9 ms·

MacKenzie Scott’s Money Bombs Are Single Handedly Reshaping America

76 points by frickinLasers 5y ago

mooreds 5y ago
The title is a bit clickbaity, but it's clear that she's turning on a firehose of donated cash with little public insight (as is her right!). It is really the extra resources of all those non-profits that will be "reshaping" their communities. We'll have to wait and see in a few years what the effects are.
- elefanten 5y ago
  The portion that goes to reshaping the communities rather than enriching the administrators and their friends is a very open question too.
  - mooreds 5y ago
    Ah, the principal agent problem rears its head again! Yup. I prefer to believe most schools and non-profits aren't run by folks hoping to enrich themselves (at least not monetarily). But there's also the question of how to deal with such a windfall. People ( https://www.the-sun.com/news/3031887/national-lottery-euromillions-curse-winners-lost-everything/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/3031887/national-lottery-euromi... ) and corporations ( plenty of folks misallocate VC funding ) are bad at dealing with windfalls, how could it not be a difficulty for non-profits?
vmception 5y ago
I've been wondering if she does in-kind donations, so that she can donate shares instead of selling the shares first to donate cash. From my dabblings in the non profit space, I'm finding many are unprepared to accept anything aside from cash. There are also major tax advantages for doing so, since you can avoid the long term capital gains tax while also getting a charitable tax deduction for the full value of the shares donated. That's probably my favorite tax code to be honest.
- H8crilA 5y ago
  FWIW: Buffett is donating shares. Also, he sometimes talks about an interesting problem where the non-profit may not be allowed to hold shares of companies in certain industries (ex: insurance), and of course Berkshire is involved in almost every industry, certainly in insurance big time.
  - vmception 5y ago
    so they just sell immediately and its no problem? or does momentarily holding it tarnish their reputation or whatever since filings from donors can be public.
- jvanderbot 5y ago
  Any reasonable non-profit will accept stock, and every non profit I've been involved with liquidates them immediately and uses the money. Generally, a mission-driven org needs money, not a well-balanced stock portfolio. It's quite a hit to their ``ratings'' as well, if they keep large un-spent sums of money around. Just imagine the clickbait article showing a non-profit hoarding stock instead of helping children in need. Those that do are rightfully derided so much that honest non-profits that are just trying to build their own infrastructure with self-directed spending are caught in the crossfire for not investing in ``programs'' enough.
  - enchiridion 5y ago
    Rightfully? I mean the goal is a non-profit is to help with a specific problem in one way or another. Often long term goals are involved, so I don’t see any problem with holding appreciating assets so the power and influence of the organization can be maintained into the future. Of course using non-profits for investing shell games is probably a whole different problem I am not familiar with. But holding assets as a whole doesn’t seem like a big issue to me.
    - jvanderbot 5y ago
      I believe it is right to provide recommendations against non-profits that hold significant assets in investments. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, but I do think that potential donors should be cautioned about this. Most people have the expectation that they are donating to fix a problem or keep an organization running, not increase the returns on investments. If a non-profit has a long-term strategy, that should probably involve setting up _other_ institutions that can self-sustain, rather than "We'll get rich first". The _problem_ is that this translates to some expectation that every dollar given should go immediately to purchasing something, and that somehow it's "more effective" for a person to go purchase things than to donate to, say, red cross. That's dead, dead wrong. Give money, let them invest in solutions. However, from the donor's perspective, donating stock, and other valuable stuff, is a good tax dodge. You don't have to pay capital gains taxes and then send money to the org. So usually the org is happy to accept these gifts, but yes, they'll sell them.
H8crilA 5y ago
