EvolveNP @EvolveNP

The humanitarian blockchain that works is the one you never see. WFP's private coordination ledger moved $760M and prevented $270M in duplication. UNHCR's award-winning public-chain stablecoin? $4.6M in 4 years. At EvolveNP, we're building the boring kind that actually scales. Recurring USDC. No fanfare. Works.

Crypto Altruists @Crypto_Altruism

2 days ago

The most effective humanitarian blockchain work is the kind you never see. 🌍 A sharp piece on why the strongest results come from behind-the-scenes coordination infrastructure, and where stablecoins truly earn their place in aid. coincub.com/blog/humanitar…

1 0 4 117 0

Nonprofits spend weeks building impact reports. Donors spend 30 seconds scanning them. The disconnect isn't accidental, it's a symptom of weak measurement from the start.

NonProfit PRO @non_profit_pro

4 days ago

Most nonprofits produce impact reports—but few find them truly useful. Stronger reports start with better measurement: clear success metrics and consistent data collection. Read more: bit.ly/4eNmvDF #NonProfitPRO #Fundraising #Philanthropy

0 1 1 83 0

On the surface, DEX activity and nonprofit program delivery seem like they belong to completely different worlds. One is crypto market activity. The other is a social worker showing up, a meal getting served, a student staying in school. The connection between them is more direct than it looks. When qualifying activity occurs for a cohort token on a DEX, a small Impact Fee is automatically routed to the Vault. No one decides this. No one approves it. It happens by rule at the contract layer. As those fees accrue, the Vault builds a funding source for the cohort. When the monthly cycle runs a fixed portion of accumulated value converts to USDC and is distributed directly to three nonprofit wallets. Those distributions support nonprofits doing the work on the ground: social workers showing up, meals being served, students staying in school. These are the kinds of outcomes this infrastructure is designed to support. And the chain connecting the system to those distributions is not a metaphor. It is on-chain, publicly verifiable, and permanent. Most financial systems ask you to trust that money eventually reached something meaningful. EvolveNP makes the path traceable from fee generation to final distribution, every step of the way. Token activity and nonprofit impact were never really separate. The protocol just makes that connection visible.

One big check rewrites your mission. Two major donors control your strategy. The 'low overhead' mindset eats your fundraising capacity from the inside. Vincent Jones breaks down why philanthropy's structure is a design failure and how it keeps nonprofits trapped.

Nonprofit Hub @NPhub

a week ago

Philanthropy isn't built to scale smaller orgs. To level the playing field, we must democratize who gives. Shifting to localized, mid-level donors flips the power dynamic back to those closest to the problems. Listen to the Nonprofit Hub Radio Podcast: bit.ly/4uNrURq

0 0 0 67 0

$617B raised. Donor count still falling. Giving USA's numbers aren't wrong, they're just counting a format donors already moved past. At EvolveNP, we're building for the format that's next: transparent, onchain, recurring giving that doesn't need a 1990s lens to measure it.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy @Philanthropy

6 days ago

Record charitable giving. Shrinking donor base. Five years running. Contributor Michael Wasserman argues we're not misreading the numbers — we're measuring the wrong ones entirely. Read the full analysis: phlnthrp.com/4xJrpKD

0 1 4 358 1

Three is not a permanent ceiling for every future format. But for the cohort structure specifically, three is the number that makes the mission legible, the splits meaningful, and the risk less concentrated. It was a deliberate choice. Most of the best ones are.

Three hits the balance on both sides. Each nonprofit receives a split designed to be meaningful relative to the cohort structure. The cohort identity stays focused and legible. And the model distributes reputational and operational risk across multiple organizations without diluting the cause anchor.

When we designed the cohort model, one of the earliest decisions was how many nonprofits should sit inside a single cohort. We landed on three. That number was not arbitrary. Here is the reasoning behind it.

👏Do more with the same investment by being intentional from the start. Easier said than done, unless your infrastructure is built for it.

Nonprofit Tech for Good @nonprofitorgs

a week ago

Done right, a well-designed impact report contains your strongest stories, your most compelling data, and your clearest articulation of why your nonprofit's work matters: arcanacreative.ca/designing-for-… ✅

0 2 6 792 3

Giving USA: $617.2B Was Given To Nonprofits During 2025 Americans helped charities beat inflation during 2025, donating an estimated $617.2 billion, which was a 5.7% increase compared to 2024’s total. The U.S. inflation rate for 2025 was 2.6%. Read Here: bit.ly/4wsMyHN

Fair launch usually gets framed as a fairness concept. ❌No insider allocation. ❌No whitelist. ❌No preferential access before launch. That framing is accurate, but it misses why the principle mattered to us specifically as infrastructure built for nonprofits. An insider allocation, even a well-intentioned one, creates a group of people with special early access and a different relationship to the system than everyone else. That kind of relationship can create expectations later. 👉Expectations about influence. 👉Expectations about special treatment. 👉Expectations that someone should be listened to more closely because they were there first. That is exactly the kind of discretionary, relationship-dependent structure EvolveNP was built to avoid. Nonprofit beneficiaries should not have to wonder whether early private participants could eventually influence how the system behaves. Fair launch removes that risk before it can form. The result is not just fairness. It is one less place where discretion could quietly creep back into a system designed to minimize it.

Donors used to Google you. Now they ask ChatGPT. If your nonprofit isn't showing up in AI search, you're invisible at the exact moment someone is ready to give.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy @Philanthropy

2 weeks ago

Donors are skipping Google and asking ChatGPT. Nonprofits that don't adapt risk losing visibility at the moment it matters most. We explore the new rules of AI search—and the opportunities they bring. phlnthrp.com/3QSjVV4

1 1 4 382 2

EvolveNP is paying attention, because how we govern who gets funded matters as much as the funding itself.

Funding the Commons @FundingCommons

a month ago

Our new governance report is live. We gave six communities money, total freedom, and an AI that could spend it for them, then watched how they chose to govern. A field study in AI-assisted governance, with @protocollabs @GainForestNow @OctantApp @hypercerts 👇

3 11 33 4K 6

“Verified” is not a marketing word for us. It is the gate that has to be passed correctly before deployment, because once a beneficiary wallet is written into the contract, we cannot swap it out later. When we say verified nonprofit beneficiary, this is what stands behind it.

Why this matters so much: once a beneficiary wallet is deployed into the contract, it cannot be changed. There is no function to swap it out later. That means verification has to happen correctly before launch, not after. There is no "we will fix it in a future update."

EvolveNP talks about "verified nonprofit beneficiaries" often. It is worth explaining exactly what that word is doing, because it is doing real work. Here is what verification actually involves before any organization is onboarded.