted (Think about how many millions the LOTTOS of the world are taking in on ticket sales if just the prizes can be multiple millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. 0.5% of that for shareholders could be VERY lucrative)

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?

Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.



I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.

Well, a charity DAC lottery could give 50% to good works, 49.5% to winners, and give the remaining 0.5% to shareholdsers.

Hmm I would maybe give 30% to charity, maybe 5% to shareholders and 65% to players but I would just call it a normal lottery and advertise the charity element strongly.

Then we can say we give more than regular lotteries to everybody! We give more to charity (and directly to charity not via government which is a big plus), more to players and more to shareholders, all made possible by efficiency savings!




Offline onceuponatime

Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?

Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.




I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.

Well, a charity DAC lottery could give 50% to good works, 49.5% to winners, and give the remaining 0.5% to shareholdsers.

Offline Empirical1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Do you have any thoughts on the revenue distribution of the charity lottery?

Existing lotteries on my side of the world, don't market themselves as charities and they give circa 28% of total revenues to 'good causes' which the msm/politicians will claim is mostly charitable & they take 0.5% of total revenues as profit.




I think if we give less to charity and much more to shareholders than a traditional lottery, while at the same time marketing ourselves as more of a charity than a lottery, it might be a hard sell.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 07:30:42 pm by Empirical1 »

bitbro

  • Guest

What about requiring a specific percentage to give to a charity to allow calling it charity and not gambling?

In theory every DAC could have a charity component that comes at the expense of profitability.   While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.

It may not help as much as you think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
What about requiring a specific percentage to give to a charity to allow calling it charity and not gambling?

In theory every DAC could have a charity component that comes at the expense of profitability.   While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.

But is there a certain percentage that has to be given to a charity to list the DAC in the charity category? Or is "charity" just an attribute that can be part of every DAC at free will of the DAC developer or if the DAC developer wants so at free will of the user who can define the charity percentage as he wants...

Offline bytemaster

What about requiring a specific percentage to give to a charity to allow calling it charity and not gambling?

In theory every DAC could have a charity component that comes at the expense of profitability.   While the purist in me knows that charity ultimately backfires by supporting dependence... it cannot be denied that it would provide a powerful marketing advantage and even some political cover.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.