[psychoslave]

A bit tangent, as I never had a single thought about investing any of the few precious attention moment into financial theaters.

if I get it this is an index to invest in common in distributed wallets chosen and managed by an organization named S&P?

I'ld be interested in something similar, but aiming at growing cooperatives, non profits, externally checked for alignment organisations striving to benefit humanity as a whole. It doesn't have to be something that have strong garanties of direct personal financial profits, just no way it makes me in personal bankrupts, zero personal gain would be ok, staying ahead of inflation nice to have, and having some profits back would be acceptable.

Please be kind or hold from losing time and energy for everybody with aggressive answers.

I'm just considering ways to make sure as few as possible resources end up in the control of techno fascists.

[matt_kantor]

> something similar, but aiming at growing cooperatives, non profits, externally checked for alignment organisations striving to benefit humanity as a whole

There are a lot of investment funds like this, usually called something like "ESG" (environmental, social, and governance) funds.

[psychoslave]

Hey thank you very much for your reply, it's deeply appreciated, this helped to start a rich research on the matter.

[groundzeros2015]

sounds like a non-profit service project, not an investment.

[psychoslave]

How is that incompatible?

[groundzeros2015]

I think making money usually helps people. But it does affect every decision you make. When you’re investing you look at financial criteria. When you’re donating you look at social criteria.

The whole “VC in non-profit” thing was a trend from 2012 to 2017 or so and it did not work out for this reason.

[psychoslave]

How do you distinguish social from financial here? Isn't finance just a loose way to quantify social considerations?

[groundzeros2015]

I think there are plenty of interesting non-profits that won’t make you any money. I donate to some!

There is a radical version of capitalism where you would say only things that make money (what people pay for) are providing social value, but I don’t think that’s what you’re getting at.

[psychoslave]

Not what I'm looking for indeed if I got what you mean. But that's because precisely money in itself seems pointless, it's just mere social conventions loosely quantified. Money is a tool and in this perspective, more specimen of tools in more hands seems rather pro social. It's more of an issue when all the many tools are tied to monopolistic unreciprocal contract serving an oligarchic social project.