Hide table of contents
2 min read 20

10

I want to share an idea to invite feedback.
So far, I have only considered it for a few hours.

I'm pitching to create a casino where one can only play with money from their Donor Advised Fund.

The primary motivation is that the casino's profits would be donated to effective charities instead of their default non-EA destinations.
As a second benefit, I hope that it could incentivize people to donate more by allowing them to channel their love of gambling (euphemism for addiction :D) to a good cause.

Some supporting arguments

  • Daffy, a modern, cheap, and convenient DAF provider, has an API. It should be possible to let people gamble using their Daffy account funds, so there is no need to solve this whole messy part of the equation (after the gambling session, the balance would be settled between the user-owned DAF and the DAF of the house)
  • There are countless online casino software providers, so there is no need to develop much on that side as well
  • Unlike regular casinos, our's would be able to operate in all states (because legally it's not gambling)
  • User deposits would be tax deductible
  • Upwards of 90% of wealthy Americans donate to charity, and about 60% of Americans gamble at least once a year so maybe the user base for this charity is substantial
  • The online gambling market in the US is enormous (on the order of 20bn of revenue per year) and is growing.
  • Daffy had over ~130M USD of user's funds at the end of 2023 (up from 30M in 2022), so they may have substantially more by now
    One way to market this charity is: If you don't have enough money to solve some charitable problem close to your heart, try spinning it up in Roulette/Black Jack/etc. Some people would succeed and brag about it.
  • Unlike regular casinos, there are no moral qualms about it, in my opinion: every player parts with their money at the outset, and there is no way to "win it back," so I expect no one will lose irresponsible amounts. Furthermore, there is no actual loss - all money ends up in charities anyway
  • This would allow people to brag about their charitable contributions in disguise by talking about them as gambling instead. Letting people earn some status points without feeling obnoxious is important: charity auctions are one way to do this. A charity casino could be, too.
  •  This casino could be a platform to teach people about the concept of effective giving

     

     

Arguments against:

 

  •  Some charities could refuse to accept donations from the casino's proceeds since they would perceive it as somehow harmful to their reputation


 I was both a professional gambler and somewhat of a gambling addict, and I think that a more significant part of a thrill comes from account balance fluctuations and the screen blinking in just the right way. The promise of being able to win money for your local school (or wherever most people donate) could provide a comparable thrill

  • The vibes of gambling and charitable institutions are very different. Maybe it will be problematic to combine the two worlds, e.g., hard to find a working marketing angle
  • Traditional media might misrepresent or criticize the concept (and EA)
  • Could damage the credibility of the EA movement if perceived negatively


It sounds a little edgy, but should it be a stopper? I believe not. I kind of enjoy a contrarian stance—it could be good for marketing.

I would appreciate any feedback on the idea, and please reach out if you are thrilled to make it happen. 

10

0
1
1

Reactions

0
1
1

More posts like this

Comments20


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Another idea would just be a normal casino that was owned by a charitable foundation or trust -a "Profit for Good" casino. People could get the exact same value proposition they get from other normal casinos, but by patronizing the Profit for Good Casino, they (in expectation)would be helping save lives or otherwise better the world.

You could have a great night in which you win hundreds or thousands of dollars, but even if you lose, they know that your losses are helping to dramatically better the world. 

You could have a great night in which you win hundreds or thousands of dollars, but even if you lose, they know that your losses are helping to dramatically better the world. 

A cynic reads this as "you could have a great night in which you deprive a few hundred people of malaria nets, but at least in the long run they and also random unrelated and typically obnoxious corporations might stand to benefit from the gambling addiction this has instilled in you....". Possibly the first part of the proposition is slightly less icky if the house is simply taking a rake from a competitors in a game of skill, but still.

Maybe I just know too many people broken by gambling.

I think the same amount of healthy and problem gambling would take place in aggregate regardless of whether there was a PFG casino among a set of casinos. But maybe some people would choose to migrate that activity toward the PFG casino, so that more good could happen (they're offering the same odds as competitors).

It comes down to whether you're OK with getting involved in something icky if the net harm you cause to gamblers is zero and you can produce significant good in doing so. For me, this doesn't really pose a problem.

