With three of the defining pressures of our era now unmistakably in view— geopolitical fissures, a marked retreat from globalization, and the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence — an old parable comes to mind. In Jorge Luis Borges’ Extraordinary Tales, Borges and Adolfo Boy Casares include a brief retelling, borrowed from W. Somerset Maugham, of an ancient Mesopotamian parable. It reads less like allegory now.

Impact investing has aligned itself to benchmarks, but the underlying infrastructure remains incomplete. That gap defines the task ahead. In frontier innovation, the paths we must traverse rarely exist in advance. Physical, financial, and regulatory infrastructure is laid only when the first architects begin to move.

The original conceit of impact investing was to chart a new course: one that didn’t force a choice between pure philanthropy and pure profit. When private equity moved in, armed with scale and efficiency, the market defaulted to what it knew best: maximizing returns. In the process, the idealistic middle ground hollowed out.

Urgency is often treated as philanthropy’s highest virtue. This is because, in the moment, action can feel even more virtuous than impact. When the world is on fire, the call for immediate action is compelling. But in moments of profound crisis, donor-advised funds (DAFs) have shown their potential to deploy capital with effectiveness and precision.

In 1973, two scholars, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber, coined the term ‘wicked problems’ to describe complex social issues that are resistant to change. Problems like healthcare, extreme poverty, and education are interconnected, unwieldy in scope, and self-perpetuating. Each attempted solution risks spawning new, more complex iterations of the original problem.

Donor-advised funds (DAFs) don’t have a payout problem — at least not in the way analysts claim. But assume, for argument’s sake, that they do.

Critics often portray DAFs as structural loopholes: mechanisms that enable donors to claim immediate tax benefits while deferring or even indefinitely delaying the distribution of charitable funds. Some extend the criticism further, associating DAFs with broader ‘dark money’ concerns and funding opacity. The claims are compelling. But are they accurate? And more importantly, do they fully account for the strategic architecture that DAFs represent?

Philanthropy is on the cusp of discovering how best to use a resource long underestimated: donor-advised funds (DAFs). These philanthropic vehicles let donors place irrevocable contributions of personal assets into a sort of ‘waiting room’ until they’re ready to be directed toward charitable causes. At any moment thereafter, donors may recommend that capital to worthy initiatives. And their breadth is breathtaking.