Charity Vetting Report — SigmaHook Governance Review

Research date: 23 October 2026
Decision requested: approve one crypto/USDC-capable charity for each requested category.
Recommendation: approve the three charities below subject to the transaction and policy checks in “Open approval items.”

Result at a glance

Category	Recommended charity	Website	Effectiveness proxy*	Charity Navigator rating	Verified crypto/USDC method
Natural disaster relief	Direct Relief	directrelief.org	99.43%	100%, Four-Star	Official crypto form: select USDC, select the network, enter amount, then transfer to the address shown by the form.
Feeding the hungry / clean water	The Water Project	thewaterproject.org	72.27%	100%, Four-Star	Official crypto form: it expressly accepts USD Coin (USDC); select USDC in the form and use the address it presents.
Medical research and breakthroughs	Cure Alzheimer’s Fund (CureAlz)	curealz.org	91.03%	95%, Four-Star	Official crypto form: it expressly lists USD Coin (USDC) and uses The Giving Block; select USDC and use the address the widget generates.

* Fact / definition: this is Charity Navigator’s Program Expense Ratio: the three-year average share of total expenses classified as programs and services. It is a consistent stewardship proxy, not a literal measurement of dollars received by an individual beneficiary, nor a measure of outcomes or of network/gas fees. Charity Navigator explains its rating inputs and use of Form 990 data here and its program-expense methodology here.

Important transaction control: none of the selections should receive funds at a copied “permanent” USDC address. The official forms generate or display the current address and network for the selected asset; verify that address, the chain, recipient name, and a small test transfer in the live official form immediately before sending. A USDC address is chain-specific.

How “top” was determined

This is a recommendation ranking, not a claim that every charity worldwide was exhaustively scored. Candidates were screened in the requested order: (1) program-expense effectiveness, (2) absence of evidence of a partisan alignment, (3) public audit/financial disclosures, (4) at least five years operating history, and (5) a current official crypto route explicitly supporting USDC. The three recommendations are the strongest candidates found that have direct, attributable USDC evidence; a higher overall score alone did not override a missing explicit USDC route.

All three are U.S. 501(c)(3) public charities. U.S. law prohibits a 501(c)(3) from participating or intervening in a candidate political campaign; that legal restriction is useful but does not itself prove that an organization has no advocacy activity or that every recipient-access policy is politically neutral. See the IRS guidance.

1. Natural disaster relief — Direct Relief

Identity and evidence. Direct Relief (EIN 95-1831116) was established in 1948 and says it responds to emergencies and disasters without regard to politics, religion, race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or other classification in its finance and policy disclosures. Its Charity Navigator profile currently reports a 100% / Four-Star rating, a 99.43% three-year Program Expense Ratio, an independent audit, audit oversight, no reported material diversion of assets, and complete website disclosure credit. Its official crypto form currently provides a USDC selection and transaction-specific receiving address.

Three-sentence selection summary. Direct Relief is the leading recommendation because it combines the highest program-expense proxy in this slate (99.43%) with a current official USDC route and a long emergency-response track record. Its published policy expressly says assistance is provided without regard to politics, which is the clearest direct evidence among the candidates for the non-partisan-recipient criterion. It also publishes audits, Form 990s, policies, and aid-tracking material, while Charity Navigator records full accountability and finance marks.

Red flags and limits.

• Material interpretation limit — fact: its very high ratio includes a very large volume of donated medicines and supplies; Direct Relief explains that these in-kind resources are valued using wholesale-acquisition-cost data. This can make program-spending ratios less comparable to cash-only charities, even though the accounting and valuation policy are disclosed. See its valuation explanation.
• Scope limit — inference: it is best for disaster-related medical relief and health-system recovery, rather than being a general shelter, cash-transfer, or food-relief organization.
• Governance/controversy screen — uncertainty: no substantiated governance scandal or partisan campaign alignment was identified in this bounded desk review; this is not a forensic media, sanctions, or campaign-finance audit.

2. Feeding the hungry (including clean-water access) — The Water Project

Identity and evidence. The Water Project (EIN 26-1455510) has provided clean-water projects since 2006 according to its leadership history, and its mission is sustainable water and sanitation for underserved communities. Its official USDC crypto page explicitly names USD Coin (USDC), states that it processes donations through The Giving Block, and provides the live donation flow. The Charity Navigator profile reports a current 100% / Four-Star rating and confirms audited financial statements and public Form 990 disclosure; its current three-year Program Expense Ratio is 72.27%, and its financial-document library publishes audits and 990s through 2025.

