Authored by: Forbes
Compiled by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News
The Gaza Strip – a crowdfunding effort meant to bring hope was instead ensnared by the limitations of traditional finance.
Sami Jamal Al-Shannat had raised over £55,000 (approximately RMB 500,000) through GoFundMe for his family trapped in war, believing the hardest part was over. However, after the platform deducted a 3.9% fee, it did not support direct payments to Gaza. The remaining funds had to be transferred to a designated beneficiary residing in a supported country, who would then forward them to his family.
While this arrangement complied with platform rules, it placed the final delivery entirely upon individual trust. Sami stated that the arrangement with his brother-in-law, who acted as the beneficiary, later broke down. He has yet to receive the full amount, and the dispute remains unresolved. He described this not merely as a financial loss but as leaving his wife and children in an extremely vulnerable situation.
"Raising the money wasn't the problem," Sami told me from a displacement camp in Gaza. "The problem began when we had to rely on someone else to receive it."
Sami's primary hope now is to recover the funds and hold relevant parties accountable, but from Gaza, it's difficult for him to find a lawyer or the necessary funds and connections. He also plans to continue fundraising for his family, as wartime inflation has caused prices for basic necessities like food to skyrocket.
GoFundMe did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The Compliance Trap
Sami's experience exposes a common problem for humanitarian crowdfunding platforms: they must adhere to banking rules, sanction regimes, and anti-money laundering requirements, which strictly limit the regions where funds can be sent.
When people in crisis cannot receive funds directly, intermediaries become necessary. This not only shifts responsibility onto individuals but can also result in aid raised for them failing to arrive.
This compliance bottleneck can even paralyze global human rights organizations. Lyudmyla Kozlovska, President of the Open Dialogue Foundation, recalled that during the initial days of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, platforms like PayPal, GoFundMe, and Wise blocked their fundraising appeals for Ukraine. Using Bitcoin, the foundation bypassed traditional delays and delivered emergency humanitarian aid on the second day of the war.
Charities, aid organizations, and tech companies have for years grappled with how to reach people disconnected from traditional financial systems. A growing number of developers believe the current model relies on too many intermediaries, especially when funds need to cross borders or reach restricted jurisdictions.
Redesigning the Architecture of Trust
Michele Morucci, co-founder of the Bitcoin crowdfunding platform Geyser, points out that trust is the core issue.
"People think the biggest challenge is moving money. It's not. The biggest challenge is deciding who to trust."
Donors often don't know the recipients. They rely on platforms, charities, journalists, and community leaders to assess a project's legitimacy. Removing one intermediary only makes sense if there is an equally credible alternative.
Geyser reviews projects before they go live, requiring creators to provide proof of work, team information, and necessary documents. Projects that don't meet credibility standards are not approved.
Furthermore, over 100 Geyser Field Partners are responsible for identifying and supporting projects within communities they know well, forming a chain of trust between local communities and global donors. Michele states these partners have helped deliver 12 million satoshis (approximately £5,600, equivalent to 0.12 Bitcoin) directly to community projects. He acknowledges the model is still new and data remains limited.
More Than Just One Fundraising Case
The vulnerability exposed by Sami's case is not an isolated incident. Crowdfunding platforms can raise money for families facing war, disaster, or oppression within hours, but safely delivering those funds to the intended recipients is far more complex.
GoFundMe is not the only platform restricting payment regions. Mainstream crowdfunding platforms rely on banks and payment providers and must comply with sanctions, identity verification, and anti-money laundering rules specific to jurisdictions.
When direct payments are not supported, organizers may need to designate a beneficiary in another jurisdiction to receive the funds. While this satisfies the platform's legal and banking requirements, it shifts responsibility to the receiver. If the relationship breaks down, recipients have very limited options for recourse through the platform.
Shifting Trust to Verifiers
The Agora platform takes a different path. It allows funds to flow directly between donors and recipients, while verification comes from organizations and individuals with firsthand knowledge of the project.
Mary Kate, co-founder of Soapbox (the team behind Agora), explains that donors may not know the person asking for help, but they might know and trust the organization verifying the project.
