Mina Ecosystem Funding (MEF) - Testing for a good cause

Governance
44

[Approved]

Recommendation: N/a

1 Like
45

[Reject]

Recommendation:

  • The organization is not registered under the 501(c)(3) tax exemption status
1 Like
46

[Approved]

Recommendation: N/a

1 Like
47

[Approved With Modification]

Recommendation:

  • Kindly elaborate more on how the proposal will benefit the Mina ecosystem
1 Like
48

[Approved]

Recommendation: N/A

1 Like
49

[Approved]

Recommendation: N/a

1 Like
50

proposal updated as per Joaquin’s discord message:

Joaquin.Lopez — 09/11/2024 3:28 PM

This proposal was amended to clarify that it is possible to donate to Open Arms via Omprakash, a tax exempt non-profit organization registered under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. +Info: https://www.omprakash.org/global/proactiva-open-arms/donate

51

Results of the Consideration Phase:

Here are the updated vote counts for each project:

:one: . Proposal for Donating to Save the Children (ID: 26)
Proposer: cristinaecheverry
Yes Votes: 4
No Votes: 0

:two: . GiveBit (ID: 33)
Proposer: vfrsilva
Yes Votes: 4
No Votes: 0

:three: . Empower Youth Through Technology (ID: 20)
Proposer: remiantczak
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 2

:four: . Proposal for Donating to Fundació Mona (ID: 27)
Proposer: cristinaecheverry
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 1

:five: . ElectronicFrontierFoundation (ID: 31)
Proposer: benk0543
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 1

:six: . Proposal for Funding Happy Doggo (ID: 34)
Proposer: cristinaecheverry
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 1

:seven: . Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (ID: 28)
Proposer: remiantczak
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 0

:eight: . Conservation Fund (ID: 29)
Proposer: remiantczak
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 0

:nine: . MAGinternational (ID: 30)
Proposer: benk0543
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 0

:one::zero: . Doctors Without Borders (MSF) (ID: 25)
Proposer: joaquin.lopez1
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 1

:one::one: . UNICEF USA (ID: 32)
Proposer: joaquin.lopez1
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 1
.
:one::two: . Save The Children (ID: 36)
Proposer: illya.papi
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 1

:one::three: . Save lives with Open Arms (ID: 23)
Proposer: joaquin.lopez1
Yes Votes: 1
No Votes: 4

:one::four: . Cristina’s Testing for the MEF trial (ID: 19)
Proposer: cristinaecheverry
Yes Votes: 1
No Votes: 3

:one::five: . Darussfaka Funding (ID: 24)
Proposer: berkingurcan
Yes Votes: 0
No Votes: 5

:one::six: . Fund me pls y,y (ID: 22)
Proposer: joaquin.lopez1
Yes Votes: 0
No Votes: 4

:one::seven: . Fund me pls (ID: 21)
Proposer: joaquin.lopez1
Yes Votes: 0
No Votes: 0

:rocket: Based on the results above:

:white_check_mark: We will proceed with only one ‘Save the Children’ proposal.
:white_check_mark: The following proposals will proceed to the deliberation phase:

:one: . Proposal for Donating to Save the Children (ID: 26)
:two: . GiveBit (ID: 33)
:three: . Empower Youth Through Technology (ID: 20)
:four: . Proposal for Donating to Fundació Mona (ID: 27)
:five: . ElectronicFrontierFoundation (ID: 31)
:six: . Proposal for Funding Happy Doggo (ID: 34)
:seven: . Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (ID: 28)
:eight: . Conservation Fund (ID: 29)
:nine: . MAGinternational (ID: 30)
:one::zero: . Doctors Without Borders (MSF) (ID: 25)
:one::one: . UNICEF USA (ID: 32)
:one::two: . Save lives with Open Arms (ID: 23)

Same as the results shared on Discord

52

Results of the Deliberation Phase:

Vote Count Results - Deliberation Phase

1. Doctors Without Borders (MSF) (ID: 25)
Proposer: joaquin.lopez1
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 0
Approved Modified Votes: 1

2. Proposal for Donating to Save the Children (ID: 26)
Proposer: cristinaecheverry
Yes Votes: 3
No Votes: 0
Approved Modified Votes: 0

3. Save lives with Open Arms (ID: 23)
Proposer: joaquin.lopez1
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 2
Approved Modified Votes: 0