Three-sentence selection summary. The Water Project is selected because safe water is expressly within the requested hunger category and the organization provides an official, explicit USDC donation route. It clears the requested transparency and longevity screens with audited financials, public tax returns, a 100% / Four-Star Charity Navigator rating, and approximately two decades of operating history. It is the more cautious recommendation on efficiency: its 72.27% three-year program-expense ratio passes Charity Navigator’s top ratio score but is materially lower than the other two recommendations.

Red flags and limits.

• Effectiveness red flag — fact: the 72.27% program-expense ratio is the lowest in this slate; the latest reported year can differ from the rolling ratio. Governance should not present it as “72.27 cents delivered directly to a person,” because it is an expense-classification metric.
• Mission/neutrality limit — fact and uncertainty: the founder describes faith-based ministry in the organization’s origin story. No evidence of a partisan alignment was identified in this review, but a direct written policy that services are provided regardless of political affiliation was not located; obtain that confirmation before presenting this as a fully verified non-political-access criterion.
• Governance/controversy screen — uncertainty: no substantiated governance controversy or political donation by the organization was identified in this bounded review. This finding is absence of identified evidence, not proof of absence.

3. Medical research and breakthroughs — Cure Alzheimer’s Fund

Identity and evidence. Cure Alzheimer’s Fund is the operating name of Alzheimer’s Disease Research Foundation (EIN 52-2396428), a 501(c)(3) founded in 2004; it funds research intended to prevent, slow, or reverse Alzheimer’s disease. Its crypto policy explicitly lists USD Coin (USDC), identifies The Giving Block as the processor, and says crypto donations are final; its USDC address must therefore be obtained from the live widget, not a stale copy. Its Charity Navigator profile reports 95% / Four-Star, a 91.03% three-year Program Expense Ratio, audited statements, audit oversight, no reported material diversion, and public 990 disclosure; its own reports page publishes annual reports, audits, and 990s.

Three-sentence selection summary. CureAlz is selected because it is a focused medical-research funder with an explicit official USDC channel and a 91.03% program-expense proxy. Its operating model directs general donations to research while founders, board members, trustees, and core donors support overhead, a structure the organization documents in its 2024 source-and-use disclosure. It has over 20 years of operation, current audited public financials, and a Four-Star Charity Navigator rating, though its 95% overall score is not a perfect score.

Red flags and limits.

• Funding-model qualification — fact: its “100% of general donations” statement depends on a separate group of founders, board members, trustees, and donors funding operations; it is not the same statistic as the independent 91.03% program-expense ratio. The model is transparent, but governance should monitor whether that overhead support remains durable.
• Political-activity flag — fact: public Lobbying Disclosure Act records summarized by Receipts Report show federal lobbying filings through 2024, principally on budget/appropriations and medical/research matters. This is issue advocacy rather than evidence of partisan candidate alignment, but it is a real non-political-screen consideration and should be explicitly approved or rejected by SigmaHook governance.
• Recipient-neutrality limit — inference: research grants are selected through scientific review rather than a direct-beneficiary intake process, so “serves regardless of political affiliation” is less directly applicable. No source reviewed indicates partisan recipient selection; written confirmation of scientific-only grant criteria remains an approval item.

Evidence classification and open approval items

Item	Classification	What governance should do
Names, EINs, founding history, USDC routes, ratings, ratios, and published audit availability	Verified facts	Re-check live pages at transfer time because ratings, token support, and form-generated addresses change.
The three selections are the “top” choices for these categories	Reasoned inference / recommendation	Treat as a decision recommendation based on the stated ordered screen, not a universal or outcome-effectiveness league table.
No partisan alignment for The Water Project and CureAlz	Unverified beyond the 501(c)(3) campaign-law restriction and bounded source review	Request written confirmation of no partisan endorsements, campaign contributions, or recipient discrimination; for CureAlz, decide whether documented research-budget lobbying is acceptable.
No disqualifying past controversies	Unanswered conclusively	Commission a separate legal, sanctions, media, and campaign-finance diligence review before an integration that would direct material funds.
Exact token chain, wallet address, conversion treatment, fees, receipt terms, and donation designation	Time-sensitive / unanswered until transaction	Open the official form, select USDC, record the chain and destination address, confirm the receipt entity/EIN and emergency or program designation, and execute treasury controls.

Source notes

Primary charity pages and Charity Navigator profiles are used for the core identity, donation-route, financial-document, and rating claims. The political-activity note for CureAlz is deliberately presented as a red flag rather than a conclusion of partisanship because lobbying disclosure does not establish candidate alignment. A Charity Navigator program-expense ratio is useful stewardship evidence, but it should never replace direct outcome evidence, beneficiary feedback, or an audited end-to-end tracing of a particular USDC transfer.