Tether, the company behind the world’s largest stablecoin, has made headlines with its recent $250,000 donation to OpenSats, an organization that funds free and open-source Bitcoin development. While the donation is intended to support the broader Bitcoin ecosystem, not everyone was impressed—most notably, Jack Dorsey.
Jack Dorsey Questions the Size of Tether’s Donation
Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter and current CEO of Block (formerly Square), took to X (formerly Twitter) to question the donation amount. In a brief but pointed post, he asked, “Why only $250K?” The remark drew attention to the contrast between Tether’s donation and its reported profits.
According to financial reports, Tether generated over $13 billion in profit in 2024 and has ambitions of reaching a $500 billion valuation. With those numbers in mind, Dorsey—and others—seemed to suggest that the donation could have been more generous given the company’s financial strength.
Tether did not publicly respond to Dorsey’s comment.
Dorsey Defends His Own Bitcoin Contributions
In the wake of the criticism, Dorsey pointed to his own philanthropic track record. Through his Start Small initiative, he claims to have donated more than $21 million in 2024 alone to support Bitcoin and other decentralized technologies.
Dorsey has been a long-time supporter of open-source development and decentralization, backing several Bitcoin-related projects. However, his own funding decisions haven’t escaped scrutiny either.
Udi Wertheimer, creator of the Bitcoin Ordinals project, initially praised Dorsey but later called him out for investing in Ocean, a decentralized Bitcoin mining pool. Wertheimer suggested that Dorsey’s investment in Ocean raises questions about how truly altruistic his crypto-related funding is.
The debate highlights ongoing tensions in the crypto community around funding, transparency, and influence. While Dorsey and Tether both support Bitcoin development in their own ways, the conversation underscores how philanthropy in crypto is often complicated by business interests, reputational politics, and differing visions of decentralization.
