4 ms·
> They're trying to be a non-profit because they don't actually charge for the service, but the investors still make money by way of holding on to your cash whi
by dllthomas 7y ago
> They're trying to be a non-profit because they don't actually charge for the service, but the investors still make money by way of holding on to your cash while it's in Libra form.
A not-for-profit can charge for service, and cannot return a profit to investors. Maybe they've ways to wiggle around the latter, but not charging for the service is simply irrelevant.
- solotronics 7y agoThe non-profit could sell your financial transaction data to a for profit corp. for basically nothing. The for-profit then makes all the money selling the data to other corporate partners. Just one of the many ways I can see this being abused.
- cthaeh 7y agoThats illegal. Highly highly doubt Facebook or any company in the media spotlight will ever do anything clearly, and obviously illegal.
- mywittyname 7y agoWhat they can do is pay massive bonuses and give their employees very nice perks. I attended a holiday party for non-profit where the prizes consisted of vacations, electronics, and plain old cash. We're talking about Disney Vacations for four, Mediterranean cruises, tropical resort packages, etc. I took home a sweet 65" LED TV and the prizes for the "games" (think musical chairs, limbo) started at $20 and went up to $1000. They easily gave away $50k in prizes to like 200 people. Oh, and they had fire dancers, an open bar, and taxi reimbursement. 10/10 would Christmas party again.
- dllthomas 7y agoI don't know enough about the situation to say which bucket it falls in, where possible buckets include at least "there's nothing morally or legally wrong with that", "that's morally dubious but probably legally okay", "that's illegal but unlikely to be prosecuted", and "that's illegal and you got lucky". Compensation of employees of a not-for-profit is certainly allowed - that's a different thing than returning profit to shareholders except when it isn't (in which case, IIUC, it comes with restrictions, which isn't to say it's never abused, which isn't to say it's never/always prosecuted, etc, etc...). I explicitly admitted the possibility of wiggle room around the restrictions - my point was about what the restrictions referred to in the first place.