This is false. For profit companies clear and custody billions per day successfully.
Brokerages, banks, title and escrow companies, clearing companies.
Crypto/web3.0 - for some reason I always end up trusting these folks LESS not more
Brokerages, banks, title and escrow companies, clearing companies.
Crypto/web3.0 - for some reason I always end up trusting these folks LESS not more
> Brokerages, banks, title and escrow companies, clearing companies.
Those are all highly regulated industries. Some of them would love to put stuff in their T&Cs like BountySource’s “if the beneficiary doesn’t withdraw the money after 2 years we get to keep it” but the regulators would never let them. For a business like BountySource, that level of regulation does not exist
There does need to be some flexibility however - e.g. if a project is defunct and nobody wants to work on it, it is stupid just to leave funding in a bank account forever. But if you give it to another open source project (preferably one in the same area) I think that is fine. Adding it to the coffers of a for-profit company isn’t
And it might be reasonable for a not-for-profit to contract with a for-profit firm to administer such a funding scheme - but they should only be trustees of the funds (so if they go bankrupt the creditors can’t touch it) and they only get paid a defined percentage as a fee for service