I guess I really didnt understand the idea fully at first, I was under the impression 100% of the donated funds were going to go towards saving up for a
single Charity Sanctuary, one where 100% of the charity funds emitted by the sanctuary were then spent by this microorganization on more small charities - like alternatives to Compassion, or Los Angeles homeless etc.
But after Luke commented on the budget not being big enough, I am now under the impression this fund would be asking for 500K perpetually forever to start more and more sanctuaries? And it would never end? I was going to vote for 1.5M over a few payments, if 100% went to a charity sanc. But I wont be voting for perpetual payments.
As that would mean we need to trust a centralized entity to run this charity, and remove the decentralized nature of our current DAC - We are forming a decentralized autonomous charity for a reason - so that not one single entity can be in a position to hijack the funds from the foundation and we can continue to operate into the future by replacing the tiny individual loss.
One example of this is Mike might have the best intentions, but if his cold wallet ever got higher than when the pools was 4 million, if someone coerces the money from him, he will just tell us "Sorry, it was stolen". Thats what we are trying to prevent by having everyone control a small part of biblepay. (Which btw, is actually fine Mike if you do run One sanctuary, or One charity) like me, I am the guy who handles Compassion each month, and I resist handling more than one charity as then I become a single point of failure for biblepay.
Maybe i need more clarification on the idea, but it sounds like the idea is to force all new charity funds through Mikes organization first, he does due dilligence then spends it. I think that due dilligence is already being done as we take on new charities. Jaap just spent a whole week of his time on due diligence for Cameroon One for example and did an excellent job.