She might get burned on such a yolo-giving, $8B per year is quite a lot. George Soros talked a lot about how hard it is to give money, how it corrupts both parties (both the donor and the grantee). Gates tried hard to eradicate polio, and failed at that, now he's an anti-vax meme. This will irk a lot of people here, but frankly the government is a pretty good nonprofit, as far as nonprofits go.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > George Soros talked a lot about how hard it is to give money, how it corrupts both parties (both the donor and the grantee) Did he talk about the specific how / underlying dynamics, and what if anything could be done about it? Where would I find that conversation?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Not OP. Soros writes extensively. I've not found a specific comment matching the description above, though this essay discusses his philanthropic activities, goals, and strategies at length: https://www.georgesoros.com/2011/06/22/my_philanthropy/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2011/06/22/my_philanthropy/ DDG: "george soros" philanthropy difficulty Tuning keywords might turn up something more relevant, though there's a lot of crud to wade through.
    - uniqueid 5y ago
      Thanks. That essay is really interesting and I haven't seen it on HN before.
      - H8crilA 5y ago
        That is a good essay. And yeah Soros wrote quite a bit, his writing is very good though seems convoluted/chaotic at times. The quote about "corruption" was from some interview with him, I'll link it if I find it, though you know how hard it is to search videos like that. Also, this provides a stark comparison to Mackenzie's style of giving: Over thirty years I have contributed more than $8 billion to the worldwide network of Open Society Foundations. It tool Soros 30 years to give $8B, while she did it in 1 year.
tomp 5y ago
Formerly know as MacKenzie Bezos. Also, interesting that $1.2bn (27%) of the money went to ”Philanthropy & Grantmaking Infrastructure”… sounds like a bit of a Ponzi scheme? I really can’t imagine that was the best use for that money…
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  That's a bad title for the category. It's more like other metafunds and foundations. Included are givedirectly, United way, and various community investment organizations.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  if twenty-seven percent is the going rate, then OK! I assert that the puffery and self-dealing circles in the finance world are the rule not the exception, and would enrage most any outsider. What you are pointing out is mild in comparison IMHO
- arn 5y ago
  I don't think "Philanthropy & Grantmaking Infrastructure" means what you think it means. There's a breakdown of which non-profits that includes, including the United Way and other non-profits.
  - redisman 5y ago
    I’m guessing lots of people don’t know how most non-profits operate but requesting grants from United Way is usually at least 10-30% of their budget
vdddv 5y ago
and it could happen every year if unicorns were not dodging their taxes
- marcusverus 5y ago
  Nah. The budget impact of taxing MacKenzie Scott $8B per year would be basically imperceptible. Not only would it decidedly not fund any new spending, it would only reduce the 2021 budget deficit (a cool 3 TRILLION dollars) by 0.2%! Even in pre-covid times (2019), 8 $8B in new revenue would've reduced the annual deficit by a mere 0.8%. Sure, if you taxed all of them at a similar rate, you'd tackle a bigger chunk of the deficit, but you couldn't even balance the budget. And you'd bleed them all dry within a decade or two (far more quickly than these fortunes are made), at which point your revenue problem would return with a vengeance. The ultra rich have unfathomable amounts of money, sure, but the only way to sustainably fund a large welfare state--as is evidenced by the tax policies of every Western European nation--is to tax the absolute shit out of the middle class. Keep that in mind the next time someone says they're going to fund trillions in new annual spending by 'taxing the rich'... They may keep their promise, but when the golden goose is dead, they'll be knocking on your door!
  - klipt 5y ago
    The thing is if you count what your employer pays for health insurance as a tax (because that would be a tax in say, Canada) you'll find that many Californians already pay more tax than Canadians. So we already tax the middle class, just opaquely, and without the benefit of healthcare not being tied to work (which would enable more entrepreneurism).
istingray 5y ago
Interesting opportunity to rethink the model of "make billions and THEN do good by giving it back". It's the underpinning of this whole Gates/Buffet Giving Tree. I love how MacKenzie Scott is just jumping in, giving away the money, make smart choices, pull the bandaid off and get to work. At this pace she'll give away all $60B in 7.5 years, assuming she doesn't speed up. I bet she's aiming for 2 years for 99%, so ~$52B next year. She's not trying to spend the rest of her life as a philanthropist, live beyond the grave, supplement government/tax failings, or have hospitals in her name. To me it's not good enough to make billions and then do good. Do good every moment of every day. Make doing good your work. Or get out of the way.
- erhk 5y ago
  Tax them.
  - flyinglizard 5y ago
    So that the money would be spent on wars in Afghanistan instead?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Tax them This is an awkward story to message this on, given a greater fraction of her wealth is going to help the needy than does the U.S. government’s.