"This allows us to shift trust from the project itself to the verifier. You might not know the person asking, but you might know and trust the organization that verified it."
This model leaves the final decision with the donor. Even without a verifier's support, a project remains visible; while trusted organizations can add context and credibility without becoming the sole gatekeeper.
Agora also removes the crowdfunding platform from the payment flow. Donations are sent directly to a wallet controlled by the recipient, reducing the risk of funds being held by the platform or passed through others.
Bitcoin allows funds to cross borders without the platform holding them or requiring a beneficiary to forward them. Of course, wallet security, access, and exchange rate risks remain.
For Mary Kate, this control extends far beyond the movement of money.
"We can't take away your account, can't shut down your project, can't take your money," she says. "For people experiencing trauma and a lack of control over their lives, this can be a hugely empowering moment."
Direct payment doesn't solve all problems. Projects still need vetting, donors still need enough information to make informed decisions, and recipients could still misuse funds. Agora is working to make these risks more transparent while giving recipients greater control over funds raised in their name.
The Unintended Consequences of Financial Sanctions
Sami's experience is not unique because the underlying problem is widespread. Activists, journalists, and humanitarian organizations worldwide are finding it increasingly difficult to legally transfer funds across borders as financial regulations grow more complex and sanctions affect entire jurisdictions rather than just governments.
Femi Longe, Global Freedom Tech Strategist at the Human Rights Foundation, believes these restrictions often unintentionally harm those meant to receive humanitarian aid.
"Traditional crowdfunding platforms are regulated and must comply with anti-money laundering and sanction regulations to move money across borders. The problem is that these rules often end up affecting legitimate opposition groups, non-profits, and ordinary people, not the governments they were originally targeting."
Femi mentions that even organizations operating legally within sanctioned countries struggle to receive donations. Visible financial ties can expose supporters or family members within the country to retaliation.
Lyudmyla warns that this issue has moved beyond administrative friction to become "transnational financial repression" – where regimes leverage global anti-money laundering/counter-terrorism financing rules to deny banking access to dissidents, even in Western countries.
She cites a landmark resolution passed in July 2026 by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which recognized transnational financial repression as a systemic threat and called for stronger protections for donor privacy and privacy-preserving digital tools. Lyudmyla states that Bitcoin payment tools are becoming a necessary lifeline for targeted donors and activists.
Political opposition, independent journalists, and civil society organizations often rely on international donations to sustain their work. When donations are difficult to send or easier to monitor, financial infrastructure becomes another form of pressure.
This doesn't mean regulations should be abandoned. Public fundraising requires accountability, transparency, and safeguards to protect donors from fraud. All interviewees acknowledged this challenge and accepted that there is no perfect solution.
Femi believes the goal should be to remove unnecessary intermediaries while preserving accountability.
"If you give project operators direct control over the wallet receiving the funds, I think that's better than the status quo," he adds, noting that verification and oversight remain integral parts of any system handling public donations.
Sami's case highlights a fundamental weakness in humanitarian financial architecture. Systems built around banks, payment processors, and jurisdictional boundaries often fail when trying to move money to people in war, political repression, or humanitarian crisis. No one believes technology alone can solve humanitarian fundraising problems.
Paying recipients directly removes one layer of risk but does not guarantee a project's authenticity, the organizer's honesty, or that donations are used for their stated purpose.
Femi says, "I don't think Bitcoin solves everything. There still needs to be a system for verifying project creators, there still needs to be accountability for how funds are used. Those challenges don't disappear just because the payment becomes direct."
The platforms of Michele and Mary Kate are also working along similar lines: they don't claim to eliminate trust but attempt to redesign where it is placed.
The new generation of humanitarian crowdfunding is not merely a temporary fix for a broken traditional model but a systemic shift. Open payment networks allow recipients direct control over funds raised in their name, while decentralized trust networks help donors decide who to support.
Although judgment, verification, and accountability remain indispensable, this open architecture is bypassing the legacy financial restrictions and regulatory hurdles that prevent traditional platforms from reaching those most in need.
