RE: Can Crypto Become the Equalizer?
Statistics like all the billionaires have more wealth than .... ! are usually meant to be headlines to get our attention. It has very little meaning or use on its own.
I'm glad you focused on the consequences of such unequal wealth distribution. Unpaid work is a huge issue and part of the reason economies are kept down. If you give a billionaire 1000$ they may make their pyramid a little higher. If you give it to a needy family, it could literally change their life.
I think crypto can potentially help a lot with remittances. Why pay Western Union a few dollars (they used to be a lot more expensive before), when Steem is free to send, much faster and doesn't require ID?
Crypto will allow the unbankable to bank which is has huge potential. They can save for their future, get paid with microtransactions, receive microloans etc.
Then there is the technology aspect like increasing government accountability and reducing corruption. Some of the above billionaires made their money like that. I recently read a BBC story about the richest lady from Africa. She made money from shady deals in Angola, I'm sure you would know much more about this.
Now this is the sort of ideas how crypto can play a role that I was looking for my friend. Yes, there are many wrongs in this world, but there are also many good people around and given the right tools they can start to make a difference.
You are right that headlines are made to catch peoples attention, but let's hope that at Davos it will catch the right peoples attention. Maybe crypto should have a representative at all of the meetings?
I read a recent article that states that AI and bots will soon be able to perform the work of 69% of managers. Technology is indeed the future and charities should get in on the first step of the ladder!
As for corruption, where money is present there will always be a snake in the grass. An evil that is ancient!
Blessings and thank you!
I do think that AI definitely has a role to play in charities. One of the things I don't like is seeing too many overhead costs in charities.
Hopefully, with any luck, companies and people will spend more time helping others with all the money and time they save from automation.
Well, let me put it this way, charities have operational costs, but people choose not to fund the ops costs, as they want to see their donated funds go to the poor.
Marian (my wife) has her own job and she does all of the Papillon administration requirements for free. I get a stipend of 4000 Rand, which equates to $274 per month.
Of course there are charities where the ops costs are huge and the salaries equally huge, but we choose to do things our way and we have lasted.
Yes, we will be able to do much more once automation has materialized and especially also when steem moons.
But time will tell my friend!
Blessings!
I think operational costs for charities is fine. Full-time workers need to earn a living and creating decent jobs is a goal for all (or should be). It's excessive costs that turn people off, only a few charities come to mind. Massive budgets for marketing or hiring business and lobbist VIPs is off-putting to normal folks who would like to donate.
Yes of course, you are one hundred percent correct about marketing and the VIPs and of course catering and partying costs.
We approached a professional fundraiser for help and she had only one look at the balances of our financial report. "Sorry" she said, "You guys cannot afford me"
So we continue to go it alone with no marketing or VIP costs and our work comes first before any other considerations my friend.
The few people that support us are all genuine people and to me that's the most important thing.
Blessings!