I find it okay if this topic causes some division within the Ohmie community around charity and responsibility if that weeds out zero-sum and win-lose thinking people. There's no need to replicate the greediness and egoism so prevalent in TradFi.
Olympus is built on open source and exists because of open source. Olympus DAO has received plenty of value from open source and generated even more on top of it. People have been working for years and decades on the foundation that Olympus builds upon. Giving back to open source is a no-brainer as otherwise we'd just be taking without giving anything in return. Win-lose.
It's the same with climate concerns. Olympus is built on and exists because of Ethereum. It derives value directly from Ethereum's PoW which as long as its there has a negative climate effect. Just like with open source it should be a no-brainer to compensate for the value received and damage caused in the process.
Longevity is surely debatable as there was no value received (that I know of). At least it's for a public good. It would make sense to move it to its own proposal or handle it differently.
The culture of Olympus is, among other properties, highly collaborative and assumes responsibility where it's due. This OIP, with some clarification and a few adjustments, reflects and reinforces that.
We shouldn't get deterred by the words charity and donation. It's not one way. It's a two way impact that's just not as obvious as financial revenue streams.
Also, this shouldn't be a discussion about individuals' choices about charity. An individual's decisions should be about individual's impact and responsibilities.
This proposal is about the responsibilities and impact of Olympus as a whole. Both the past (open source value, climate impact) and the future.
On top of that we all benefit from advances in those areas. Especially financially given the success of Olympus.
As Balaji put it: win and help win.