4. Darussfaka Funding (ID: 24)
Proposer: berkingurcan
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 1
Approved Modified Votes: 1

5. Proposal for Funding Happy Doggo (ID: 34)
Proposer: cristinaecheverry
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 1
Approved Modified Votes: 0

6. Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (ID: 28)
Proposer: remiantczak
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 0
Approved Modified Votes: 0

7. Conservation Fund (ID: 29)
Proposer: remiantczak
Yes Votes: 2
No Votes: 0
Approved Modified Votes: 0

8. MAGinternational (ID: 30)
Proposer: benk0543
Yes Votes: 0
No Votes: 1
Approved Modified Votes: 1

9. UNICEF USA (ID: 32)
Proposer: joaquin.lopez1
Yes Votes: 1
No Votes: 2
Approved Modified Votes: 0

10. Proposal for Donating to Fundació Mona (ID: 27)
Proposer: cristinaecheverry
Yes Votes: 1
No Votes: 1
Approved Modified Votes: 0

11. ElectronicFrontierFoundation (ID: 31)
Proposer: benk0543
Yes Votes: 1
No Votes: 1
Approved Modified Votes:

:x: Impostor: :x:
12. Empower Youth Through Technology (ID: 20)
Proposer: remiantczak
Yes Votes: 1
No Votes: 3
Approved Modified Votes: 0

:stop_sign: Removed: :stop_sign:
13. GiveBit (ID: 33)
Proposer: vfrsilva
Yes Votes: 0
No Votes: 2
Approved Modified Votes: 0

Same as the results shared on Discord

53

Hi here is the Community feedback from the Deliberation Phase. Please note that it was summarised and categorized by Open AI:

:one: Summarised and categorized feedback for Donating to Save the Children (ID: 26)

Summary: The feedback discusses donating to Save the Children, emphasizing its positive global impact on vulnerable children while also advising potential donors to consider their values and the effectiveness of their donations. It acknowledges that some donors may prefer smaller, grassroots initiatives over large organizations.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • Direct impact: Donations contribute to improving the lives of vulnerable children worldwide.
    • Focus on critical areas: Provides essential resources like education, healthcare, and emergency relief.
    • Breaking cycles of poverty: Plays a role in helping children escape poverty and survive crises.
    • Reputation: Save the Children is a well-established, reputable organization with global reach.
  • Considerations:
    • Personal values: Donors should reflect on their personal values and ensure their donation aligns with their goals.
    • Research impact: Advises donors to investigate how their contributions will have the most effect.
    • Preference for grassroots initiatives: Some may prefer to support smaller, more localized causes or organizations over large-scale operations.
  • Conclusion:
    Save the Children is a strong option for donors who believe in a global mission of improving children’s lives and prefer to contribute to a reputable and large-scale organization. However, donors should consider their personal values and research where their donations will be most effective before making a decision.

:two: Summarised and categorized feedback for Doctors Without Borders (MSF) (ID: 25)

Summary: Donating to Doctors Without Borders (MSF) helps support a globally recognized humanitarian organization known for providing critical medical care to vulnerable populations in conflict zones, disaster areas, and regions with limited healthcare. MSF operates independently from political or economic influences, ensuring aid reaches those in need. While MSF has a strong reputation for integrity, potential donors should review their financial transparency and impact metrics to ensure alignment with personal values and goals.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • Global Impact: Supports critical medical care in underserved, conflict-ridden, or disaster-affected regions.
    • Humanitarian Focus: Provides life-saving interventions such as emergency surgeries and vaccinations.
    • Independent Operations: Free from political and economic pressures, prioritizing aid to the most vulnerable.
    • Reputation: Widely regarded for integrity and effectiveness in delivering healthcare.
  • Considerations:
    • Financial Transparency: Donors may want to examine MSF’s financial reports and impact metrics to understand how funds are allocated.
    • Value Alignment: Donors need to ensure their values align with MSF’s mission and operational strategies before contributing.
  • Conclusion:
    MSF is an excellent organization for those seeking to make a direct impact on global health crises, but due diligence regarding financial transparency and alignment with personal values is advisable before donating.