    - dv_dt 5y ago
      Not that odd, for every Makenzie scott there 100, 1000?, billionaires that aren’t nearly as generous, who hold onto their wealth that the passes to heirs who may have been insulated from society their entire lives - Eg the climate denying Koch brothers. Taxing them is systematically putting the allocation of some of that capital back into hands of society and out of the random draw of good and bad.
      - JoshuaDavid 5y ago
newbie789 5y ago
“Single handedly reshaping America” is an extraordinary claim! I live in the middle of nowhere and my best friends live in places like New Orleans, Juneau, San Francisco, Portland, New York, rural Colorado, Mississippi and Florida etc. basically, all over the place and nobody I know has been in any way impacted by any of these charities, and certainly haven’t been impacted by this gifting spree. Furthermore, none of my friends know anybody who has benefited from these “money bombs.” I don’t mean to sound cynical, but it doesn’t really seem like “giving” when you’re purchasing some of the most blatantly glowing sycophantic PR imaginable. Seriously, what is the actual purpose of this article? Why was it written? It’s “news” that Bloomberg thinks it’s important that I like this person?
- ENOTTY 5y ago
  > almost $8.6 billion in gifts announced in just 12 months Give it some time
- varenc 5y ago
  > when you’re purchasing some of the most blatantly glowing sycophantic PR imaginable Huh? Is there any reason to think MacKenzie purchased this article? It discusses how MacKenzie is incredibly tight lipped and low profile with her contributions. She’s not interviewed in it. Bloomberg had to do a mass survey to just identity the places she donated to and they still weren’t able to get dollar contribution amounts from many organizations. You’d think if she was promoting herself she’d hand them a list. IMHO, the article exists because a billionaire donating $4B+ in 12 months is newsworthy in itself. Agreed on the click-bait “reshaping America” title though.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    > You’d think if she was promoting herself she’d hand them a list. Based on the headline and content of the article, that’s clearly not true. I suppose it’s just a coincidence that a gushing love letter to a billionaire just showed up in Bloomberg. Maybe it’s actually newsworthy that I should personally like this obscenely rich person.
- jodison 5y ago
ccvannorman 5y ago
anti paywall version: https://web.archive.org/web/20210812181534/https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-mackenzie-scott-donations/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210812181534/https://www.bloom...
abetusk 5y ago
For others who want to know more about MacKenzie Scott (from Wikipedia [0]): """ MacKenzie Scott (... formerly Bezos; April 7, 1970) is an American billionaire businesswoman, novelist, and philanthropist. As of May 29, 2021, she has a net worth of US$57.0 billion, owing to a 4% stake in Amazon, after her divorce from Amazon founder and former Chief Executive Jeff Bezos. As such, Scott is the third-wealthiest woman in the United States, and the 21st-wealthiest individual in the world. She is known for her involvement in the founding and development of Amazon, as well as her now dissolved marriage to Bezos. """ """ In 2020, she made US$5.8 billion in charitable gifts, one of the largest annual distributions by a private individual to working charities. Scott donated a further $2.7 billion in 2021. """ [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacKenzie_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacKenzie_Scott
JabavuAdams 5y ago
So, uh, I could use a patron. Would be totally fine with $120k a year CAD, no strings attached. Will work on personal software agents, AGI, bio lab automation, and try for breakthrough anti-aging or regenerative medicine.
caturopath 5y ago
I enjoyed this Slate Star Codex article on billionaire philanthropy https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gyre007 5y ago
Classically sensational title for article which omits the biggest problem with donation like these (which are admirable, nevertheless) is how this money [sadly] often end up being "managed" by people in charge.
ericmcer 5y ago
Her giving seems a bit reactionary, just throwing money at whatever the issue of the month is. With her kind of wealth she could reshape a few areas entirely for the better, rather than just jumping in and throwing 100s of millions at what is trending. It almost feels like the way a regular wealthy person would donate, but her contributions are 10,000X so they should probably be handled differently. Either way it is way better than sitting on the 60b.
lamontcg 5y ago
Yep and this thread is full of people attacking the whole idea as being a poor use of that money. She should definitely be building more rockets, not helping people, that's dangerous.

