From Trusting Intermediaries to Direct Control: Bitcoin is Reshaping Humanitarian Financing in Crisis.

Written by: Forbes

Translation: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

In the Gaza Strip, a crowdfunding campaign that was supposed to bring hope has been mired in difficulties due to the constraints of traditional finance.

Sami Jamal Al-Shannat raised over £55,000 (about 500,000 RMB) through GoFundMe for his family caught in the war, thinking at the time that 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 living in a supporting country, who would then pass them on to his family.

This arrangement complies with the platform's regulations but leaves the final delivery entirely dependent on personal trust. Sami stated that the arrangement with his brother-in-law, who was the beneficiary, later broke down, and he has yet to receive the full amount; the dispute remains unresolved. He described this not only as a financial loss but also as putting his wife and children in an extremely vulnerable position.

"Raising money is not the problem," Sami told me from a displaced persons camp in Gaza, "The problem is that we have to rely on others to collect it."

Currently, Sami hopes to recover the funds and hold relevant parties accountable, but he finds it difficult to find a lawyer in Gaza and lacks the necessary funds and connections. He also plans to continue fundraising for his family since wartime inflation has caused prices for basic necessities like food to skyrocket.

GoFundMe has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

The Trap of Compliance

Sami's experience reveals a common problem faced by humanitarian crowdfunding platforms: they must comply with banking regulations, sanctions regimes, and anti-money laundering requirements, which severely restrict the areas to which funds can be sent.

When people in crisis cannot receive funds directly, they must go through intermediaries, which not only shifts responsibility onto individuals but can also prevent the aid that was originally raised for them from reaching its destination.

This compliance bottleneck can even lead global human rights organizations to paralysis. Lyudmyla Kozlovska, president of the Open Dialogue Foundation, recalls that in the early days of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, platforms like PayPal, GoFundMe, and Wise blocked their fundraising appeal for Ukraine. However, by using Bitcoin, the foundation was able to bypass traditional delays and send emergency humanitarian aid the day after the war began.

Charities, aid organizations, and tech companies have been working for years on how to reach populations that cannot access traditional financial systems. An increasing number of developers believe that the current model relies too much on intermediaries, especially when funds need to cross borders or reach limited jurisdictions.

Redesigning the Architecture of Trust

Michele Morucci, co-founder of the Bitcoin crowdfunding platform Geyser, pointed out that trust is the core issue.

"People think the biggest challenge is moving funds, but it’s not. The biggest challenge is deciding whom to trust."

Donors often do not know the recipients; they rely on platforms, charities, journalists, and community leaders to assess the legitimacy of the projects. Removing an intermediary only makes sense when there is an equally trustworthy alternative.

Geyser conducts reviews before projects go live, requiring creators to provide evidence of work, team information, and necessary documents. Projects that do not meet credibility standards will not be approved.

Additionally, over 100 Geyser Field Partners are responsible for identifying and supporting projects within their familiar communities, forming a trust chain between local communities and global donors. Michele stated that these partners have helped deliver 12 million satoshis (about £5,600, equivalent to 0.12 Bitcoin) directly to community projects. He also acknowledged that this model is still new, with limited data available.

More than Just One Fundraising Case

The weaknesses exposed by Sami's case are not an isolated incident. Crowdfunding platforms can raise funds for families facing war, disaster, or oppression in just a few hours, but securely delivering that money to the intended recipients is much more complicated.

GoFundMe is not the only platform that restricts payment regions. Mainstream crowdfunding platforms rely on banks and payment providers and must adhere to sanctions, identity verification, and anti-money laundering regulations of specific jurisdictions.

When direct payments are not supported, organizers may need to designate a beneficiary in another jurisdiction to collect funds. While this meets the platform's legal and banking requirements, it shifts responsibility to the intermediary. Once the relationship breaks down, recipients have very limited options for accountability through the platform.

Shifting Trust to Verifiers

The Agora platform has taken a different approach. It allows funds to flow directly between donors and recipients, with verification coming from organizations and individuals who have firsthand knowledge of the projects.

Mary Kate, co-founder of Soapbox (the team behind Agora), explained that donors may not know the applicants but may recognize and trust the organization verifying the project.

