Hmm… definitely interested. some first musings…

My first question:

are you thinking loans? or gifts?

are you thinking that we would donate/give the money to Amit? or would we give him a loan and expect to be repaid? with interest? and would that money then be reinvested into another project?

further… how official do we make this (i.e. loan paperwork, etc)? and would we want to seriously think about starting some form of non-profit (like relational tithe has done) in order to both facilitate and hold each other accountable?

my first thoughts/comments:

dream big, but dream realistic. adam raised $3,000. he won’t be able to raise $3,000 all the time. and a lot of people who read adam read josh brown.

so it is important to expand the network outside of many of our little/moderate/big circles.

Interesting. How is this a challenging systems and subverting the way businesses are run? What’s the point in keeping 95% of the Net profits anyway? Where does that go?

Erick

@ dave.
i agree with you long term about setting something up. or even on the front end. thats obviously not something i have time or experience to launch right now. but that is what i’m thinking long term.

as for the loan or gift, i’m obviously thinking loan. because i think it’s more valuable than a gift in the long term. but that would be a group/collective decision. i’d want us all to come to a conclusion together.

and i agree about the adam thing. that’s why i think these things would have a short life cycle and never have the same members or circles from project to project. it would be evolving and changing shape and nature even.

@erick.
i assume you’re talking about our personal businesses? because all of the money from the fund-raising would go directly to the project. that’s the beauty in that there is no overhead, etc. if you meant why only give 5% towards it as individuals or businesses? i just threw that number out there. some may give more or less. or loan a lump sum or give the proceeds from a project, etc. that was just an example.

setting up some form of a non-profit would be a good thing to keep in mind and over time that might take care of itself as more people collaborate. well, not literally take care of itself, but you know what i mean.

i would support the loan route (perhaps without interest?) as well for various reasons, mainly that, similar to kiva, monies could be reinvested in other projects later. sort of a self sustaining thing that would require less legwork as it expands. not that legwork is bad, i’m just saying.

i don’t think anyone should be particularly concerned about “giving percentages.” we can all do what we can some more, some less, but the point is we’re doing. and we’re doing in likely a more effective and more fulfilling manner (i.e. direct reception and friendship).

so what are we gonna call this thing? “the indian taxi fund?” or something more catch all where the specific project(s) could be addendums/subtitles?

anybody know how to set up a non-profit?

Okay, a few thoughts from me, mostly for clarity’s sake…
-scale-free=viral?
-at some point, some one is going to mention the accountability factor, ie. how do we know that the money is going to someone who really needs it. So, just to lay it straight out, this works on the principles of relationships and trust. We trust that we are connected to people who want to do good work, and we trust that the people brought forward for a potential loan are in a relationship with someone in the network and knows the need first hand.
-there is definitely something compelling about one person’s story. Mike Todd tried using a similar structure a couple years ago with a project called (Red)emption (sort of a counter point to the Red campaign). In some ways it was successful, but I think it had limited legs because we were giving to a cause (the Stephen Lewis Foundation) and not a person… we didn’t have a story to connect with, just the general knowledge of need which doesn’t seem to move people to action.
-in setting up a non-profit (which I know nothing about), just take care in how it’s set up. It would be a little sad imho to set up something which created American boundaries for financial reasons.
-one last observation… sorry this is so long… I’ve been tapping everyone I know to raise funds to put a new roof on an orphanage I visited in Swaziland a couple months ago. The fundraising event is happening in a month, and I’ve already met my initial goal (so it looks like we get to install wiring too!). My point is that people want to give (I’m using ‘give’ in a generic sense and has nothing to do with donating vs. loaning). When presented with the need, and hearing my stories, the folks in my circle have been extremely generous. Trust and relationship are the keys here, I think. So many of them have told me that they’d give more, but don’t really trust that the money ends up where it needs to.

Ahem. I suppose it’s time for me to shut up now

“So many of them have told me that they’d give more, but don’t really trust that the money ends up where it needs to.”