I don't see any reason to believe that the same amount of gambling would take place in aggregate. Most entertainment businesses grow the market and this one is promoting new motivations for potentially different people to participate in an activity which is often addictive. And if you're running a bricks and mortar casino you're facing the same high operating costs as the competition: I don't see any reason to believe you'd reach profitability without putting in similar amounts of effort to entice new players, encourage people to return on days they weren't planning to gamble and encouraging people to shovel more money into machines after they've already lost more than they planned. 

I think you pointed out the ickiest part of this proposal very well, though: I’d be motivated to encourage people to donate (gamble) more then they were planning to.

I don’t find brick and mortar casino of this type compelling, for this reason. In the online case expenses should be relatively low given the existing infrastructure

Hi Brad,

There is already Great.com, "the world’s first casino affiliate that donates 100% of its profits to charity", which was started by Erik Bergman. Founders Pledge has a profile on Eric, and this interview also seems relevant.

Yes Thisj Jacobs mentioned below, but thanks for bringing to my attention.

I am in favor of people considering unconventional approaches to charity.

At the same time, I find it pretty easy to argue against this. Some immediate things that come to mind:
1. My impression is that gambling is typically net-negative to participants, often highly so. I generally don't like seeing work go towards projects that are net-negative to their main customers (among others).
2. Out of all the "do business X, but it goes to charity", why not pick something itself beneficial? There are many business areas to choose from. Insurance can be pretty great - I think Lemonade Insurance did something clever with charity.
3. I think it's easy to start out altruistic with something like this, then become a worse person as you respond to incentives. In the casino business, the corporation is highly incentivized to do increasingly sleazy tactics to find, bait, and often bankrupt whales. If you don't do this, your competitors will, and they'll have more money to advertise.
4. I don't like making this the main thing, but I'd expect the PR to be really bad for anything this touches. "EAs don't really care about helping people, they just use that as an excuse to open sleazy casinos." There are few worse things to be associate with. A lot of charities are highly protective of their brands (and often with good reason).
5. It's very easy for me to imagine something like this creating worse epistemics. In order to grow revenue, it will be very "convenient" if you downplayed the harms caused by the casino. If such a thing does catch on in a certain charitable cluster, very soon that charitable cluster will be encouraged to lie and self-deceive. We saw some of this with the FTX incident. 
6. The casino industry attracts and feeds off clients with poor epistemics. I'd imagine they (as in, the people the casino actually makes money from) wouldn't be the type who would care much about reasonable effective charities.

When I personally imagine a world where, "A significant part of the effective giving community is tied to high-rolling casinos", it's hard for me to imagine this not being highly distopic. 

By all this, I hope the author doesn't treat this at all on an attack on them specifically. But I would consider it an attack on specific future project proposals that suggest advancing manipulative and harmful industries and tying such work to the topics of effective giving or effective philanthropy. I very much do not want to see more work done here. I'm spending some time on this comment, mainly to use this as an opportunity to hopefully dissuade others considering this sort of thing in the future. 

On this note, I'd flag that I think a lot of the crypto industry has been full of scams and other manipulative and harmful behavior. Some of this got very close to EA (i.e. with FTX), and I'm sure with a long tail of much smaller projects. I consider much of this (the bad parts) a black mark on all connected+responsible participants and very much do not want to see more of it. 

Re #1 - the customers in OPs contemplation would have already committed the funds to be donated and prospective wins would inure to the benefit of charities. So it isn't clear to me that the same typical harm applies (if you buy the premise that gamblers are net harmed by gambling). There wouldn't be the circumstance where the gambler feels they need to win it back - because they've already lost the money when they committed it to the DAF.

Re #2 - this could produce a good experience for customers - donating money to charities while playing games. And with how OP set it up, they know what they are losing (unlike with a typical casino there's that hope of winning it big).

Re #3 - for the reasons discussed above, the predatory and deceptive implications are less significant here. Unlike when someone takes money to a slot machine in a typical casino, when they put the money in the DAF they no longer have a chance of "getting it back"

Re #4 - yeah there might be some bad pr. But if people liked this and substituted it for normal gambling, it probably would be less morally problematic for the reasons discussed above.

Re #5 - I'm not really sure that this business is as morally corrosive as you suggest... It's potentially disadvantaging the gambler's preferred charity to the casino's, but not by much, and not without the gambler's knowledge.

Re #6 - the gamblers could choose the charities that are the beneficiaries of their DAF. And I don't know that enjoying gambling means that you wouldn't like to see kids saved from malaria and such.

