This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You don’t list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after it’s ratified.

Though OP never actually stated that the machine can perfectly predict the future. If that’s the case, then yes, you should just take box B. But we’re not given any information about how it makes its prediction. If @Sordid@sh.itjust.works is correct in assuming it’s a 50-50, then their strategy of taking both is best. It really depends on how the machine makes its prediction.

I’ll sometimes experience this, but it’s inconsistent. Other times I’ll be able to scroll as normal.

I agree that we shouldn’t assume corruption if TheDude starts receiving any funds, but I think it would be beneficial to have clear expectations about how donations are being used. If it’s clear that excess funds go straight into TheDude’s pockets, great. Let anyone who wants to donate go for it. But I wouldn’t want anyone to donate thinking that they’re supporting server costs when they’re actually just tipping someone. Whichever way it goes, it just needs to be clear.

I think the biggest reason in favour of doing so would be that this would provide oversight and accountability for donations. I for one don’t feel entirely comfortable donating when I don’t know how the funds will be used.

Another potential reason would be to have multiple levels of democratized power. For instance, guests of the Agora might have no decision-making power, users some decision-making power, and members (having made a one-time purchase of shares in the not-for-profit) some more decision-making power. Of course, that kind of structure assumes a decently large scale of organization.

If it comes to incorporating as a not-for-profit, I’ve got some experience with not-for-profits, and would be open to helping incorporate.