I meant in the broadest sense. They would have given more up until now, but don’t trust the large charities.

So much for shutting up

this sounds thoroughly interesting. initially i questioned (like dave) how sustainable this is over time. but i think he’s right in that the further the reach, the more influence & thus the more capital available. also, if it’s project oriented, it allows for a goal as opposed to (Red)emption (which I don’t know anything about, but it sounds like b/c it was for a foundation, it’d be much harder to set an end goal). here we have a goal like Amit’s taxi or the Swaziland orphanage roof, etc.

if it’s loans, it makes it even more sustainable.

non-profs are a bear to set up. i think they also vary state-to-state. a lot of paperwork involved.

recently i’ve been thinking about much smaller gifts spread across much larger networks. @ the church i work at we’ve see people start to really own some projects similar to this. and financially the need is answered every time cause the church is ridiculously large. but recently i’ve been thinking of wanting to say to the super-generous people “only give $2 for this project. cause we’re going to ask everyone to give $2. because even though it’s only $2, it’s ownership for someone who wouldn’t have given if they were asked for $25 or $50. and then they see the result & have ownership and become super generous in and of their own right.

just some thoughts…

I share wilsonian’s concern about accountability. If these are to be handled as loans, your repayment rate needs to be very high or, eventually, you’ll lose lenders. Kiva has addressed this issue by having local experts vet loan/project proposals, which ensures a high repayment rate.

Your proposal, on the other hand, depends very much on individual trust and evaluation, which is very risky — we’re not all experts at these sorts of things, and we’re overly influenced by emotional narratives. I have an acquaintance who, over the years, has made several loans to close friends/family based on trust, and has been shorted about $70-$80,000. An exceptional example, obviously, but compelling evidence that average joe’s aren’t good at choosing who to loan too.

Additionally, if you’re going to follow the Kiva model where, when a loan is repaid, you pick a new person to lend the repaid money to, then these loans won’t be tax-deductible. (I’m pretty sure loans with Kiva are not, which is why they’ve focused on very small $ amounts).

Just some thoughts. I like the idea in theory, but am worried about practicalities.

Also, what’s the big deal with RelationalTithe? Is it brand new? I registered there and fished around a bit but, frankly, it seemed like a dead end. It was unclear what I should even be looking for there.

@ all.
i agree. this only works if there is a level of trust. which is why i think is the whole point of it being a scale-free network. that it is only as viable as the relationships between the lenders/givers and their relationship to the the project they are working towards.

@ all.
i also think that sustainability . . . as in is it able to reproduce itself is extremely possible. if you are a hub, maybe you have to commit 5% of your income towards that project. and the goal is to get 10 hubs. once you get those 10 hubs in place, those hubs then recruit or help get the word out via their blogs or businesses. once the loan is made the cluster of people can dissolve back into the background or find another cluster to continue loaning there 5% to.

does that make sense? so perhaps each cluster of people will work towards a specific project like amit or the roof. and then when the loan gets made that cluster will dissolove on the fundraising end, although i would think they would still be involved in amit or the roof’s story. but they could then join another cluster of fundraising. so that the networks and hubs will continually be changing and evolving and growing and substracting like a scale-free network.

i’m going to draw this out over lunch. it’s in my moleskin but not legible.

and i’m less concerned with the formalities of things . . . like non-profits . . . sustainability, etc. i’m willing to give it a try and let it be an experiment and if it crashes and burns then at least we tried. and if it works, then we can come beside it and give it some structure and promotion. as for RELATIONAL TITHE, they get this. that’s probably why you weren’t able to find a way to get involved directly on their site because they want to become friends with you first in their local network and community before you start jumping into a project blindly. i had the same experience at first, but now it makes perfect sense.

Ok, I’m throwing my thoughts into the mix.

Personally, I’m for the gift idea rather than the loan. I know most have thrown in for the loan idea but I have some thoughts that kind of irk me about it.

