Web3 companies are now the first to dogooders. We see it everywhere: scholarships, mentorship programs, and initiatives plastered with feel-good branding. Take Bitget, for example. They recently visited Harvard, presenting their Blockchain4Youth and Blockchain4Her programs. All $10 million to the youth and getting women involved in Web3 – pretty incredible, huh? Is it?

Good Intentions or Savvy Marketing?

Let's be real. Corporations—especially those in nascent, frequently-derided industries—are not motivated purely by good intentions. It's not cynical to ask why Bitget, a crypto exchange serving over 100 million users globally, is suddenly so invested in philanthropy.

Think about the parallels with Big Oil. These include decades of harmful environmental destruction, and then…white savior tree planting projects. Is it true contrition, or a cynical public relations gambit to greenwash their reputations? Web3, with its own set of challenges like regulatory uncertainty and environmental concerns surrounding certain cryptocurrencies, might be playing a similar game.

Are Blockchain4Youth and Blockchain4Her really committed to empowering their constituents? Or do they want to develop a pipeline of future users and developers into the Bitget ecosystem? Are they working to address the systemic root causes of inequality? Or are they feeding the beast, band-aiding systemic issues while attempting to create brand loyalty? It’s one thing to write a check, it’s a whole other ballgame to recognize and dismantle structural barriers.

The Unintended Consequences of Crypto Charity

Prosocial philanthropy, even when genuinely prosocial, becomes counterproductive at best — dangerous at worst. Handouts, even as scholarships and mentorship, foster dependency. What happens when the funding dries up? Most importantly, are these programs actually creating long-term skills and pathways? Or, are they just providing band-aids that will leave their participants exposed in the future?

Consider this: are these Web3 companies truly equipped to understand the needs of the communities they're trying to help? Are they promoting their own values and priorities in the process, thus upending current support networks? You know the proverb, “Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Is Web3 philanthropy really teaching people to fish, or are they just giving out fish filets?

We need to be wary of the “savior complex.” This myth feeds the idea that rich corporations can just come in and solve complex social issues on our behalf. Too frequently, the most appropriate solution identified by communities themselves is undermined or sabotaged by outside players with differing priorities.

Tokenomics Workshop: Branding Opportunity?

Bitget's COO, Vugar Usi, even led a workshop on tokenomics at Harvard, using their native token, $BGB, as an example. Protective, while educational in practice, it’s a more subtle (or perhaps less subtle) branding opportunity. It would be a great opportunity to show off $BGB and welcome in a whole new set of investors.

This isn’t because anyone is evil per se, it underscores the conflict of interest baked into corporate philanthropy. The demarcation between helping the communities you’re entering and virtue signaling as a strategy for market penetration isn’t always clear.

The crypto market is volatile. Bitget would like to remind you that the risks of investing in digital assets are high. That siren call of easy wealth is an incredibly seductive thing, particularly for youth. Are these programs actually preparing them for the risks, or are they just contributing to the hype cycle?

It’s really important to keep in mind that these are all for-profit companies. After all, their fiduciary duty is to their shareholders—not to improving life in our communities. And for large, institutional philanthropy, it is most of the time, if not always, a tool to improve their bottom line.

We need to talk about accountability. Who is overseeing these initiatives? How are they measuring their impact? Are they honest and forthright about who funds their work and how they operate? Without meaningful accountability measures, these programs are likely to turn into little more than PR ploys.

In the end, we should welcome Web3 philanthropy with open arms and a healthy dose of skepticism. So it’s no surprise that initiatives like Blockchain4Youth and Blockchain4Her, which seek to involve underrepresented groups, have noble aims. Their motivations might be good, but we need to look deeper to make sure these movements and dollars are truly helping the communities they aim to serve. We require more openness, more accountability, and more emphasis on sustainable solutions, rather than feel-good public relations. The future of Web3, and what part Web3 will play in a more equitable and inclusive society, hinges on it.

  • Transparency: Is the company open about its funding sources and allocation?
  • Accountability: Are there clear metrics for measuring impact and holding the company accountable?
  • Sustainability: Are the programs designed to create lasting change, or are they short-term fixes?
  • Community Involvement: Are the programs developed in collaboration with the communities they aim to serve?
  • Ethical Considerations: Are the programs aligned with ethical principles and values?

Ultimately, we need to approach Web3 philanthropy with a healthy dose of skepticism. While initiatives like Blockchain4Youth and Blockchain4Her may have positive intentions, it's crucial to examine the motivations behind them and to ensure that they are truly serving the best interests of the communities they aim to help. We need greater transparency, accountability, and a focus on sustainable solutions, not just feel-good PR. The future of Web3, and its role in society, depends on it.