---
# System prepended metadata

title: '[response] Research on Donation Receipt Issuance'

---

##### tags: `grant` `proposal` `response` `event_investment`

# Research on Donation Receipt Issuance

Comment on this response here: https://hackmd.io/KMx4yOZfSPKSIvvX9VWuZA

Request at: https://github.com/lexDAO/Grants/blob/6c572ce1a34181be21929ce0a62a503add16d447/request/Research_on_Donation_Receipt_Issuance.md

Internal conversation at: https://discord.com/channels/682960432272506907/1243605774698025000

## Committee decision

The Committee approves the $1200 grant as long as Clinamenic changes his research from donation receipt issuance to how can LexDAO use Hypercerts to evidence impact, if at all, with the expectation that donation receipt issuance is one of those ways. 

## bestape reasons (Lead)

From https://github.com/lexDAO/Grants#grant-request-process , the Grant's Committee's current goals are:

* measuring and storytelling LexDAO's impact, with a flywheel included (invest in the Grants Committee)
* members hosting events or representing LexDAO at events, with a flywheel included (invest in generating the Events Committee)
* expanding our media and media distribution, with a flywheel included (invest in the Comms Committee)

That means this grant should land in one of these three `TYPE_investment` tags:

1. `report_investment` if it helps tell LexDAO's impact story
2. `event_investment` if it involves LexDAO hosting events or LexDAO members attending events
3. `promote_investment` if it helps distribute LexDAO opportunities such as our events, publications and offshoot products or services

Hypercerts are designed to help public good communities tell their impact story. Hypercerts is well-respected by the impact investor community, at least the web3 funding the commons and earth commons community bestape spent time with at Berkeley's event this April. As such, we believe this fits our `report_investment` goal. 

Moreover, Hypercerts gave us $1,188.23 in GG20 to use their technology, so from this perspective we have an obligation to spend that money on Hypercerts. With this reasoning, Clinimenic is asking for a nominal $11.77 on top of what Hypercerts has given us, which is likely covered by the vonations that got us that much QF matching by Hypercerts.

Clinamenic's request is to research developing a donations receipt issuance is not our goal. **Our goal is to measure and evidence impact, and to use our Hypercerts grant to determine if Hypercerts can help us accomplish this goal**. Because we used Hypercerts in the past to issue receipts, we have an expectation that receipts will be one use case. However, we are not a 501\(c)3 so traditional receipts are not tax deductible. 

Therefore, Clinamenic should change his research from about "donation receipt issuance by using Hypercerts" to "how to use Hypercerts to show impact at LexDAO, and if alternatives do a better job."

Hypercerts includes financial mechanisms, and so Clinamenic should include a liabilities review of those mechanisms. For instance, though these receipts cannot be used as a tax write-off, they might be useable as a way to send 'thank you' tokens to the receipt holder; what are the implications of this?

### next steps

- [ ] tell Clinamenic that we want to see if we can use Hypercerts to track impact, which might or might not include using it for donation receipts
- [ ] collaborate with Clinamenic, give him continuous feedback and support him however we can as he does the research
- [ ] recommend Clinamenic helps develop a study group with Paolo and the Hypercerts team to go over our legal questions when ready, such as dividend concerns
- [ ] wait for Clinamenic's $1000 milestone 1 invoice

## Tertius reasons

Please see Snapshot comments, if any.

## Cimply reasons

Please see Snapshot comments, if any.