You get to keep only enough to maintain a very modest lifestyle in a low-cost-of-living area, the rest of it has to go towards improving the world in some way.
Edit: Given the previous rules that you must maintain a very modest lifestyle in a low-cost-of-living area, would you rather choose to opt out and not have the money at all?
Yeah, cheap area will likely be a not-so-desirable place, unless you’re the type who likes to live in the boonies.
Thats the point.
The money isn’t for you, and you don’t get any of the benefits of having it. The only reason I allowed for a stipen for a modest living in a cheap area is because I knew that half the comments would be “First I buy land build houses for me and all my friends and family, buy everyone cars, and fund all their colleges, then with the hundred million left over, I’ll help some homeless people” OR if I would have said you get no money at all, everyone would have said they wouldn’t have time to do anything good because they still had to work full time and half to afford their bills. So, the compromise is you get a modest lifestyle in an undesirable area fully funded, or no money at all and you can continue to work full time and a half to afford your basic ass lifestyle while not helping anyone.
It said that I get money for such a lifestyle.
But now you add that I must actually move before I even get that little money.
You definitely want to clarify your “Question”.
No, I would still play that game, but maybe my way of spending would concentrate even more on those where I expect something back.
I don’t have that.
I don’t have that either.