While Malta’s annual Istrina telethons have long been a testament to national solidarity, the latest controversy surrounding a €39 million cryptocurrency donation has reignited debate about ethics, reputation, and pragmatism in charitable giving.

In 2018, Binance – then the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange – pledged $200,000 worth of its own coin (BNB) to support Maltese cancer patients through the Malta Community Chest Fund (MCCF). At the time, Malta was seeking to brand itself as a “Blockchain Island”, with Binance among the first to announce operations on the island.

Seven years later, that same donation has surged in value to around €39 million. Yet, instead of funding life-saving treatments, the sum now sits unused, following the MCCF’s decision to reject it over reputational concerns linked to Binance’s legal troubles abroad.

The decision has sharply divided opinion, including within the political sphere. Prime Minister Robert Abela has urged the MCCF to reconsider, saying he was “upset” that such a large sum could be lost, while President Myriam Spiteri Debono defended the move as necessary to protect the fund’s integrity.

How €39 million compares to Istrina donations

To put the numbers in perspective, €39 million would be equivalent to almost eight years’ worth of Istrina donations combined.

Over the past decade, public contributions to the annual charity event have ranged between €4 million and €7 million a year:

Together, these totals amount to roughly €57.5 million raised over ten years. The Binance pledge alone would cover more than two-thirds of that figure – enough to fund the MCCF’s operations for several years.

‘A very short-sighted decision’

Marlene Mizzi / Facebook

Former Labour MEP and entrepreneur Marlene Mizzi, who previously chaired the MCCF’s administration, described the rejection of the funds as “short-sighted”.

“To refuse the money in the Binance account, legitimately belonging to the MCCFF, for the reasons given – the bad reputation of Binance – is short sighted,” she wrote on Facebook.

Drawing a comparison to traditional banking, Ms Mizzi argued that it would be like “giving up all the money in our accounts in the BOV… just because the BOV is suspected of some wrongdoing and suffers from bad reputation.”

She added that the funds had grown “due to market forces ruling crypto currencies – not money laundering,” insisting that “those millions belong to MCCFF.”

Ms Mizzi also revealed that during her tenure, she had “nearly arrived at an out of court agreement which involved tens of millions – which would have all benefitted those in need.” She said a court case was opened against Binance Malta “to safeguard these funds,” adding wryly that “now we don’t seem to need them!”

The ethical dilemma for NGOs

Marisa Xuereb

Economist Marisa Xuereb weighed in on the controversy, highlighting the complex position NGOs often find themselves in when faced with donations from sources carrying reputational risks.

She explained that while most NGOs operate under constant financial pressure to sustain worthy causes, their ability to raise funds depends entirely on public trust and good governance. “The moment people lose trust in NGOs, their ability to raise funds is severely compromised,” she noted, adding that such organisations are “particularly susceptible to rumours of foul play” and must therefore “maintain the moral high ground.”

Ms Xuereb also pointed out that NGOs have anti-money laundering obligations, but often lack the resources to conduct full due diligence on donors, which makes them more inclined to err on the side of caution.

She added that donors with reputational challenges may use philanthropy as a tool to improve their public image – a mindset encouraged by Government policy linking charitable donations to schemes like the Individual Investor Programme (IIP).

Ultimately, Xuereb argued, NGOs “cannot get it right”: if they accept questionable funds, they’re accused of compromising ethics; if they reject them, they’re branded “holier than thou.”

She concluded by saying the controversy underscores a deeper systemic issue: “We cannot continue having our head of state begging for funds for causes worthy enough to be funded from the national budget.”

Ethics or opportunity?

The MCCF maintains that it acted to safeguard its reputation, particularly in light of Binance’s founder Changpeng Zhao pleading guilty to money laundering violations in the United States.

Yet critics, including Mizzi, argue that the issue is being viewed too rigidly – that the donation could have been ring-fenced, audited, or otherwise vetted without rejecting it entirely.

As debate continues, the €39 million remains unspent, caught between two competing visions of charity: One that prioritises ethical purity, and another that measures morality by the lives it can save.