I think your criticisms would better apply to a straight Profit for Good casino (normal casino with charities as shareholder). The concerns you bring up are some reasons I think a PFG casino, though an interesting idea, would not be a place I'd be looking to do as an early, strategic PFG (also big capital requirements).

OP's proposal is much more wholesome and actually addresses a lot more of the ethical concerns. I just think people may not be interested in gambling as much if there was not the prospect of winning money for themselves.

At least in the US, charity bingo, raffles, etc. are a fairly common thing in some segments of society. I don't think these are generally seen as controversial or problematic, although I also get the impression that they don't raise huge amounts of money per individual event. So I don't think all of the downsides you describe are inherent to the charity-gambling mashup. Whether there is some middle path that brings in significantly more money than bingo at a VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) post without bringing in the pathologies of for-profit gambling is an interesting question. My guess is that the relatively low stakes and occasional nature of extant charity bingo & raffles go a long way to explaining why those efforts seem unobjectionable.

I appreciate your take @Ozzie Gooen

I agree that casinos are an evil business, and I would be extremely wary of making people worse off in a hope to "make it up" by charitable contributions. 

 @Brad West🔸 have already answered point by point, so I'll just add that I believe it's better to think of my proposal as a charity, that also provides games to it's customers, rather than casino that donates it's profits. 

I'd argue that regular casinos are net positive for people without a gambling addiction, who treat is as an evening entertainment with an almost guaranteed loss. The industry preys on people who lost more then they could afford and are trying to get even, and it is not possible case. 

I struggle to imagine someone, who would donate more to their DAF that they feel comfortable with because they felt devastated that money went to the charity of not their choice. 

I think this is a bad idea for the same reason that starting a cigarette company that donates its profits to charity is a bad idea.

@Brad West🔸 , thanks for sharing your thoughts! This is what I thought of initially, but then "pivoted to" the complete non-profit framing, mainly because winning in the actual casino would mean that you are in effect taking money from charities. Probably even more important is the legal advantage of my proposal 

Thanks for your proposal. I have actually thought a Profit for Good casino would be a good idea (high capital requirements, but I think it could provide a  competitive edge in the Vegas strip, for instance). I find your take on it pretty interesting

I think a casino that did not limit the funds that could be gambled to charitable accounts of some sort would have a much larger market than one that did. There is a lot of friction in requiring the set up of charitable accounts even for people who were interested in charitable giving and enjoyed gambling. I also think that you are going into a narrower subset of prospective clients that have these overlapping qualities. In the meantime, there are millions of people who consistently demonstrate demand for gambling at casinos.
 

I think a lot of people would feel fine about playing at the casino and winning, because they know that there are winners and losers in casinos, but the house (in the end) always wins. Winners and losers would both be participating in a process that would be helping dramatically better the world. 

Could you explain the legal advantage of your proposal vis-a-vis a normal casino either owned by a charitable foundation or being a nonprofit itself (Humanitix, for instance is a ticketing company that is structured as a nonprofit itself)? Is it that people's chips would essentially be tax-deductible (because contributing to their DAF is tax-deductible)? 

I meant that my version of casino could operate in all states legally (vs 8 states for regular casinos)

Also: have you used Daffy? It's really easy to set up (to your point about friction of setting up accounts)

It's already being done, and seems to be pretty succesful. See this Founders Pledge profile and this interview with Erik Bergman.  
 

TBH, this idea got me thinking. A while back, a friend got really into https://rizzy.com/ — not in a reckless way, but he loved the thrill. He told me it helped him unwind after work. If there had been a way for that money to go toward a good cause instead of just disappearing into some company's pockets, he would've jumped on it. 

Thank you for sharing this. I was not aware of this Profit for Good casino.