:three: Summarised and categorized feedback for Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (ID: 28)

Summary: The feedback focuses on the role of the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) in advocating for the civil and human rights of disabled people, highlighting its contributions towards systemic change and legal protection. It acknowledges the value of donations for those prioritizing advocacy and long-term impacts but also points out that those looking for direct aid or with different philanthropic priorities may find other causes more aligned with their values. The second feedback briefly mentions that the legitimacy of the information is supported by links provided by the author.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • DREDF plays a crucial role in advancing the civil and human rights of disabled people.
    • Contributions help create long-term systemic change.
    • Emphasis on advocacy for equality, legal protections, and empowering individuals.
    • DREDF’s work benefits millions in the long term.
    • The feedback mentions the author provided verifiable sources, enhancing credibility.
  • Considerations:
    • DREDF may not be the best fit for those who prioritize direct aid over advocacy.
    • Personal values and philanthropic goals may influence the decision to donate.
    • The impact of donations depends on the alignment with the donor’s priorities.
  • Conclusions:
    • DREDF offers a meaningful avenue for those interested in systemic advocacy for disabled rights, particularly through legal and educational channels.
    • Donors should assess their personal goals to determine if advocacy or direct aid better aligns with their philanthropic mission.
    • The credibility of the information provided is reinforced by verification through external links.

:four: Summarised and categorized feedback for Conservation Fund (ID: 29)

Summary: The feedback covers two opinions on The Conservation Fund. The first highlights detailed, positive aspects of the organization, emphasizing its commitment to sustainable environmental solutions that balance both economic growth and natural resource protection. The second feedback is much more casual and less detailed, expressing a neutral or indifferent attitude.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • Investment in Sustainable Solutions: The Conservation Fund is framed as balancing economic growth with environmental protection.
    • Unique Approach: Focus on both land preservation and community development, benefiting people and the planet.
    • High-Impact Results: The feedback highlights the organization’s success in preserving millions of acres of land, suggesting its tangible contributions.
    • Reputation for Long-Term Impact: Their track record is emphasized as evidence of a meaningful and lasting difference.
    • Recommendation: The first part of the feedback suggests that for those passionate about environmental stewardship and economic vitality, this organization is a great option.
  • Considerations: General Indifference: The second part of the feedback reflects a neutral or casual approach (“Sure why not :)”), which could indicate that not all contributors may be deeply informed or engaged with the organization’s efforts.
  • Conclusions:
    • The first part of the feedback provides a strong endorsement, focusing on the positive and long-term impact of The Conservation Fund, making it an appealing choice for those passionate about sustainability and economic balance.
    • The second part suggests that some individuals may not feel strongly about the organization, or may not have enough information to provide a more substantial opinion.
    • This highlights a spectrum of engagement among potential supporters.

:five: Summarised and categorized feedback for Save Lives with Open Arms (ID: 23)

Summary:

  • First Feedback: The feedback focuses on the positive aspects of donating to the humanitarian mission “Open Arms.” It highlights their proven track record in saving the lives of migrants and refugees stranded at sea. The message conveys the importance of contributing to this cause, emphasizing that donations offer hope, dignity, and safety to vulnerable individuals fleeing harsh conditions such as war, persecution, and poverty.
  • Second Feedback: The feedback expresses strong dissatisfaction with a decision-making process where a proposal, despite being rejected by reviewers, was still approved. The tone indicates frustration and considers the situation a “scandal.”

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    The first feedback presents a clear and inspiring message about the humanitarian impact of donating to “Open Arms,” emphasizing the life-saving efforts, offering dignity and safety, and making a direct appeal to the importance of contributing.
  • Considerations:
    The second feedback raises serious concerns about a potentially flawed or controversial decision-making process. It suggests there may be transparency or procedural issues that need to be addressed. The strong language (“absolute scandal”) reflects deep dissatisfaction, implying a need for review or clarification of the process.
  • Conclusion:
    • First Feedback: This feedback strongly encourages supporting “Open Arms” based on its humanitarian impact and is positioned as a compelling call to action.
    • Second Feedback: This is critical feedback that indicates a serious issue with the approval process, requiring attention to governance, transparency, or integrity in decision-making.

