Hacker News Reader

Comment by an1sotropy | Hacker News Reader

Re-hashing "long-term vision" with happy talk does not actually answer the question. Try answering the question.

Which part could I have done better on?

I interpreted the question as asking whether we grow the size of the pie or redistribute differently and i answered that the goal is to do both. Step 1 is to be a good (the best, ideally) stablecoin, step 2 is to become increasingly viable as a currency, etc. We articulate these steps in more detail in the OP link, and for serious, if there is a part you’d like more clarity on or that you think isn’t very well fleshed out, I’ll do my best to engage directly with it.

Also, I know that crypto has a lot of scams and there’s good reason for distrust, but let me disclaim that answering these questions is literally part of my job and I’m trying my best to be candid and responsive. Please be kind if you can, thank you.

Poverty is the part you could have done better on. For a family living in poverty, what about Glo specifically helps them?

Great, happy to clarify.

Glo is a fully-backed stablecoin, which means that for every dollar of glo that’s in circulation, we have a treasury of cash & cash equivalents equal to that amount. Some of that reserve is invested in short term Treasury bills, which create a yield. We give that yield directly to a charity called GiveDirectly, which then distributes the money directly to very poor people.

The idea is that Glo will compete with other stablecoins, and do all the other things that people currently do with USDC or tether, except that it will generate basic income for people living in extreme poverty as a side benefit.

Hope that helps.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'll check back in a decade to see which has increased more: poverty, or "Glo".

That they get a basic income of $30/month, which if you live on less than $1.90/day helps.

ok but if GiveDirectly is doing good work, why not side-step the crypto-everything and spend your efforts helping people with IRAs to make qualified charitable distributions give directly to GiveDirectly? Or other ways of directly supporting GiveDirectly?

I find the idea of "Passive Philanthropy" revolutionary. This would be the first model to demonstrate such a concept. That alone is worth the effort IMHO

For prior art, see "taxes".

I mean, yes, a charity that is 1) not a government, and so not subject to politics, 2) doesn't require continual donations because it is self-funding, and 3) big enough to do massive good... that combination is in fact revolutionary.

I'm just saying that government programs to help the poor, and even to do foreign aid, are kind of on the same model, except for point 1.

[Edit: I guess foundations are also kind of prior art. It's just that none of them are big enough for the kind of impact that Glo is reaching for.]

Another prior art, and a non-governmental one, is tithing. Lots of religious charities use tithings in ways that combat poverty. Or they could, at scale, if everyone joined the religion.

(In the future, at scale) Imagine if foundations kept their funds in Glo. That would be a philanthropic force multiplier. They are doing good on the front end and the back. We aren't a replacement of any giving channels but we could potentially be a maximizer to any of them.

He did. The question was, "create more stuff" or "redistribute existing stuff", and the answer was "redistribute existing stuff", with a side helping of "increase existing stuff by reducing deadweight loss".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com