76 points by frickinLasers 5y ago

The title is a bit clickbaity, but it's clear that she's turning on a firehose of donated cash with little public insight (as is her right!). It is really the extra resources of all those non-profits that will be "reshaping" their communities. We'll have to wait and see in a few years what the effects are.

elefanten 5y ago
The portion that goes to reshaping the communities rather than enriching the administrators and their friends is a very open question too.
- mooreds 5y ago
  Ah, the principal agent problem rears its head again! Yup. I prefer to believe most schools and non-profits aren't run by folks hoping to enrich themselves (at least not monetarily). But there's also the question of how to deal with such a windfall. People ( https://www.the-sun.com/news/3031887/national-lottery-euromillions-curse-winners-lost-everything/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/3031887/national-lottery-euromi... ) and corporations ( plenty of folks misallocate VC funding ) are bad at dealing with windfalls, how could it not be a difficulty for non-profits?

vmception 5y ago

I've been wondering if she does in-kind donations, so that she can donate shares instead of selling the shares first to donate cash. From my dabblings in the non profit space, I'm finding many are unprepared to accept anything aside from cash. There are also major tax advantages for doing so, since you can avoid the long term capital gains tax while also getting a charitable tax deduction for the full value of the shares donated. That's probably my favorite tax code to be honest.

H8crilA 5y ago
FWIW: Buffett is donating shares. Also, he sometimes talks about an interesting problem where the non-profit may not be allowed to hold shares of companies in certain industries (ex: insurance), and of course Berkshire is involved in almost every industry, certainly in insurance big time.
- vmception 5y ago
  so they just sell immediately and its no problem? or does momentarily holding it tarnish their reputation or whatever since filings from donors can be public.
jvanderbot 5y ago
Any reasonable non-profit will accept stock, and every non profit I've been involved with liquidates them immediately and uses the money. Generally, a mission-driven org needs money, not a well-balanced stock portfolio. It's quite a hit to their ``ratings'' as well, if they keep large un-spent sums of money around. Just imagine the clickbait article showing a non-profit hoarding stock instead of helping children in need. Those that do are rightfully derided so much that honest non-profits that are just trying to build their own infrastructure with self-directed spending are caught in the crossfire for not investing in ``programs'' enough.
- enchiridion 5y ago
  Rightfully? I mean the goal is a non-profit is to help with a specific problem in one way or another. Often long term goals are involved, so I don’t see any problem with holding appreciating assets so the power and influence of the organization can be maintained into the future. Of course using non-profits for investing shell games is probably a whole different problem I am not familiar with. But holding assets as a whole doesn’t seem like a big issue to me.
  - jvanderbot 5y ago
    I believe it is right to provide recommendations against non-profits that hold significant assets in investments. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, but I do think that potential donors should be cautioned about this. Most people have the expectation that they are donating to fix a problem or keep an organization running, not increase the returns on investments. If a non-profit has a long-term strategy, that should probably involve setting up _other_ institutions that can self-sustain, rather than "We'll get rich first". The _problem_ is that this translates to some expectation that every dollar given should go immediately to purchasing something, and that somehow it's "more effective" for a person to go purchase things than to donate to, say, red cross. That's dead, dead wrong. Give money, let them invest in solutions. However, from the donor's perspective, donating stock, and other valuable stuff, is a good tax dodge. You don't have to pay capital gains taxes and then send money to the org. So usually the org is happy to accept these gifts, but yes, they'll sell them.

H8crilA 5y ago

She might get burned on such a yolo-giving, $8B per year is quite a lot. George Soros talked a lot about how hard it is to give money, how it corrupts both parties (both the donor and the grantee). Gates tried hard to eradicate polio, and failed at that, now he's an anti-vax meme. This will irk a lot of people here, but frankly the government is a pretty good nonprofit, as far as nonprofits go.