:six: Summarised and categorized feedback for ElectronicFrontierFoundation (ID: 31)

Summary: The feedback expresses mixed sentiments towards the organization in question. Some individuals prioritize addressing immediate human needs or animal rights, while others strongly support initiatives focused on digital privacy, free speech, and innovation. The overall feedback suggests a divide between those driven by humanitarian causes and those invested in digital rights and technology innovation.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • “I support defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation.” This individual values the organization’s focus on these important issues.
    • “much needed” This indicates the person sees the organization’s work as essential and timely.
  • Considerations:
    “I would not vote for this organization since it is not a charity.” There is a preference for organizations focused on addressing immediate human or animal rights issues, such as poverty and healthcare. This suggests the need to clarify the organization’s mission and how it aligns with broader social goals.
  • Conclusion:
    The feedback is split between those who prioritize humanitarian or animal welfare causes and those who see value in digital privacy, free speech, and innovation. This highlights the need for a clear communication strategy to align the organization’s goals with the diverse interests of its audience.

:seven: Summarised and categorized feedback for UNICEF USA

Summary: The feedback focuses on reasons for not supporting a large charity, particularly UNICEF, despite acknowledging its global reach and ability to respond effectively to crises. The critique centers around inefficiencies often associated with large organizations, such as bureaucracy, which might reduce the perceived impact of individual contributions when compared to smaller, more focused charities.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • Global Reach: The organization is recognized for its ability to operate on a worldwide scale.
    • Rapid Response: It is praised for quickly responding to crises, which is a vital quality in global humanitarian efforts.
  • Considerations (Critique):
    • Efficiency Concerns: The feedback mentions that due to its size and bureaucratic structure, UNICEF may be less efficient in using its resources.
    • Impact of Contributions: The feedback highlights a perception that individual donations may feel less impactful when given to large organizations, compared to smaller charities.
  • Conclusions:
    The feedback presents a balanced view, acknowledging the strengths of large organizations like UNICEF in crisis response, while also raising valid concerns about resource efficiency and donor impact. This suggests that the individual prefers supporting smaller, more targeted charities where they believe their contributions will have a more direct and meaningful effect.

:eight: Summarised and categorized feedback for Darussfaka Funding

Summary: The feedback consists of two statements appreciating Darüşşafaka Cemiyeti as a charity organization. The first feedback focuses on the transformative impact of donations, emphasizing the organization’s role in empowering disadvantaged children by providing high-quality education and breaking the cycle of poverty. The second feedback appreciates the charity’s transparency and positive achievements.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • Empowerment through Education: Darüşşafaka Cemiyeti is recognized for providing disadvantaged children with high-quality education, offering life-changing opportunities.
    • Breaking the Cycle of Poverty: The feedback highlights the charity’s role in helping children escape poverty by equipping them with the resources to become successful and responsible citizens.
    • Transparency and Achievements: The second feedback praises the organization for its transparency in reporting and its numerous positive accomplishments, which increase trust and credibility.
  • Considerations:The feedback is generally positive but lacks specific recommendations or areas for improvement. For a more balanced view, it could include considerations for how the organization could further enhance its impact or how donors can engage more effectively.
  • Conclusion:The feedback reflects strong approval of Darüşşafaka Cemiyeti, particularly in terms of its social impact and transparency. The organization is valued for its ability to transform the lives of disadvantaged children and for fostering trust through its transparent practices.

:nine: Summarised and categorized feedback for Fundació Mona (ID: 27)

Summary: The feedback provided highlights two distinct responses regarding donations to the Fundació MONA. One focuses on the primate rehabilitation and the organization’s work, while the other expresses a personal affinity for both monkeys and the Mina project.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • First Feedback: Highlights the importance of rehabilitation for abused and exploited primates. Emphasizes ethical responsibility and compassion in improving the well-being of chimpanzees and macaques. Recognizes the public education and research work done by Fundació MONA, particularly in raising awareness about wildlife trafficking and primate conservation.
    • Second Feedback: Personal enthusiasm and support for the proposal. Indicates a sense of alignment between the cause (monkeys) and personal interest (Mina), which may help in driving voting behavior.
  • Considerations:
    • First Feedback: The animals, despite their rehabilitation, cannot be returned to the wild, which may be seen as a limitation in the overall goal of full restoration. Focuses on long-term care, which suggests that sustainable funding is essential for ongoing support. No specific mention of how Mina is directly connected, except through possible funding or community participation.
    • Second Feedback: Lacks depth in reasoning; the feedback is entirely based on personal preference (“I like monkeys and Mina”) and does not provide insight into the merits or long-term impact of the proposal. The personal stance may not be universally representative, which means the voting decision may be subjective rather than based on a comprehensive understanding.
  • Conclusions:
    • The first feedback provides valuable insights into the ethical and rehabilitative goals of Fundació MONA, stressing the importance of supporting organizations that work toward the care and conservation of vulnerable species. The second feedback, though positive, offers less substantive evaluation but reflects personal passion and support, which may contribute to voter engagement from others who share similar preferences. Together, both feedback responses highlight different motivational factors in decision-making: the first driven by a deep understanding of the cause, and the second driven by emotional connection and personal likes.

