The gift that keeps on giving

There’s something fascinating about how the wealthy talk about “giving it all away.” You’ll hear billionaires announce it with saint-like calm: “I’ve pledged to give away my fortune.”

And yet, year after year, their net worths somehow keep rising. It makes you wonder: How do you give it all away and still get richer?

That question sent me down a rabbit hole, tracing the story of wealth donations from ancient temples to Silicon Valley foundations.

And somewhere between the monks and the megadonors, I found it: the quiet transformation of philanthropy from moral duty to financial strategy.

To fully understand the entire scheme, it’s only right that we start from the beginning.

Ancient & Medieval Times: Charity as Social Insurance

Long before billionaires and tax deductions, charity was simple: it was about atonement. In ancient Mesopotamia, wealthy traders donated grain and silver to temples.

Not for headlines, but for spiritual insurance: “Give to the gods, and maybe the gods go easy on your next storm.”

• The Egyptians built it into their tombs: wealth offerings to ease the afterlife.

• The Greeks and Romans gave to the poor to display virtue and civic pride.

Then came the Church. Medieval Europe turned charity into a moral system: the rich gave alms to the poor, monasteries fed the hungry, and kings built hospitals for their souls’ redemption.

It wasn’t about tax breaks. It was about getting into heaven.

But even then, a pattern was forming — charity as control. Those who gave didn’t just buy virtue; they also reinforced power. Feeding the poor made them loyal. Sponsoring cathedrals made them remembered.

Even piety, it turns out, has politics.

1600s – 1800s: From Moral Duty to Civic Order

As the Renaissance birthed modern trade, philanthropy got a makeover. Wealth wasn’t just divine reward anymore; it was proof of discipline and intelligence.

In 1601, England passed the Charitable Uses Act, basically the first government definition of what counted as good giving. It linked charity to public order — education, roads, housing for the poor, etc.

This was charity’s first step toward systemization: rules, institutions, paperwork.

By the 18th and 19th centuries, industrial wealth exploded, and with it came industrial guilt.

Enter Andrew Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth (1889). Carnegie argued that the rich have a moral duty to redistribute wealth, but strategically.

He built libraries, schools, and universities, not handouts, but infrastructure for self-improvement. He wasn’t giving money away; he was investing in a more productive society.

And crucially, it was still his hand deciding where the money went.

20th Century: Philanthropy Goes Corporate

By the mid-1900s, giving became a matter of brand. Corporations discovered that generosity sells.

Then came the 1980s — Reagan’s America. Taxes were slashed, and corporate giving became a double play: public goodwill and tax optimization.

Private foundations and Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs) flourished. DAFs were perfect: donate stock, get an immediate tax deduction, park the money, and decide later where to send it.

And the donors? They didn’t lose control; they just gained flexibility.

The era of corporate compassion was born, but behind every donation was a spreadsheet.

2000s – 2010s: The Philanthrocapitalist Machine

Fast-forward to the new millennium. Tech wealth enters the chat.

Bill Gates redefined philanthropy with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
It became the largest private foundation in the world and the model for a new kind of giving: data-driven, global, efficient.

However, there was a twist. The foundation’s endowment was invested in the same kinds of companies it aimed to reform — big pharma, big tech, big energy.

It was the perfect loop:

• Invest in a company.

• Profit from it.

• Use those profits to fund change.

• Influence the very sectors you invest in.

It was philanthropy as economic influence, not just generosity.

Then came the Giving Pledge (2009): billionaires promising to give away half their wealth someday. But most of that wealth is in stocks. When they give it away, they’re often just transferring it to a foundation they still control.

Their paper net worth goes down. Their power, reach, and tax advantages go up.

The Buffett Paradox: The Oracle Who Never Sold a Share

No story about modern philanthropy is complete without Warren Buffett, the man who vowed to give away 99% of his fortune, and still ranks among the richest people alive.

In 2006, Buffett made headlines by donating billions in Berkshire Hathaway stock to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He called it “the easiest decision I ever made.”
Every year since, he’s gifted more shares, not cash, now totaling over $60 billion.

But here’s where it gets interesting.

When Buffett gives away Berkshire stock, he avoids capital gains tax. The foundation gets the shares, which can be sold tax-free. And Buffett still maintains a controlling interest in his company because of how his ownership is structured.

So his donations shrink his paper net worth but strengthen his long-term influence. The wealth leaves his name, but not his system.

He’s the most honest about it, too. Buffett once said, “There’s no Forbes list of the great philanthropists, and if there were, I wouldn’t care to be on it.” But his method of giving, through foundations, through stocks, through mechanisms he and Gates helped institutionalize, cemented the modern model.

The Giving Pledge, launched in 2009 by Buffett and Gates, wasn’t just about generosity. It was about optics. A public commitment to virtue that conveniently redefined what giving meant for billionaires.

Because under the surface, most weren’t liquidating assets or redistributing wealth; they were moving it into vehicles of control. Entities that could outlive them, invest tax-free, and influence policy for decades to come.

