Maybe the transactor didn't deem that they should have the power to decide what's "a lot more good"?
There are a lot of "charities" that IMHO do mostly "bad". Also charity itself is problematic: should those with money get to decide how and what problems are focused on?
All charities do if you open a Fidelity Charitable account and fund it with Bitcoin. :)
In the US it is tax adventitious to donate appreciated assets, including Bitcoin. (or even especially bitcoin as few other assets have appreciated as much)
It's often not highly promoted-- usually posed on an 'other ways to give' catch-all as it appears to have a slightly negative effect on conversion rates (I've heard there is some evidence that accepting bitcoin sends prospective donors off on a rabbit hole of learning about Bitcoin).
Regardless what your views on Bitcoin are, accepting donations of appreciated assets just makes a lot of sense from a tax optimization perspective: The donor gets a write-off of the current market value, while the (nonprofit) charity can sell the appreciated assets without incurring capital gains or income tax.
At least that’s the case for stock donations in the US.