wwweston 5y ago
> George Soros talked a lot about how hard it is to give money, how it corrupts both parties (both the donor and the grantee) Did he talk about the specific how / underlying dynamics, and what if anything could be done about it? Where would I find that conversation?
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Not OP. Soros writes extensively. I've not found a specific comment matching the description above, though this essay discusses his philanthropic activities, goals, and strategies at length: https://www.georgesoros.com/2011/06/22/my_philanthropy/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2011/06/22/my_philanthropy/ DDG: "george soros" philanthropy difficulty Tuning keywords might turn up something more relevant, though there's a lot of crud to wade through.
  - uniqueid 5y ago
    Thanks. That essay is really interesting and I haven't seen it on HN before.
    - H8crilA 5y ago
      That is a good essay. And yeah Soros wrote quite a bit, his writing is very good though seems convoluted/chaotic at times. The quote about "corruption" was from some interview with him, I'll link it if I find it, though you know how hard it is to search videos like that. Also, this provides a stark comparison to Mackenzie's style of giving: Over thirty years I have contributed more than $8 billion to the worldwide network of Open Society Foundations. It tool Soros 30 years to give $8B, while she did it in 1 year.

tomp 5y ago

Formerly know as MacKenzie Bezos. Also, interesting that $1.2bn (27%) of the money went to ”Philanthropy & Grantmaking Infrastructure”… sounds like a bit of a Ponzi scheme? I really can’t imagine that was the best use for that money…

joshuamorton 5y ago
That's a bad title for the category. It's more like other metafunds and foundations. Included are givedirectly, United way, and various community investment organizations.
mistrial9 5y ago
if twenty-seven percent is the going rate, then OK! I assert that the puffery and self-dealing circles in the finance world are the rule not the exception, and would enrage most any outsider. What you are pointing out is mild in comparison IMHO
arn 5y ago
I don't think "Philanthropy & Grantmaking Infrastructure" means what you think it means. There's a breakdown of which non-profits that includes, including the United Way and other non-profits.
- redisman 5y ago
  I’m guessing lots of people don’t know how most non-profits operate but requesting grants from United Way is usually at least 10-30% of their budget

vdddv 5y ago

and it could happen every year if unicorns were not dodging their taxes

marcusverus 5y ago
Nah. The budget impact of taxing MacKenzie Scott $8B per year would be basically imperceptible. Not only would it decidedly not fund any new spending, it would only reduce the 2021 budget deficit (a cool 3 TRILLION dollars) by 0.2%! Even in pre-covid times (2019), 8 $8B in new revenue would've reduced the annual deficit by a mere 0.8%. Sure, if you taxed all of them at a similar rate, you'd tackle a bigger chunk of the deficit, but you couldn't even balance the budget. And you'd bleed them all dry within a decade or two (far more quickly than these fortunes are made), at which point your revenue problem would return with a vengeance. The ultra rich have unfathomable amounts of money, sure, but the only way to sustainably fund a large welfare state--as is evidenced by the tax policies of every Western European nation--is to tax the absolute shit out of the middle class. Keep that in mind the next time someone says they're going to fund trillions in new annual spending by 'taxing the rich'... They may keep their promise, but when the golden goose is dead, they'll be knocking on your door!
- klipt 5y ago
  The thing is if you count what your employer pays for health insurance as a tax (because that would be a tax in say, Canada) you'll find that many Californians already pay more tax than Canadians. So we already tax the middle class, just opaquely, and without the benefit of healthcare not being tied to work (which would enable more entrepreneurism).

istingray 5y ago

Interesting opportunity to rethink the model of "make billions and THEN do good by giving it back". It's the underpinning of this whole Gates/Buffet Giving Tree. I love how MacKenzie Scott is just jumping in, giving away the money, make smart choices, pull the bandaid off and get to work. At this pace she'll give away all $60B in 7.5 years, assuming she doesn't speed up. I bet she's aiming for 2 years for 99%, so ~$52B next year. She's not trying to spend the rest of her life as a philanthropist, live beyond the grave, supplement government/tax failings, or have hospitals in her name. To me it's not good enough to make billions and then do good. Do good every moment of every day. Make doing good your work. Or get out of the way.

