[oshiar53-0]

>I realized this was because there was no objective feedback. Because there is no loss—it’s all social profit—they couldn’t fail.

>If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality.

Why would it be the "best"? Non-profit organisations do have many other ways to have their performance validated and evaluated from "reality" transparently and objectively, just like e.g. a public company.

Sure, non-profit is not sustainable and legally binding etc etc, but the author doesn't provide concrete reason that a specific organisation model serves best for "building a better world." I'm not arguing that non-proft is the "best," but a foundation may receive funding and/or grants from a consortium of various non-profit and for-profit organisations, individuals, and etc.. This does not necessarily make the foundation itself "for-profit." The foundation could operate under critical scrutiny of stakeholders.

If anything, I'd blame the lack of transparency to interested parties (e.g. donors) as the main factor of organisational failure. This applies to both for-profits and non-profits.