"This shifts our trust from the project itself to the verifiers. You may not know the recipient, but you may know and trust the organization verifying it."

This model leaves the final decision-making power with the donor. Even without verifier support, projects remain visible; trusted organizations can add context and credibility without becoming the sole gatekeepers.

Agora also removes the crowdfunding platform from the payment process. Donations are sent directly to a wallet controlled by the recipient, reducing the risk that funds are held by the platform or transferred through others.

Bitcoin allows for cross-border movement of funds without requiring platform custodianship or beneficiary transfers. Of course, risks related to wallet security, access, and exchange rates still exist.

For Mary Kate, this control goes beyond the flow of funds itself.

"We can't take your account, we can't shut down your project, we can't take your money," she said. "For those experiencing trauma and a lack of control over their lives, this can be a significant empowering moment."

Direct payments do not solve all problems. Projects still need to be reviewed, donors still need sufficient information to make informed decisions, and recipients may also misuse funds. Agora is working to make these risks more transparent while giving recipients greater control over raising funds in their name.

Unintended Consequences of Financial Sanctions

Sami's experience is not unique, as the underlying issues are widespread. Activists, journalists, and humanitarian organizations around the world have found that as financial regulations become increasingly complex, and sanctions impact entire jurisdictions rather than just governments, it has become more difficult to legally transfer funds across borders.

Femi Longe, global tech strategy leader at the Human Rights Foundation, believes that these restrictions often cause unintended harm to those who should be receiving humanitarian aid.

"Traditional crowdfunding platforms are regulated, and cross-border funds transfers must comply with anti-money laundering and sanctions regulations. The problem is that these rules often end up affecting legitimate opposition groups, non-profits, and ordinary people rather than the governments they were intended to target."

Femi mentioned that even organizations operating legally in sanctioned countries find it difficult to receive donations. Visible financial connections may put domestic supporters or relatives at risk of retaliation.

Lyudmyla warned that this issue has gone beyond administrative friction, evolving into "transnational financial suppression"—where regimes utilize global anti-money laundering/anti-terror financing rules to deprive dissidents of access to banking, even in Western countries.

She cites a landmark resolution passed by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in July 2026, which recognizes transnational financial suppression as a systemic threat and calls for stronger protections for donor privacy and privacy-preserving digital tools. Lyudmyla stated that Bitcoin payment tools are becoming an essential lifeline for targeted donors and activists.

Political opposition, independent journalists, and civil society organizations often rely on international donations to sustain their operations. When donations are difficult to send or are more easily monitored, financial infrastructure becomes another form of pressure.

This does not mean regulation should be abandoned. Public fundraising requires accountability, transparency, and safeguards to protect donors from fraud. Interviewees acknowledge this challenge and accept the reality that there are no perfect solutions.

Femi believes the goal should be to remove unnecessary intermediaries while retaining accountability.

"If project operators can directly control the wallets that receive funds, I think that’s better than the status quo," he added, noting that verification and oversight remain critical components of any system handling public donations.

Sami's case highlights the fundamental weaknesses in the humanitarian financial architecture. Systems built around banks, payment processors, and legal boundaries often struggle to transfer funds to those in war, political oppression, or humanitarian crises. No one believes that technology alone can solve the humanitarian fundraising issue.

Direct payments to recipients reduce one layer of risk but do not guarantee project legitimacy, organizer honesty, or that donations will ultimately be used for their stated purpose.

Femi said: "I don't think Bitcoin can solve everything. We still need systems to verify project creators, and there still needs to be accountability for how funds are used. These challenges will not disappear just because payments become direct."

The platforms of Michele and Mary Kate are also working along similar lines: they do not claim to eliminate trust but rather try to redesign where trust resides.

A new generation of humanitarian crowdfunding is not merely a temporary fix to a failing traditional model but a systemic transformation. Open payment networks allow recipients to have direct control over the funds raised in their name, while decentralized trust networks help donors decide whom to support.

Although judgment, verification, and accountability remain indispensable, this open architecture is bypassing the legacy financial restrictions and regulatory barriers that hinder traditional platforms from reaching those who need help the most.