upvote

points

by brainzap6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby verdverm6 hours ago|
[-]
Putting capitalists in the middle doesn't seem new, more like another place they can extract a slice of the pie.
reply
upvoteby whit5375 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Let's back up: The way an endowment works is that donors donate money, which goes into a more-or-less permanent investment fund. The interest from the investment fund is then used to a) fund mission-aligned programs (in our case, OSS), b) stay ahead of inflation, and c) pay operating costs.

Where are you seeing capitalists "extract a slice of the pie" here?

reply
upvoteby verdverm5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The README on github

"pay operating costs" is one place non-profits often find fraud. Getting the money into the market between donors and builders, now you have to pay professional investors. You don't get to 7-8% returns without equities, what happens if the market tanks?

Why not build something super minimal that requires less management and operating costs? That doesn't have the market risk at the center of it all? That doesn't have more points for fraud and abuse?

reply
upvoteby whit5375 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> "pay operating costs" is one place non-profits often find fraud.

If you find it here please let us know.

reply
upvoteby verdverm4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Can you explain the 2-3% gap between expected returns and outlays? Seems like a lot more than what is needed for accounting (based on the other main person here posting)
reply
upvoteby kvinogradov3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The explanation is simple — nobody can predict exact annual returns, and they tend to fluctuate. We aim to spend at least 5% per year on OSS grants and need to decide if we can spend more on them or should reinvest based on specific annual results. And target earnings should overcome inflation.
reply
upvoteby PaulDavisThe1st1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Reasonable answer, but this part:

> Why not build something super minimal that requires less management and operating costs? That doesn't have the market risk at the center of it all? That doesn't have more points for fraud and abuse?

could still be usefully addressed.

reply