erhk 5y ago
Tax them.
- flyinglizard 5y ago
  So that the money would be spent on wars in Afghanistan instead?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Tax them This is an awkward story to message this on, given a greater fraction of her wealth is going to help the needy than does the U.S. government’s.
  - dv_dt 5y ago
    Not that odd, for every Makenzie scott there 100, 1000?, billionaires that aren’t nearly as generous, who hold onto their wealth that the passes to heirs who may have been insulated from society their entire lives - Eg the climate denying Koch brothers. Taxing them is systematically putting the allocation of some of that capital back into hands of society and out of the random draw of good and bad.
    - JoshuaDavid 5y ago

newbie789 5y ago

“Single handedly reshaping America” is an extraordinary claim! I live in the middle of nowhere and my best friends live in places like New Orleans, Juneau, San Francisco, Portland, New York, rural Colorado, Mississippi and Florida etc. basically, all over the place and nobody I know has been in any way impacted by any of these charities, and certainly haven’t been impacted by this gifting spree. Furthermore, none of my friends know anybody who has benefited from these “money bombs.” I don’t mean to sound cynical, but it doesn’t really seem like “giving” when you’re purchasing some of the most blatantly glowing sycophantic PR imaginable. Seriously, what is the actual purpose of this article? Why was it written? It’s “news” that Bloomberg thinks it’s important that I like this person?

ENOTTY 5y ago
> almost $8.6 billion in gifts announced in just 12 months Give it some time
varenc 5y ago
> when you’re purchasing some of the most blatantly glowing sycophantic PR imaginable Huh? Is there any reason to think MacKenzie purchased this article? It discusses how MacKenzie is incredibly tight lipped and low profile with her contributions. She’s not interviewed in it. Bloomberg had to do a mass survey to just identity the places she donated to and they still weren’t able to get dollar contribution amounts from many organizations. You’d think if she was promoting herself she’d hand them a list. IMHO, the article exists because a billionaire donating $4B+ in 12 months is newsworthy in itself. Agreed on the click-bait “reshaping America” title though.
- newbie789 5y ago
  > You’d think if she was promoting herself she’d hand them a list. Based on the headline and content of the article, that’s clearly not true. I suppose it’s just a coincidence that a gushing love letter to a billionaire just showed up in Bloomberg. Maybe it’s actually newsworthy that I should personally like this obscenely rich person.
jodison 5y ago

ccvannorman 5y ago

anti paywall version: https://web.archive.org/web/20210812181534/https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-mackenzie-scott-donations/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210812181534/https://www.bloom...

abetusk 5y ago

For others who want to know more about MacKenzie Scott (from Wikipedia [0]): """ MacKenzie Scott (... formerly Bezos; April 7, 1970) is an American billionaire businesswoman, novelist, and philanthropist. As of May 29, 2021, she has a net worth of US$57.0 billion, owing to a 4% stake in Amazon, after her divorce from Amazon founder and former Chief Executive Jeff Bezos. As such, Scott is the third-wealthiest woman in the United States, and the 21st-wealthiest individual in the world. She is known for her involvement in the founding and development of Amazon, as well as her now dissolved marriage to Bezos. """ """ In 2020, she made US$5.8 billion in charitable gifts, one of the largest annual distributions by a private individual to working charities. Scott donated a further $2.7 billion in 2021. """ [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacKenzie_Scott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacKenzie_Scott

JabavuAdams 5y ago

So, uh, I could use a patron. Would be totally fine with $120k a year CAD, no strings attached. Will work on personal software agents, AGI, bio lab automation, and try for breakthrough anti-aging or regenerative medicine.

caturopath 5y ago

I enjoyed this Slate Star Codex article on billionaire philanthropy https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billio...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gyre007 5y ago

Classically sensational title for article which omits the biggest problem with donation like these (which are admirable, nevertheless) is how this money [sadly] often end up being "managed" by people in charge.

ericmcer 5y ago

Her giving seems a bit reactionary, just throwing money at whatever the issue of the month is. With her kind of wealth she could reshape a few areas entirely for the better, rather than just jumping in and throwing 100s of millions at what is trending. It almost feels like the way a regular wealthy person would donate, but her contributions are 10,000X so they should probably be handled differently. Either way it is way better than sitting on the 60b.

lamontcg 5y ago

Yep and this thread is full of people attacking the whole idea as being a poor use of that money. She should definitely be building more rockets, not helping people, that's dangerous.