:keycap_ten: Summarised and categorized feedback for Happy Doggo (ID: 34)

Summary: The feedback is focused on the impact of donating to Happy Doggo, a charity dedicated to helping street dogs in Thailand. The feedback highlights how the organization, founded by Niall Harbison, evolved from a personal act of kindness after Harbison’s battle with substance abuse into a large-scale effort to help thousands of dogs. Through sterilization, medical care, and feeding initiatives, the charity is actively breaking the cycle of overpopulation and suffering among street dogs. Harbison’s story is deeply personal, and his book proceeds go toward building a hospital for street dogs in Thailand.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • Global Movement: The feedback frames the initiative as part of a larger, meaningful global movement to improve the lives of street dogs.
    • Personal Story: Niall Harbison’s journey of recovery and transformation from a chef and tech entrepreneur to animal welfare advocate adds emotional weight and credibility.
    • Key Initiatives: The focus on sterilization, feeding, and emergency care is presented as a concrete and strategic way to address the core issues affecting street dogs.
    • Impact: Highlighting the charity’s tangible efforts—feeding 800 dogs daily and sterilizing 200 dogs monthly—emphasizes the scale and efficiency of the operation.
    • Expanding Purpose: Harbison’s book, which directs proceeds to building a hospital for street dogs, showcases the long-term vision of the initiative.
  • Considerations:
    • Approval Dependency: One piece of feedback hints at an emotional dependence on the proposal’s approval, suggesting that not supporting the initiative may invoke feelings of guilt or sadness (“Sad Doggo”).
    • Diverse Charitable Giving: There’s a mention of considering charities that support animals, not just humans, which implies an openness but also a call for balance in giving.
  • Conclusions:
    • Transformative Potential: Supporting Happy Doggo aligns with a global effort to address the overpopulation and suffering of street dogs, with significant, tangible outcomes.
    • Emotional Appeal: The personal nature of Niall Harbison’s story and the success of the charity resonates with donors on both an emotional and practical level.
    • Broader Perspective: While this charity supports animals, the feedback invites reflection on the broader spectrum of charitable giving, suggesting that animals deserve attention alongside human causes.

:one::one: Summarised and categorized feedback for MAGinternational (ID: 30)

Summary: The feedback is focused on voting for an organization (MAG International) due to the significant humanitarian impact of its work. MAG International is recognized for clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance in conflict zones, which directly contributes to saving lives, protecting communities, and allowing people to safely return to their homes. The feedback also highlights the organization’s long history, its global impact, and its efforts in educating communities about the risks of unexploded ordnance. Additionally, the organization is noted for its transparency, accountability, and global recognition, including being co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997.

Categorized Feedback:

  • Positive Aspects:
    • Impactful Cause: MAG International’s work saves lives, protects communities, and enables post-conflict rebuilding.
    • Long-term Benefits: MAG’s efforts contribute to sustainable peace, beyond immediate conflict resolution.
    • Global Reach: Since 1989, MAG has helped over 20 million people in 70 countries, showcasing large-scale effectiveness.
    • Educational Efforts: MAG provides crucial education on the risks of unexploded ordnance, empowering communities.
    • Strong Reputation: MAG is known for transparency, accountability, and is globally recognized, including the Nobel Peace Prize.
  • Considerations:
    • Sustainability: MAG’s efforts are framed as both lifesaving and long-term, which implies a focus on sustainable solutions to conflicts.
    • Reputation in Decision-Making: Their global recognition, including the Nobel Peace Prize, could be a significant factor influencing donor decisions.
    • Clear Measurable Impact: The feedback presents measurable success (20 million people helped in 70 countries), which is crucial for decision-making in charitable giving.
  • Conclusion:
    The feedback highlights MAG International as a highly reputable and impactful organization that addresses both immediate and long-term humanitarian issues. Their global reach, transparency, and educational programs make them a strong candidate for donations. Recognitions like the Nobel Peace Prize enhance their credibility, making them an attractive option for voters who prioritize accountability and sustained community impact.

Same as the results shared on Discord

1 Like