A Platform for Social Causes or Merely a Fee-Driven Money Machine?

Recently, a user experienced firsthand the effectiveness and potential drawbacks of the fundraising platform, This article aims to delve into the details, offering both sides of the argument and exploring the genuine intentions behind the platform.

Personal Experience of Fundraising

A recent user of the platform, seeking help for a friend who needed funds for cancer treatment, reports a positive yet critical experience. She needed Rs. 25 lac for her friend's treatment, and through her social networks, she managed to raise a significant amount. However, the platform took a 10% commission, which the user found unacceptable.p>

It is interesting to note that the information about the commission was not easily accessible before the fundraising process. The user only discovered the fees after making a withdrawal request, which led to a certain level of frustration.

The Official Stance on Fees

, in an attempt to address these concerns, claims to have “Milaap charges NO platform fees on donations. We have a 0 platform fee. We rely on the generosity of our users to power the platform.” Such a statement is crucial in the discourse around the transparency and honesty of fundraising platforms.

Second-Hand Experience: A Corporate Perspective

From a former employee's perspective, the platform has mixed reviews. Recognizing that the issues within the company are mostly internal and interpersonal, the insider asserts that externally, the platform is genuinely committed to helping people. This insiders' perspective adds a layer of credibility to the discussion, indicating that despite operational issues, the end goal is noble and not money-driven.

Why the Discrepancy?

The discrepancy between the claimed transparency and actual practices can be attributed to a lack of clear communication about fees, both during the initial stages and consistently throughout the process. Moreover, the zero-fee model that Milaap had previously tried might have been a solution to ease such concerns, but its current implementation remains unclear.

Conclusion

, with its dual objectives of supporting social causes and addressing financial hardships, presents a complex picture. On the one hand, it has the potential to significantly improve lives. On the other hand, without transparent communication about costs, it can create disillusionment and demotivate potential donors. As a user, it is crucial to be informed and to consider these factors when choosing a platform for fundraising.

For now, the decision to use remains in the hands of potential fundraisers and donors. We hope that with better communication and clearer policies, the platform can continue to be a reliable and effective tool for positive change.