Warren Buffett gave away billions, and in doing so, helped build the system that lets the wealthy give without really parting with power.

Mark Zuckerberg & Priscilla Chan: The New Kind of Giving

Then there’s Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan. In 2015, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan welcomed their first child, and in the same letter announcing her birth, pledged to give away 99 percent of their Facebook shares, then worth about $45 billion.

The announcement made global headlines, but the fine print told a subtler story: the money would flow not into a traditional charitable foundation but into the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), an LLC.

That legal structure matters. An LLC can invest in for-profit ventures, lobby policymakers, and make charitable grants, all at once. In other words, it can shape markets and morals.

Zuckerberg framed it as “investing in human potential,” but critics saw a new form of philanthro-capitalism — a hybrid where philanthropy acts like a venture fund. The assets never truly leave the ecosystem; they just take on a new mission.

Michael Bloomberg: Policy Philanthropy

Michael Bloomberg, founder of the Bloomberg media empire and former mayor of New York, has already donated more than $15 billion through his Bloomberg Philanthropies.

His giving has a very different tone: data-driven, city-focused, and policy-oriented. He funds public-health campaigns, climate initiatives, and municipal reform; the kind of work that shapes legislation and governance worldwide.

Bloomberg often says, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” That line sums up his philosophy: philanthropy not as charity, but as governance by spreadsheet.

And yet, his donations also buy a long-term seat at the policy table. When a billionaire funds the systems that regulate markets, he becomes part of the regulation. It’s soft power, cleanly disguised as civic service.

The Jensen Huang Example: Quiet, Strategic, Immensely Profitable

Let’s not forget about Jensen Huang, NVIDIA’s co-founder and CEO, arguably one of the smartest tech philanthropists in the game.

In 2007, he and his wife Lori created the Jen-Hsun & Lori Huang Foundation. They seeded it with 370,000 shares of NVIDIA stock, worth about $12 million at the time.

No massive press release, no PR campaign. Just a quiet foundation.

Fast forward to today, NVIDIA’s stock has skyrocketed. That same foundation’s assets are now estimated between $10 – $14 billion. Huang didn’t give away cash. He gave appreciated stock — skipping capital gains, taking a deduction, and parking the shares in a foundation that grows tax-free.

It’s the perfect example of financially engineered generosity. And it’s subtle: he’s not using the foundation for spotlight philanthropy, but it’s a powerful vehicle of influence nonetheless.

In short, his wealth keeps compounding, even as he gives.

Sam Altman: The New Tech Steward

Most recently, OpenAI’s Sam Altman joined the Giving Pledge in 2024, the same year AI overtook oil as the world’s most valuable sector.

His statement read: “Technology has given me everything. I hope to use it to give back to everyone.” But his approach mirrors a generational shift: less about building a legacy foundation, more about direct deployment of capital into technologies with world-improving potential — renewable energy, biotech, AI safety.

It’s philanthropy as long-term R&D — where giving isn’t an end, but an experiment. Altman’s pledge signals that the next wave of donors isn’t leaving capitalism behind; they’re embedding philanthropy inside it.

2020s – Now: The New Optics of Giving

In today’s world, philanthropy has split into two camps.

On one side, you’ve got MacKenzie Scott, who’s rewriting the script, giving directly, quietly, and quickly. No foundation, no PR tour, no middlemen.

On the other, you’ve got the new generation of billionaire philanthropists — Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg — who talk about investing in change.

Let’s just call it for what it is; that’s just venture capital with better optics.

They’re funding the causes that align with their long-term business interests — renewable energy, AI, education tech, space, and media. All causes that will shape the future they want to control.

Honestly, it’s genius and it’s working. Because when you give stock, not cash, your wealth grows faster than your generosity can reduce it.

It’s not charity, it’s a strategy.

The Mechanism Behind the Curtain

Here’s how the money magic works:

1. Donate appreciated assets: stocks, crypto, art → Skip capital gains tax.

2. Take a deduction of up to 30% of your income.

3. Park it in a foundation or Donor-Advised Fund, and still call the shots.

4. Invest those assets tax-free; they grow quietly in the background.

5. Shape public opinion because now, your giving buys goodwill and influence.

It’s not fake giving, it’s what I call financially optimized altruism. Philanthropy engineered for wealth preservation, policy influence, and legacy design.

The Core Modern Reality

Philanthropy is no longer the opposite of capitalism; it’s an extension of it. It’s the R&D department of the wealthy, testing new ideas, buying social goodwill, and shaping the moral narrative around money.

Or, put more bluntly:

“The rich don’t give away their money. They give it new jobs.”

The next time a billionaire pledges to give it all away, remember this conversation, but most importantly, remember that the money is not disappearing. It’s just being reassigned to serve new purposes, in new forms, under new names.

And in that loop, between giving, growing, and gaining, lies the most profitable paradox of our time.

Until next time…

If you know someone who’d love this, don’t be selfish. Don’t forget to:

• Follow me on LinkedIn for more.

• Listen to the Margin of Curiosity podcast.