GiveDirectly UBI
Nonprofit running the world's largest and longest universal basic income experiment: ~23,000 people across 195 Kenyan villages receive unconditional cash transfers for 12 years (2017–2029), with randomized-controlled-trial results published by leading economists (Banerjee, Niehaus, Suri et al.). Over $58M delivered across UBI programs in Kenya, Malawi and Mozambique, 56,000+ people reached — the benchmark evidence base for money-as-basic-income design.
The strongest empirical evidence base in existence for basic income as monetary design — a 12-year, 23,000-person RCT that fair-money builders cite constantly — run with rare transparency and reach. But it is a fiat delivery program, not a monetary system: no own unit, fully custodial rails, donor-dependent, identity-gated. Weakly aligned as money (2.5), invaluable to the map as the reference basic-income experiment.
M69 Score
Scored against the Money2069 Manifesto — see methodology. Higher = more aligned.
Detailed Rating Breakdown
Issuance Model3x2.0
GiveDirectly issues no currency — it distributes donor-funded fiat. Distribution is donation-funded and debt-free (IM-02: 5) but recipient selection is a single organization's decision (IM-01: 1), volume is set by fundraising, not economic signals (IM-04: 2), and there is no supply mechanism at all (IM-03: 2, IM-05: 2). Avg 2.4 → 2.
Spending Power Stability2x2.0
Transfers ride national fiat (KES via M-Pesa) and inherit its inflation — no stability mechanism (SPS-01: 1), fiat benchmark only (SPS-02: 2), single-region delivery (SPS-06: 2). The study design does measure real purchasing outcomes rigorously (SPS-03: 3). Weighted ~1.9 → 2.
Fiat Independence & Interoperability2x1.0
Fully fiat: USD-funded, delivered in national currency over mobile-money rails that require banking infrastructure (FI-01/02/03: 1); fails entirely with the fiat system it rides on (FI-05: 1); no transition path — fiat is the permanent medium (FI-06: 1). Weighted 1.1 → 1.
Traction2x4.0
16 years of operations, fully active (TR-01: 5, TR-02: 5), 1.5M+ recipients across programs (TR-03: 5), peer-reviewed results in top venues plus major media coverage (TR-08: 5), first-rate institutional partners — IPA, J-PAL, major foundations (TR-07: 5), strong active leadership (TR-06: 5). But the medium is fiat, so unit-of-account credit is minimal (TR-05: 2) and 'adoption' is by definition subsidy, not organic currency demand (TR-09: 2). Weighted 3.6 → 4.
Sovereignty2.0
A single US nonprofit: the board can halt everything (SO-01: 1), nothing is self-hostable (SO-02: 1), flows depend on M-Pesa/telecom rails (SO-06: 2), recipient data is collected and enrollment is gated (SO-08: 2), and program rules are policy, not code (SO-09: 1). Multi-country operations soften jurisdiction risk slightly (SO-03: 2). Weighted 1.6 → 2.
Governance3.0
Conventional nonprofit board governance (GO-01: 3, GO-02: 2), but with unusual radical transparency — published RCT data, GiveWell scrutiny, open cost breakdowns (GO-03: 4); mission principles are stated but not binding (GO-07: 3); program rules changeable at management discretion (GO-08: 2). Weighted 2.5 → 3.
Resilience3.0
Survived COVID-era shocks and the 2025 aid-funding contraction while continuing 12-year commitments (RE-01: 4); the model itself is maximally simple — 'just give cash' (RE-04: 5); mobile-money rails are mature (RE-05: 4). But it is structurally donor-dependent with no endowment (RE-06: 2, RE-07: 2) and human-centric by design (RE-09: 2). Weighted 2.7 → 3.
Inclusivity4.0
Designed for and delivered to the poorest — recipients pay nothing (IN-02: 5), targeting is explicitly pro-underbanked (IN-03: 5), ~90% of funds reach recipients with equal treatment inside programs (IN-04: 5, IN-05: 4), and cash transfers are directly redistributive (IN-07: 4). Participation is enrollment-gated rather than open (IN-01: 3) and mobile-money delivery entails SIM-registration identity (IN-06: 2). Weighted 3.9 → 4.