3 ms·

I don't think there's anything weird about it. Accepting a form of payment increases demand for that form of payment. Not accepting a payment decreases the de

I don't think there's anything weird about it. Accepting a form of payment increases demand for that form of payment. Not accepting a payment decreases the demand. In effect, wikipedia is paying the price of decreased donations to buy a decrease in the influence of cryptocurrencies. No different than spending money to advance a non-profit's goal, except that the money being "spent" is in lost potential revenue rather than distributed actual revenue. The publicity of it is to establish an understanding that cryptocurrencies are entirely populated by scammers and their victims, and that ethical companies don't do business with scammers, do not accept money from scammers.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
> In effect, wikipedia is paying the price of decreased donations to buy a decrease in the influence of cryptocurrencies. Exactly! They have amassed so much money that they can afford to wage ideological crusades against things unrelated to their core mission. That's a clear signal that it's time to reduce donations to Wikipedia. > No different than spending money to advance a non-profit's goal, except that the money being "spent" is in lost potential revenue rather than distributed actual revenue. The difference is spending to advance Wikipedia's core mission, versus spending to advance random unrelated ventures. > ethical companies don't do business with scammers, do not accept money from scammers. Nope, that's not it, at all. If that were the case, they would have announced some kind of KYC initiative to identify scammers and refuse their donations. But they aren't targeting scammers specifically - scammers are still welcome to send their donations in USD, and Wikipedia will happily accept their donations. What they won't accept is donations in crypto, regardless of the origin of that donation.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  I think this is a targeted action against scammers, because use of cryptocurrency alone is a sufficient signal that the sender is a scammer, to the point that it is worth disassociating with the entire platform.

baobabKoodaa 5y ago

> In effect, wikipedia is paying the price of decreased donations to buy a decrease in the influence of cryptocurrencies. Exactly! They have amassed so much money that they can afford to wage ideological crusades against things unrelated to their core mission. That's a clear signal that it's time to reduce donations to Wikipedia. > No different than spending money to advance a non-profit's goal, except that the money being "spent" is in lost potential revenue rather than distributed actual revenue. The difference is spending to advance Wikipedia's core mission, versus spending to advance random unrelated ventures. > ethical companies don't do business with scammers, do not accept money from scammers. Nope, that's not it, at all. If that were the case, they would have announced some kind of KYC initiative to identify scammers and refuse their donations. But they aren't targeting scammers specifically - scammers are still welcome to send their donations in USD, and Wikipedia will happily accept their donations. What they won't accept is donations in crypto, regardless of the origin of that donation.

MereInterest 5y ago
I think this is a targeted action against scammers, because use of cryptocurrency alone is a sufficient signal that the sender is a scammer, to the point that it is worth disassociating with the entire platform.