Asmongold TV - How is this a charity?? | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: September 5, 2025

How is this a charity?? Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. ------------------------------ ------------ Keywords: streaming moments, gaming hot takes, streamer podcast, gaming news Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So with the Creator Clash event, they were going to take and pocket 34%. No wonder this fucking thing had problems. 34% amount of money. That's crazy. So there's a lot of people that are wondering, where did the money go at all? Idubs actually made a statement about this himself, apologizing. And he says, I want to clear some things up now that Nisa and I are no longer part of Creator Clash. When I announced Creator Clash 3 and its new business model, the communication wasn't clear.

looking back on my video and the current reaction, it's obvious it was too vague. It remains true that I earned the fight purse for Creator Clash 1, of course, but we did not profit at all from Creator Clash 2. After Creator Clash 2 failed to raise an amount from the charity we knew, it at the time was a different business model. We restructured it, so the funds for our charity partner would be raised on Tiltify

separate from the actual event. We then decided for this year we would take a profit share from the for-profit side of the event, should the for-profit side of the event, succeed. So this is a very important component that a lot of people need to understand about charity events is that the majority of these charity events are not completely charity events. And a lot of the people, like, even like bands that play at charity shows to like raise money for cancer, a lot of them end up getting paid by brands by doing that. So they're often, and that's not even really a bad

thing, but it's something that's like really important to keep in mind because some people view charity as this like kind of universal good thing and that's not exactly what's happening in this circumstance. They still got to eat? Yeah, you've got to eat as well, of course. But 30 the thing is 34%

of the profit is an insane piece. Like think about, think about this, right? You have probably over 100 people working on this event. And that's the pizza, right? The pizza's got to be divided between 100

people and also the fighters and everybody else and they're taking 30 i almost did it again 34% of the pizza that's a lot of fucking pizza guys that's crazy that's an insane amount and so yes slice it up yeah that's a very very huge amount i feel sorry for any confusion anisa and i caused we know the event is in good hands now and we wish it all success so basically you spent all the money on room. Anisa and Hassan had sex. Okay. So what percentage is actually going into the charity from the actual charity event?

No refunds? And was it 34% just for you? Another 34% for Anisa? I mean, I don't know. But it definitely makes him look really, really bad. So Ludwig talked about this as well. I mean, he's been kind of moving away. Ludwig has moved away from drama, but

you know, not really entirely, right? You can never leave. Here we go. Let's listen to it. So funding it through various sponsorships, but mostly ticket sales and, um, so it was a scam. I feel like that has to be like the worst faith interpretation. I think if an event is successful and raises $1.3 million for charity on their first go around, yeah? Their big plan isn't like, oh my God, and this next time we run it, we're going to make, you know, money for ourselves now that was the plan though, right? Because didn't they say that?

we've raised the $1.3 million for charity, now we get to make some money of our own. Uh-huh. You would just take the $1.3 million. Well, no, because it was a separate, there were two separate funds, right? And so, like, the fund that they make for profit and the fund that they raise for charity, these are separate funds. And Ian even confirmed that. So I'm not even sure really where this is coming from.

The first go around. Like, uh-huh. 1.3 mil is a lot of money, bro. That's hell of bread. Not really, not for a big event like that. I mean, whenever you have a huge event like that and you have 100 people on payroll and you have tons of creators,

only making $1.3 million isn't enough money. Like, you could have done 50 other things that would have made way more money than that. I mean, honestly, like, that's the truth. And anybody who knows business knows that, I mean, that's it. Do you think charities should be audited more frequently? Well, that's not what's happening, right?

It's not about the charity. It's about the way that they handled the event. way it was portrayed. So I feel like you're just not, if you're looking at it in a vacuum, yeah, I think you could call that a scam. Okay. But you're ignoring the context of the first one that was hell of successful.

So. Well, but isn't this also ignoring the context of the second one that was hell of unsuccessful? So if the second one was hella unsuccessful and then, like, well, and here's also another big question, right, is that why is it that you're doing a third one if the second one didn't make any money. Because like I don't understand that. How does that happen?

How does that work? So like if you're not making any money, what the fuck? Why would you even do it again? Let me go back. I'll listen to another part of this too. He talked about a little bit more. Is money paid not towards charity until event costs are paid? Yeah, but presumably.

Because where else is the money coming from? And I guess do you guys consider? consider that a scam? Yes. It's misleading. If you tell people that their money is going towards a charity, you should have a separate fund where money is raised from a charity that is separate from the event costs. And if the event doesn't make money and you take it out of the charity, you, so, and it goes into what really matters, I think in this conversation is the idea of consent. And consent is something that a lot of people, especially in business, don't really fully understand. I'm not saying Ludwig doesn't understand it. But I'm just saying,

saying this is my frame of reference and this is how I understand it, is that when a person spends money on an event that is advertised as it being for charity, they would assume that at least a good portion of that money would go towards the charity. And if that's not happening, then these people are going to be misled and there's going to be a lot of bad faith that's going on. I don't see how anybody doesn't understand that more than half. Yes, obviously. And so like most of it, And so if people put all of their money towards charity or they buy tickets and they support an event because they say, and this is also true as well with the other boxers, right? Even Alana talked about this yesterday, is that if you're supporting an event and you're participating an event because you want to have the money to go for charity, but then all of the money just goes for paying the operating expenses, well, then you effectively took all these people's time and you misused it because you didn't allocate the money in a way that they thought that their time. was being spent allocating the money towards.

So like, yeah, I actually really think it's that simple. Like, if people are buying something and they think their money is going to something, and then it doesn't at least mostly go to that, I think that a lot of people understand that every charity does not operate at a 100% loss, right? Like, many of them have operating expenses. There's administration expenses. And there's a spectrum of this, right? And some of it is good.

Some of it is bad. but you're going to need to have at least some of it. So when I hear people talking about this, ultimately you have a situation where people are spending money on something and their money isn't going where they think that it's going. And here's another even more important question, and this goes back to the idea of consent, is that if they had known that their money would not go to these charities

and it would go completely to paying off the event first, would they have still bought the tickets? and the question really isn't on an individual level, but on a mass level, is that actually something that would happen? I think less people would buy tickets. And can we agree that less people would buy tickets if they knew that, you know, there's a probability or a possibility that none of the money will go to charity, right? A chunk would not. And so, again, so basically now we've entered into the realm and we've created the foundation that people are buying tickets on a false premise that if it was communicated in a way that we're, was properly explained would have not made a purchase. So based off of that, you have now told a

person that's giving you money that they're going to get something that they're not going to get. That's a problem. That's a big problem. And it's literally that simple. So fraud, it's not, see, like, the word, like, I don't, I agree with Ludwig. This isn't fraud. This isn't, I can take you to court for this. This is mismanagement and just shitty. It's not fraud. It's just shitty. It's unethical. Yeah. And it's not even unethical. It's just it's misleading. You could say maybe unethical, but that's it. You really do have to look at the fine print. The fine print doesn't matter to me because the reason why it's in the fine print is because they don't want people to read it.

That's why it's so small. So if the fine, if your general message communicates one idea and the fine print contextualizes that idea and diminishes it, you are actively against. working to mislead people. And that's again, that's how I base all of my decisions off of. Are you acting in good faith? And if a person had full understanding of the nature of this agreement, would they have still spent the money? And if the answer is no, then you are not acting in good faith. Am I crazy?

I feel like this is so simple. Yeah, I don't know what to say. Duh. Yes, of course. It's spot. Yes. Okay, anyway, let's move on. is the money coming from?

And I guess do you guys consider that a scam? Yes. Because to me that makes sense. I think an average person would consider that a scam. Is it a scam in terms of like money, right? Is it like is it a legal scam? Should somebody go to jail for this? I don't think anybody needs to go to jail for this.

But yes, I think it is people would perceive it as a scam. But should operate. Now obviously messaging matters. Like if you have tickets and you say all proceeds go to charity. And then it's actually like, well, they go to charity after cost. Like, that has to be clear when you purchase. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So then you agree. Yeah, exactly. I think people are huge. What's the word, man? A grandizer. What's the word when people are like fake higher than now? It's not.

I feel like people get real bad faith or virtue signally when it comes to charity stuff. Maybe grand sandy. I don't know the exact word. But I feel like when charity, like the word. like the word charity is hit, people are like, huh, heavens. And everyone acts like every act of charity

needs to be some higher than thou acts that is selfless. And maybe I'm cynical, but I think that's dumb. And I think charities also understand that that's dumb. And most incredibly successful charities understand that it's a business and things need to be able to operate not just one time, but consistently.

Yeah, but the problem is that if your business, here's the thing, right, is that if your charity is a business first and a charity second, and people find out about that, don't be surprised unless people want to donate. And the issue is that their business model wasn't effective. And so basically they had an ineffective business model. And then because of their ineffective business model, they decided to put in a clause that allowed them to keep making money,

even if their business model didn't deliver in the way that it was supposed to, because that's what happened last time. So they basically knew that the event might not make money because that's what happened in Creator Clash 2. And so they locked in and secured money for themselves for Creator Clash 3. And the reason why it's problematic is because nobody knew this was going to happen. Nobody knew anything about this. Part of being tax exempt is that your primary primary person,

purpose is to alleviate the government in some way. So the primary purpose becomes business. You lose tax exempt status. Yeah. Only many times. And the only way to do that is if it doesn't burn a bunch of money along the way. So if you're doing an annual event, but you lose $100,000 doing it, even if you raise $50 million for charity, you can't do, you know, you can't do that forever.

Because you're losing money. Money has to come from somewhere. And change the business model. Change the business model and be up front with the people that are spending the money. Like I see what he's saying. I understand what he's saying. But at the same time, the problem is the proportion and the ratio. I think if you raised $50 million and you took $100 grand to pay for the event,

nobody would care because proportionally that's like 0.001 or 0.202%. right it's like nothing so the issue isn't necessarily that amount of money it's the fact that you're doing it and people don't know that and it's the proportion of the money that's being spent and then reallocated so for example there are a lot of charities that are able to reallocate money in an effective way and like there's a big difference between reallocating 95% of the money and 35% of the money and in general, like here, let me ask you guys a question. If you knew that you were donating to a charity and the event was going to take 35% of the proceeds

and give it the charity, how many of you guys would donate to that? And then how many would you donate to one that was giving 85%? Let's say, or 75%. People generally, and by the way, this is so true that there is a website, and there are multiple websites, charity, percentage, administration, website. Let me see if I can just get this right.

Charity Navigator. And so there's multiple websites about this, nonprofit data for donors, charities and nonprofits, charity ratings. And so a lot of these here and, you know, discovery charity lists,

cost effective organizations, this is an extremely popular concept that basically everybody seems to understand. So USAID, well, no, obviously, like,

USAID is part of that. I mean, sure. But like in general, people understand operation costs when you actually try to charge charity in a profit event, it's highly contentious. And that's also another thing is that whenever you're looking at a profit share,

that is a very different component that whenever you're talking about just making the costs back, I think that people understand even making your costs back, but not an additional profit share on top of that. People I don't think realize is sometimes that gets a little dirty. Like if you look, I've been offered, dude. I've been offered from charities. They'll offer you like 20K. They'll pay you to run an event in exchange to raise money hoping to hit an expectation of return.

Yes. Of course. And I've done that too. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's not a problem with that. It's just it should be communicated and explained clearly to the person who's donating. That's all there is to it. Yeah.

It's different. No. And that's the thing. We did that with soft giving. Sure. Absolutely. But that was communicated. It was established and it was explained. And so there's not an issue there because the money is being explained in a way and is being given in a way that the person who's giving it understands what they're getting. It's being transparent. Exactly. The problem is not that you're doing it in any one way. It's about you're being transparent. So yeah, I did see 34% of the money. Again, I feel like this is just going to keep getting worse for them. And how much should you back? None. actually it was it was an o k thing and so i i had i didn't make any money off of any of it and even the

money that i personally so whenever i did the charity events right these were things that were in collaboration with softgiving and they basically like so a lot of companies and this is generally like what happens right is that um what companies do is that they set up charity events because it makes the company look good right companies think that donating charity will make them look good and to be fair i think they're right it does so we had progressive and i think we have like a car another car insurance place that was sponsoring it. So the car insurance sponsor pays for the content creator to raise money for the charity. Now, there were some weird issues with soft giving, and honestly, there was a guy that put out a report about it. I think his name was Jacob

Wolf. A lot of what he said was true. And honestly, you know, there's a reason why we don't work with them anymore. I can't say any more about that because they were very litigious about it. If that company ever dissolves and they no longer exist anymore, I will tell the entire story about it, but they were, I'm just going to, fuck it, they were deceptive. They were deceptive. And if I had known that, we would have never engaged with it. I'll say that right now. It was deceptive.

I didn't understand what was happening, and that's what it was. And so, skimming practices, yes. And I, I couldn't, Jacob reached out to me whenever the article was written, and I was still involved with OTP at the time. And so I couldn't speak about it with him. I I I it made me very uncomfortable but anyway and so yeah did you just say that yeah I did I mean that's the truth that's the truth of what happened but the reality also is that a brand is paying for a certain amount of money as well it's messed up no it was and again like the guys I don't want to look as I said I really try my best to not get sued and so if the company that they were operating as ever fully dissolves. I will tell the entire story. I will give everything.

And the funny thing is that if, like, for the events that we did, the ironic thing actually, I can say this. Everybody actually got what they wanted and they got what

they put their, like, fuck, let me, Jesus. I'm trying to say it in the right way. Oh man. Stop talking. Don't. Be careful. Yeah, I'm just trying to think of the right way do it, bro, don't. I mean, if they sue me, I'll stream to trial. Okay, how about that? I promise. If I get sued, I'll stream to trial. So, um, basically, uh, the way that our deal was, was authentic and accurate, but it was other deals that were problematic as well. And so, and that's, that's the only thing that I'm going to say. And so the money that you guys spent

actually did go in the right place, but there was a second thing that happened that was, uh, separate from us that was kind of another issue. And so anyway, um, now that yeah, yeah, clearly. And, uh, anyway, as long as you did your part with good intention, you're good. Yeah, exactly, right? And so like having a sponsor for a charity event is totally fine. That my, my point is that having a sponsor for a charity event is totally fine. Like I did this before and like, I did donate whenever I donated my own money for like the,

uh, Ukraine thing or the Games for Love thing, that came out of my personal account. Like, I spent money, and ultimately, I never got that money back, right? I never got paid for these events. I never had any of that happen. This was all for the org, right? And so, like, I spent that money. That was my own money. And, you know, that's really about it.

Yeah, lots of chat donate. I know I did. So you won't do charity anymore? I would do charity, but I would do a charity event, but I think this is the way that I would look at it, is that I don't think that I would ever do another paid, charity event unless I was able to understand every single nuance of it. And that would require me to have access to contracts between parties that I'm not a part of. And I don't think that would ever happen. So in general, like, I would be fine participating in something like that because like, who cares?

But I wouldn't want to engage myself directly in it. Does that make sense? Yeah, due diligence next time? Yeah, yeah, exactly, right? And so, um, anyway, so basically never. Well, I would work directly with a charity and I would make sure all the money went directly to that website in a very specific sense. I would not try to work through a third party or do anything else similar to that unless it was an established third party that had all of their rules that were extremely transparent. Like I'll just say that, right? And again, I don't want to get into specifics. I don't want to get into any more of that. But now that I'm not involved with the org anymore and, you know, this is kind of water under the bridge. Just it is what it is. Just say that.

that. It is what it is. Let's move on. Yeah. And so, uh, ranting time. Yes. Ranting. No, ranting time is over. Okay. And so that's it. The only way to learn. Yeah, exactly. Don't get sued, bro. I know. It is what it is. And so, uh, anyway, it's easier contact to charity directly to help organize the event. Yeah. Yeah. And that's what I would do myself. But, and I do think that also in the same way that whenever that soft giving article came out, a lot of people were really angry at us and angry at the other people who were involved, because they didn't understand what was happening. I think, again, this is the same thing as well, because we didn't understand it, but also they did. That, like, the creator clash, they, I mean, like, do you think they didn't know they were making

34% profit off of this? Of course they did, because they weren't doing it through a third party. It was their own event. And so that's the reason why people feel like they were deceived and misled. So, yeah, that's it. Honestly, I think you're most honest stream around the, on the, unironically, I think you're most honest stream around the platform. I try to be, right? The only times that I lie and I don't fully tell the truth are times where it would negatively affect another person or it would hurt somebody. Because other than that, I do try to tell pretty much exactly what happened and be as honest as possible with people and just let them know like, yeah, this is what it was.