Oh, cool, interesting. This is however the for-profit casino affiliate business, that donates it's commission to charity. Closer to what @Brad West🔸 described

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Epistemic status: This post — the result of a loosely timeboxed ~2-day sprint[1] — is more like “research notes with rough takes” than “report with solid answers.” You should interpret the things we say as best guesses, and not give them much more weight than that. Summary There’s been some discussion of what “transformative AI may arrive soon” might mean for animal advocates. After a very shallow review, we’ve tentatively concluded that radical changes to the animal welfare (AW) field are not yet warranted. In particular: * Some ideas in this space seem fairly promising, but in the “maybe a researcher should look into this” stage, rather than “shovel-ready” * We’re skeptical of the case for most speculative “TAI<>AW” projects * We think the most common version of this argument underrates how radically weird post-“transformative”-AI worlds would be, and how much this harms our ability to predict the longer-run effects of interventions available to us today. Without specific reasons to believe that an intervention is especially robust,[2] we think it’s best to discount its expected value to ~zero. Here’s a brief overview of our (tentative!) actionable takes on this question[3]: ✅ Some things we recommend❌ Some things we don’t recommend * Dedicating some amount of (ongoing) attention to the possibility of “AW lock ins”[4]  * Pursuing other exploratory research on what transformative AI might mean for animals & how to help (we’re unconvinced by most existing proposals, but many of these ideas have received <1 month of research effort from everyone in the space combined — it would be unsurprising if even just a few months of effort turned up better ideas) * Investing in highly “flexible” capacity for advancing animal interests in AI-transformed worlds * Trying to use AI for near-term animal welfare work, and fundraising from donors who have invested in AI * Heavily discounting “normal” interventions that take 10+ years to help animals * “Rowing” on na
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
About the program Hi! We’re Chana and Aric, from the new 80,000 Hours video program. For over a decade, 80,000 Hours has been talking about the world’s most pressing problems in newsletters, articles and many extremely lengthy podcasts. But today’s world calls for video, so we’ve started a video program[1], and we’re so excited to tell you about it! 80,000 Hours is launching AI in Context, a new YouTube channel hosted by Aric Floyd. Together with associated Instagram and TikTok accounts, the channel will aim to inform, entertain, and energize with a mix of long and shortform videos about the risks of transformative AI, and what people can do about them. [Chana has also been experimenting with making shortform videos, which you can check out here; we’re still deciding on what form her content creation will take] We hope to bring our own personalities and perspectives on these issues, alongside humor, earnestness, and nuance. We want to help people make sense of the world we're in and think about what role they might play in the upcoming years of potentially rapid change. Our first long-form video For our first long-form video, we decided to explore AI Futures Project’s AI 2027 scenario (which has been widely discussed on the Forum). It combines quantitative forecasting and storytelling to depict a possible future that might include human extinction, or in a better outcome, “merely” an unprecedented concentration of power. Why? We wanted to start our new channel with a compelling story that viewers can sink their teeth into, and that a wide audience would have reason to watch, even if they don’t yet know who we are or trust our viewpoints yet. (We think a video about “Why AI might pose an existential risk”, for example, might depend more on pre-existing trust to succeed.) We also saw this as an opportunity to tell the world about the ideas and people that have for years been anticipating the progress and dangers of AI (that’s many of you!), and invite the br
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Hi all, This is a one time cross-post from my substack. If you like it, you can subscribe to the substack at tobiasleenaert.substack.com. Thanks Gaslit by humanity After twenty-five years in the animal liberation movement, I’m still looking for ways to make people see. I’ve given countless talks, co-founded organizations, written numerous articles and cited hundreds of statistics to thousands of people. And yet, most days, I know none of this will do what I hope: open their eyes to the immensity of animal suffering. Sometimes I feel obsessed with finding the ultimate way to make people understand and care. This obsession is about stopping the horror, but it’s also about something else, something harder to put into words: sometimes the suffering feels so enormous that I start doubting my own perception - especially because others don’t seem to see it. It’s as if I am being gaslit by humanity, with its quiet, constant suggestion that I must be overreacting, because no one else seems alarmed. “I must be mad” Some quotes from the book The Lives of Animals, by South African writer and Nobel laureate J.M. Coetzee, may help illustrate this feeling. In his novella, Coetzee speaks through a female vegetarian protagonist named Elisabeth Costello. We see her wrestle with questions of suffering, guilt and responsibility. At one point, Elisabeth makes the following internal observation about her family’s consumption of animal products: “I seem to move around perfectly easily among people, to have perfectly normal relations with them. Is it possible, I ask myself, that all of them are participants in a crime of stupefying proportions? Am I fantasizing it all? I must be mad!” Elisabeth wonders: can something be a crime if billions are participating in it? She goes back and forth on this. On the one hand she can’t not see what she is seeing: “Yet every day I see the evidences. The very people I suspect produce the evidence, exhibit it, offer it to me. Corpses. Fragments of