undefined | Better HN

0 pointscharcircuit3y ago0 comments

From the linked page only 0.08% of revenue came from cryptocurrency. It's likely that without that 0.08% margin Wikipedia could still be kept running (which is part of the reason why taking cryptocurrency donations was removed).

>You don't usually donate to charities so they can speculate with that money.

Similarly one wouldn't want your donation to just sit somewhere reducing in value due to inflation. If you donated $100 and then later when Wikipedia actually needed the money they were able to sell your donation for $1000, your donation was able to do more for them than if they had just immediately sold it.

0 comments

lxgr3y ago

Is Wikimedia hoarding cash? If so, I’d hope that they would have some kind of money management in place (adhering to the same ethical standards as for payments, as otherwise this move would be quite hypocritical); if not, inflation does not matter.

charcircuitOP3y ago

As of June 31st 2021 they had $86.8 million of cash which made up about 36% of their total assets.

lxgr3y ago

What matters isn't the absolute or relative number compared to total assets, but rather their yearly cashflow.

Having a buffer of a few months worth of their monthly operational budget in the currency that most of their spending will be in just seems like common sense and is also very different from the concept of an endowment (where return on an investment is supposed to pay for ongoing expenses).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointscharcircuit3y ago0 comments

>You don't usually donate to charities so they can speculate with that money.

0 comments

lxgr3y ago

charcircuitOP3y ago

As of June 31st 2021 they had $86.8 million of cash which made up about 36% of their total assets.

lxgr3y ago

What matters isn't the absolute or relative number compared to total assets, but rather their yearly cashflow.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse