There are many charity funds, and many commercial funds that invest according to ethical portfolio (social investment funds etc.). But what about mixed commercial/charity fund that gives some of its profit to charity causes, but otherwise is commercial? Cryptocurrencies seem to soar up in free trade and their values have multipled in short notice. If some investment fund is established that invests for example cryptocurrencies and stock exchange also, and also donates some of its profit to charity, but this donation is streamlined in a way that it does not affect fund s performance. One way is index following principle: when the fund makes more money than avarage stock exhange index, the amount of money that goes over this general index is donated to charity. When stock index is negative no money is donated to charity, because the fund does not make profit. So investor gets profit according to amount of general stock index, and charity causes gets the extra money that goes on top of general index. To increase fund s performance for example if stock index increases 8% but fund itself makes 14% profit, 13% of profit goes back to fund for next year and only 1% of profit goes to charity, next year 2% goes to charity, then 3% at third year etc. If on the fifth year fund still makes 14% over general index money, only then all 14% of extra goes to charity and fund is allowed to grow during previous years. The charity that fund donates can be divided between microloan funding (through Mifos X, OpenCBS, S.A.F.E, Musoni System, or microloan organization) and direct donations to charity. Money from microloans return to fund (in the fund s charity section). If market situation is good and lots of profit is coming from stock exchange and cryptocurrency s increased value, then 50/50 is suitable rate for dividing charity money between microloans and donations. If market situation is bad then 100% (or 80/20) goes to microloans. If market index is negative and cryptocurrency also does not increase its value no money goes to charity and fund recovers losses. Also if investor wants so, he/she can donate 25%, 50%, or 75% of the money that is invested to fund, to charity section of the fund so investor gets only 75%, 50% or 25% profit of his/hers investments. Also is possible that investor can donate all 100% of money to charity section of the fund, now investor does not get any profit at all. The relationship of investment profit to values is difficult thing but this is one proposal for commercial fund that donates part of its profit to charity. There can also be limit to amount of money fund gives to charity, for example if fund has 20% over general index profit, only 10% or 15% goes to charity, fund itself (investors) get all that general stock index growth brings and also all that goes over 10% or 15% the index (so index growth + 10% or 5% is what the invostors get in this example). That charity percentage can be sliding figure, in a good year 15% over index goes to charity and in a bad year only 10% or 5%. And in such year that stock index is negative no money goes to charity. That is one way to make some profit as commercial investment fund but at the same time donate money to charity causes (to microloans whose money goes to back to fund s charity section after loan time, and to direct donations to charity). The fund is structured in a way that charity donations does not affect fund s growth as commercial fund and charity donations are streamlined according to market situation as much as possible. This is one (theoretical) example of such fund. In a year that fund s performance is below index all profit goes to investors and none to charity. Or then if fund is below index 5-15% of profit that is generated over the beginning level of that year goes to charity (if avarage index is higher than 5-15% per year increase of value) and then everything over that 5-15% goes to investor, and fund does not “follow index”. Anyway such way to donate money to charity is best that fund s commercial performance does not suffer so much even some amount of money is donated to charity is best way, and when prospects are not so good fund gives less to charity or not at all. The amount of money that goes to microloans should be given according to some sort of ranking system, that ranks them who are receiving microloans from best to worst. There are netpages for microloans, like microcapital.org (funds universe- section), mixmarket.org and microfinancegateway.org. Finding best from thousands of organizations is difficult. There are ranking systems for microfinance organizations, not Forbes list only, but others that count such things as transparency, benefits to customers, the way they help overcome poverty etc. European microfinance award and others are using these ranking systems (and things like “KWFT rated the award for best microfinance bank…”, “Accion microfinance bank Nigeria s best…”). Some years ago some microfinance organization had competetion that awarded million dollars or so to microloan organizations and they were ranked according not only commercial performance and efficiency but transparency etc. and winners were quite small and unknown microloan businesses in Africa. Such ranking system should be in general use for microloan business, like Forbes list but with also other values than just commercial performance to count with. If ranking system would in general use the best organizations (the best may be small and unknown, like winners of that microloan “award”) would get more money, and if ranking is biased towards organizations that help best the local people and not just those are ranked best that generate most profit to (western) investor, (like Forbes list does?). So alternative to Forbes microfinance list is needed. There are alternatives (lists that rank microfinance organisations using such criterions like how good those microloans are to help overcome poverty of local population, and transparency of operation) so these lists exist but for some reason or another they are not published to wider audience. If general and easy to monitor ranking lists (there are propably several of them because criterions vary how to balance efficiency of commercial operation and that how microloans improve life of local people), would exist that could help the nowadays situation where microloans are critisized to increase poverty and not to decrease it, because only those microfinance organisations that have highest profit rate (and high interest rates) succeed in Forbes list. If microfinance organisations would be ranked according to how they actually improve life of local people (or make it worse), investors would get information what they need. These lists exist already but they are not open to public. Making those ranking lists public and open to wider audience would greatly help microfinancing decisions, because there are several thousand microfinance organisations out there. Finding those that actually improve the life of people and not just are money making vehicles to (western) investors would be good.