The first is what you're addressing: is this particular bit of value from a bad place? Both systems have issues there. I still think fiat is better, because the bank the transfer originates from has presumably done KYC. I also don't think it's that big of a deal; there are much worse things to do with drug money.
The second is entirely different: is accepting this currency going to help proliferate problems associated with the currency? I.e. does accepting Bitcoin legitimize it and implicitly encourage others to use Bitcoin, amplifying any environmental or money laundering concerns?
I don't have a hard stance, I'm not a member of any of the relevant groups. I can see where they're coming from, and I don't find it a crazy stance. Really, either side seems fair.
I can't in good conscience ignore what I know because there are other things I don't.
If I murder a drug dealer, steal his briefcase stuffed with 100-dollar bills, and eventually donate some of that money to you in USD, you will happily accept it "in good faith". But if I work hard as a nurse, exchange some of my hard-earned savings into Ether, and donate it to you, you will refuse because "there is no uncertainty about where they come from"? I'm confused. How are you certain that the USD donations are clean money, and certain that the Ether must be dirty money? I guess just the vague association with "crypto" is enough?
Just admit that this is about ideological purity and nothing else.
„Even Wikipedia/Wikipedia, a charity with high ethical standards accepts it, how bad can it be?“ might not be the most well-reasoned conclusion, some people will come to it.
If it doesn‘t disproportionately endanger the „core purpose“ of Wikimedia, why not avoid something like that altogether?
Yes, if you don't tell me you did the murdering I would accept the money. Your actions are on your conscience.
> But if I work hard as a nurse, exchange some of my hard-earned savings into Ether, and donate it to you, you will refuse because "there is no uncertainty about where they come from"?
> I'm confused. How are you certain that the USD donations are clean money, and certain that the Ether must be dirty money? I guess just the vague association with "crypto" is enough?
I have moral responsibility for my actions. Due to the way a blockchain works, I can't accept or withdraw your Ethereum donation without contributing to the blockchain with a transaction fee. I can't fault you for putting it there, that is a matter for your conscience, but I can fault myself for accepting it.
> Just admit that this is about ideological purity and nothing else.
It is not about ideology at all, but about conscience. I believe ideology is almost as harmful to humanity as the blockchain.
Are you hypothesizing that the net amount of transaction fees paid on the Ethereum network will be higher if you accept the donation, compared to if you don't accept the donation? I have a feeling that you might be accidentally comparing to a scenario where the donator does not donate and subsequently never transfers that cryptocurrency anywhere ever. This is not a realistic scenario. The donator is almost certainly going to transfer that crypto somewhere anyway, so it doesn't appear to me like your action of refusing the donation reduces the net amount of transaction fees.
There is one thing I have control over in this life, and that is what I choose to do. Consequently, that is also what is what I opt to judge.
Okay, based on this clarification it appears that we agree on the subject matter, you just didn't like the terminology I used to describe it. Your description is exactly what I mean when I say motivated by ideological purity. As you said, you're not looking at outcomes. You just want to avoid associating yourself with what you consider to be a "bad thing" - regardless of whether your choice makes the world better, worse, or has no impact at all.
No, this is not about association, it's about resolve. I do not want to act against my own values. That would make me a hypocrite.
I can't make the world a good or a bad place, I am not God. The world is what it is and it's largely outside of my control. What I can choose is what I should be like, what manner of person I should be, and then hold myself to that standard, not for others to judge, but for myself.
If the world is terrible, that doesn't mean I must be a terrible person along with it. If it isn't, then that's great!
You obviously don't like it when I describe your motivation as a "desire for ideological purity". You offer alternative descriptions with nicer words, but my reaction to your alternative descriptions is "exactly! that's what I mean by ideological purity!". So it's not clear to me what the disagreement there is (if any). It seems to me that you oppose this label because it has a negative connotation, even though it's a factually accurate representation of your thought process. So you prefer to describe this exact same thing using different words, which sound nicer, even though the substance is the same. If there truely is a difference of substance, then I would love to know what you perceive to be that difference.
> No, this is not about association, it's about resolve. I do not want to act against my own values. That would make me a hypocrite.
You think crypto is morally reprehensible, I get that. What I don't get is how accepting crypto donations would be acting against those values. I'm looking at morality in terms of expected outcomes: what will the world be like if I choose A, versus what will the world be like if I choose B. And yes I know you said this:
> I can't make the world a good or a bad place, I am not God. The world is what it is and it's largely outside of my control.
We all have the power to make small impacts on the world. I share the feeling that we can't make large impacts, but we can still make small impacts. If we don't accept that, we might as well argue that a single murder is not morally wrong, because a single murder has a statistically insignificant effect on the number of living people, it's practically a rounding error. The decision to not murder still has a small impact on the world. Similarly, many other decisions might have small impacts on the world. Deciding to become a crypto promoter certainly has a small impact. Founding a crypto business certainly has a small impact. But accepting donations in crypto? You would be taking money away from crypto people for the benefit of a charity or non-profit. You take $100k away from crypto people, pay a $5 transaction fee that somebody was going to pay anyway for moving that $100k somewhere, and the net result of these actions is supposedly bad? How? Because it crosses the ideological line somewhere. It breaks ideological purity. Nothing to do with outcomes whatsoever.
No, they are making that statement. Direct quote: "I'm not looking at outcomes". I'm taking them at their word when they say that they are not looking at outcomes.
In some ethical frameworks, associating yourself with a thing you consider bad thing is bad regardless of the size or type of the outcome of that association.