Crypto for the Homeless (501(C)(3))
cryptoforthehomeless.com
cryptoforthehomeless.com
Okay, well this is not what I initially suspected, it's a program to allow people with crypto to donate to volunteers who are going out on the streets and offering food and care packages to the homeless. This seems good.
For some additional discussion context I looked up the platform from the Oakland Homeless Advocacy Working Group:
https://www.shelteroak.org/hawg.html
I wanted to provide a summary but I realize I am late and need to head out. Taking a quick look, it seems that the latter group is focused more on legal measures to legalize encampments and work on supportive infrastructure and city-provided resources for these groups. I am sure that a combination of direct volunteer support and broader legal efforts can go hand in hand in supporting people without traditional housing.
One of the many problems with the banks is that they may require you have an address you call home, in order to open, and keep, a bank account.
Bitcoin can, among other things, bank the unbanked.
Too bad grocery stores, and most other businesses, don’t accept Bitcoin as payment.
And keep in mind, many people are homeless without being drug users. So even buying drugs, which is one of the things Bitcoin is most suited for, is not super helpful to many homeless people.
Anyway. If giving Bitcoin to the homeless does not help them, it’s nice to see that there is a way that Bitcoin can be used for helping the homeless directly. Namely by donations which can be turned into foods and other things given directly to the homeless.
> Too bad grocery stores, and most other businesses, don’t accept Bitcoin as payment.
This means that Bitcoin cannot bank the unbanked (and it never could).
I also wonder how you would "bank the unbanked" by requiring them to have an internet-connected smartphone to even be able to be banked by Bitcoin.
Edit Smartphone or other internet connected device
Smartphones are essential in daily life to many people, even if they happen to be homeless.
Hopefully in most countries it is possible to have an internet connection even if you don’t have a home address. I.e that even if no one lets you buy a mobile subscription it will still be possible to have prepaid SIM cards in your country. And that some of those prepaid providers do not require that you have a home address.
Yes they are, and that is increasingly a problem. Especially for the unemployed and the homeless. Because you're required to have a relatively expensive gadget with good internet connection just to barely function within society.
In most urban areas, every fast food establishment, public library, coffee shop, grocery store and convenience store has Wi-Fi.
As long as a device has Wi-Fi and a free Google Voice or a dozen other VoIP apps, you don't even need cell service most of the time.
Urban areas where most homeless people are are blanketed with wifi.
2. You're tying people to the whims of internet availability
3. (not yet discussed: main reason for being unbanked is not enough money to even cover the initial required balance)
4. (not yet discussed: bitcoin transaction fees)
But sure, do tell me how great Bitcoin is for "banking the unbanked": since we already increasingly exclude people by requiring them to have internet-connected smartphones what's another such requirement which is additionally also much more expensive for all transactions.
The homeless used it because the banks refused to service them and sleeping on the street with cash in your socks is dangerous. That made the volatility and fees involved in cycling dollars in and out of a Bitcoin ATM look like great deal relative to their lack of options before.
In the U.S., many (most?) who are homeless still manage to have cellphones.
An internet connection is not required to hold a private key. A hardware wallet would probably make the most sense.
you can trade signed transactions around like a file for a long time and then someone else goes to the internet cafe to bulk upload eventually.
no different than the practice of bundling credit card transactions together to reduce static fees, or settling a bunch of checks at the end of some time interval. it is a temporary trusted environment in all of those systems including bitcoin, no big deal. keep track of anybody whose payment failed.
bitcoin transactions can be signed and traded where only one party has an internet connection.
bitcoin transactions can be signed and traded where neither party has an internet connection.
it just has to be broadcast and added to the chain eventually. so even in a world without ubiquitous internet this concept doesn't go away, it will always exist in some form or anybody can recreate it or perpetuate a blockchain that has fallen into disuse.
At this point it's much easier and cheaper to open a bank account for every homeless person.
Other points: Some of the points, and others, covered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=36547210
With all the piles of would-bes, and justs, and perhaps in this thread (an inevitability in any crypto discussion) these pretend benefactors could just open bank accounts for the homeless, and it would be actually cheaper, and more beneficial.
See also other points: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=36547210
This is crypto we're talking about here, there's really no guardrails.
If anyone has an idea to actually execute that original idea right and do some good net net, here's the website: https://nftsforstarvingchildren.com/
I suspect some of the OG crypto millionaires like to give away small amounts of their fortune to charities because as well as being tax deductible, it avoids capital gains taxes, and promotes use of cryptocurrency (increasing the value of the rest of their holdings).
The Catholic Foundation, which is part of the Archdiocese of Denver takes crypto, and has a whole page about the tax benefits: https://thecatholicfoundation.com/crypto/
"Donating cryptocurrency is a non-taxable event. Donors do not owe capital gains tax on the appreciated crypto that is donated and can typically deduct the fair market value of the donation on their taxes."
If you have $1000 worth of crypto that you bought for $100 and donate it, you have $0 worth of crypto (because you gave it away) and e.g. $400 (assuming a 40% marginal tax rate) worth of tax savings.
If you sell the crypto instead and keep the money, you pay e.g. 33% (20% federal + 13% California) taxes on it, and you have $0 worth of crypto (because you sold it) and $670 worth of cash after taxes.
If you're assuming 13% California, that's $1M annual income. You should assume 37% marginal federal tax rate for deductibles, and assume 23.8% federal tax rate (due to NIIT) for long-term capital gains.
Therefore, donation generates $497 of value (37%+13.3%=50.3%) whereas selling and keeping generates $632 of value (23.8%+13%=37.1%). Therefore, the difference ($135) is quite a bit smaller than your math ($270).
Kids this is your brain on tribalism. Just say NO!
> Every receipt, transaction, reimbursement, and donation is publicly available information you can find here. You will find that all photos of receipts are publicly available on our blog. All donation money goes to funding feeding and providing supplies for the homeless.
Find a different charity to attack guys. You're making yourselves look foolish. And you're punching down. It's gross.
We get it, crypto bad. Well, it's math; it isn't going anywhere. Might as well praise the good stuff - which this is.
As I believe crypto isn’t anything, this is the kind of marketing they need for people to join their game of musical chairs.
So money laundering … for good?