OP and yourself are perhaps engaging in what could be termed as "semantic trolling"

Fortunately it isn't working because as others pointed out, "penalize himself" and "donate to charity" concepts aren't directly tied together. Where the donation actually goes is immaterial, so it's not possible to argue that "punish himself" implies "donate to charity" is punishment.

The only misuse of semantics I see is where an attempt to obscure a concretely causal relationship occurs:

mistake > punish himself > donate to charity to punish himself

Donating to charity as a method to achieve the punishment goal is precisely material in this case.

GP is asking if this method, which contains both a gain and loss, actually results in a punishment with an intended loss.

The punishment isn't donating to charity. The punishment is losing money.

Involuntarily losing money is a punishment. Even if it goes to a good cause.

But surely 'losing money' to a bad cause would be an even better punishment. Is the punishment supposed to discourage breaking builds? Are the 'warm fuzzy feelings' (or the actual benefits of the relevant charity!) that causing a charitable donation to occur being properly accounted for in deciding whether this is a good idea?

Punishing himself is the losing money aspect. It doesn't matter where it goes technically for it to be a punishment. His goal is to not lose money.

But to make it worthwhile (aka the reward part of the punishment), the donations are directed to charity since they need to go somewhere. So that's a small reward built into the punishment.

If the money goes to "Starbucks" as shown in the image, I don't think he is being punished.