Comments
I suspect that a delayed-allocation model is going to add a lot of complexity (and potentially create user-trust issues). It seems to me that such a model would require significantly more engineering and legal/operational work than a model in which GoodWallet transfers money directly from the donor to the creator's preselected charity ("immediate model"). It requires the user to have more trust in GoodWallet as custodian of the funds, [1] and is likely to either cost the donor a potential tax deduction or require GoodWallet to jump through some hoops to qualify as a proper charity in its own right. And I think would-be donors do consider the tax-deductibility of a donation as a signal that things are on the up and up.
The advantages of such a delayed-allocation model over an immediate model are not clear to me. In particular, even if the universe of eligible charities is drawn from GiveWell's recommended-charity list, the possible choices are not that different from each other and I suspect few creators would place much value on the ability to defer a decision on which one to point their supporters to.
As for "mini-DAF functionality for everyone": as I understand it from a US perspective, the classic reason for DAFs is to allow donors to take the tax deduction now while letting the donation grow for a while and deferring the choice of charity until later. Especially with changes to the US tax code a few years ago, people with modest sums to give aren't generally in a position to itemize donations anyway, and I didn't see anything about offering investment opportunities. So I'm not sure who the target audience is for this functionality.
- ^
As a potential donor with limited knowledge of anyone involved, I'd be relatively less worried about GoodWallet's leaders being dishonest but relatively more concerned about whether those leaders had structured things in a way that protected funds intended for charitable purposes from GoodWallet's potential creditors.
My first thought is, "is this money going to the person being tipped, or to a charity? If the latter, which charity?". After a minute of poking around the site and thinking about it, my next question is who's the target audience/donor? Is it somebody who doesn't know where to donate their money, but trusts somebody else (whoever they "tip") to donate it well?
Thanks for the feedback! Very generally the two sides we envision as users are:
Givers: People who wanna show love or support, maybe for something free or a favor, and want that their money does good instead of just being a simple payment.
Receivers (using the wallet): Basically anyone who gives informal support or provides free stuff – creators, people doing favors (couch surfing thanks, splitting a bill nicely), selling old belongings, or people that want a seamless way to channel gifts or small debts into charity instead of relying on cash. Basically, anywhere there are implicit costs but social norms mean you don't ask for money.
There was a recent post here that is very related: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/rCvaLdjefLoxtfcrv/small-simple-way-to-promote-effective-giving-while-making#:~:text=recommended%20%C2%A0charities
Our initial target group would be impact-driven creators that have a big crowd and community. By convincing only a small fraction of their supporters to donate a small amount, they could accumulate a significant amount which can be channeled towards donations.
Our future vision is bigger than the above and aims to establish a public API for anyone to use in their products. Think of a marketplace where people "pay" with the GoodWallet, or loyalty/cashback cards where the money goes into your GoodWallet (or pre-selected charity directly), etc.
Thanks for the response! That sounds pretty good, I know I've definitely given stuff to friends and said "Donate to X instead of paying me", so this seems like a good way to enable that. Agree with other comments that direct-to-charity seems way more trustworthy