The first issue is, I can actually convince someone to give a gift much easier than giving a loan. At least for me, I’m much more likely to give out a gift, whereas with a loan I want to trust the network and gain the knowledge that I’m getting that money back. (Except in the case of Kiva I don’t really mind if I don’t get my money back… see below)

I hate the fact that when I give to Kiva I’m going to get my money back. I know that I will reinvest that money into another source, but I’d almost rather let that money sit out there for the partner I’m lending to. I know it teaches the partner some decent business skills (i.e. don’t take out more debt than you can handle, and how to repay debt yet still sustain your business), but in my mind, how much more good would be accomplished if instead of having to repay the loan, the partner could reinvest that money into their business, thus growing it. Or in the case of Amit, investing that money into church planting and or family issues that we acknowledge and see the need for.

Essentially since the network is and will likely remain for some time a relatively small grouping of hubs, the hubs can essentially monitor where the money is going, thus making giving rather than loaning a much more feasible issue (basically we’re small enough we know exactly where, to who, and for what purpose the money is going). If sustainability were to be reached then of course the network would grow lessening the ability to have such controls.

Here’s a bit on my thoughts on organization and growth.
If I’m wrong about this next part, Josh, then tell me. But essentially you’d be set up as a central hub, with *lateral* (not linear i.e. not quite subordinate) hubs emanating from this point. The organization can maintain control if it stays relatively small. But (if) when the organization reaches larger proportions an eventual split would have to occur. Newer central hubs would essentially have to be created out of existing hubs, and more needs could be met by such a growing network.
I’ll stop here, I know I’m getting quite long winded, but if you had any idea how much this is rolling in my head you’d understand. The biggest problem I’m running into in my mind, however, is that it’s quite hard to organize a network solely over the Internet. It’s hard for every idea to be heard and understood as Internet conversations are often not fluid.
One more thing, if a non-profit were to be set up, I believe my father in law can easily assist in it’s creation and paperwork.

Looking forward to the Moleskin version

This sounds fantastic. I haven’t looked to closely at Relational Tithe yet. It is something I think the “church” (http://missioning.ning.com) that I am recently a part of would probably like to be involved with. I think I’ll bring it up with everyone. See what their take is.

so are we doing this via PayPal? or old fashioned snail mail? or what? is there a point person?

[...] So, I’ll shut up now and you can go and see a real example of what missional living looks like here, here, and especially here. [...]

I am a missionary, and I have seen much over the 18 years I have been involved in missions. I have seen people with really flashy newsletters, really slick web sites and ads, that were absolutely abusive and controlling, and I have seen missionaries struggling to provide dental care for their families and struggling to eat. Like many others, I am really reluctant to invest my time and money, unless I know the person or ministry, but I do want to invest where there will be fruit.

So, instead of trying to connect with thousands of different people, what about the missionary or person on the front lines being the contact/hub? For example, Josh knows Amit, he vouches for him and for his legitimacy, and someone from the supporting group should probably be responsible to visit once a year to verify the project. Amit in turn knows people in his community that may need a micro loan. For example, I know a woman that has dreamed for years of getting a sewing machine. She is a single mom, a small group leader, and if she had a sewing machine, she could better provide for her family. This is something incredibly small, yet something that would bring so much hope and joy.

So the donors could give a gift to Amit, who would then invest in projects that he thinks are worthy. He could give gifts, or micro loans, to help people start businesses and release their God given creativity fighting poverty through business. The group connects through the stories of real people getting real help. It is strengthened so much more if people could visit, see the people that have been helped, get a taste of short term missions, and in the process perhaps even God would move them to be more missional.

I think you are on to something here bro. Dream big. Dreams like these can change the world!

great to hear this conversation. i often read emerging philanthropy blogs and they are also talking about wisdom of crowds in accountability and suggesting where the money goes. we are trying out some of these ideas also.

love this conversation! good stuff!