Multi-point Fundraising and Distribution via Blockchain

Full text

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
475 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
Multi-point Fundraising and Distribution via
Blockchain
Abdullah Omar Abdul Kareem Alassaf1, Fakhrul Hazman Yusoff2
Faculty of Computer Science and Mathematical Sciences
Universiti Teknologi MARA
Shah Alam, Malaysia
Abstract—Trust and transparency are significant facets that
are much esteemed by charitable organizations in achieving their
mission and encouraging donations from the public. However,
after many high-profile scandals, the faith in charities is
questionable, heralding the need for an increased level of
transparency among such organizations. Fortunately, leveraging
Blockchain technology in charities’ systems could help to rebuild
the integrity of these organizations. This study aims to raise the
level of integrity showcased by charities by creating a multi-point
fundraising approach using smart contracts. The proposed
system offers a transparent fundraising platform through its
integration of charity organization evaluators. Various steps
were deployed to satisfy the intended target. Firstly, the study
investigated the potentials of Blockchain in improving the level of
transparency. Secondly, a probing process was undertaken to
choose a suitable platform as a server-side in the system. This
process involved garnering salient features in Blockchain
platforms based on the proposed system requirements. After the
probing process, a Decision Support System (DSS) was utilized to
investigate the most suitable Blockchain platform. Results
garnered proved that the Ethereum platform is best for the
proposed system.
Keywords—Blockchain; smart contract; transparency; charity
I. INTRODUCTION
The desire to help and to be of service to others is the
nature of human behaviour. Donations to charities are one of
the ways people help each other and this is positively reflected
on the community. Charities play an essential role in fields
like education, healthcare, and other social services [1]. In
addition, all religions preach and encourage philanthropy, for
instance, Islam makes it obligatory and calls it Zakat [2].
Trust and confidence are fundamental for charitable bodies
to achieve their mission in getting donors and donations [3].
Higher trust levels could increase the amount of donations
received by these charities [1]. However, after many high-
profile scandals, charities have been criticized for misusing
donated money [4], and donors have begun to lose trust in
charities; hence calls for more transparency have increased
[5].
For instance, recent events and evidences show that public
trust and confidence in charities in the UK has been damaged.
As a result, the activities of individual charities could be
limited, and the sustainability of the whole sector reduced [6].
The following figure is a survey has been done in North
Ireland to explore the views on the charity sector; Fig. 1 shows
a question related to transparency in charities.
Fig. 1 shows that 92% of the people, who answered the
survey, agreed on that charities should be transparent about
how public donations are spent, and how important it is that
charities must demonstrate how they benefit the public, while
40% know how to find information about how charities are
run. Also, only 32% know where they can find information
about how charities are spending their money [7].
According to the facts and findings mentioned above,
transparency is a crucial element in charity sector. Yet, it is
one of the biggest vulnerabilities in the existing charity
systems, as addressed in many studies [1], [3], [5], and [7].
Therefore, it should be enhanced.
With the advent of blockchain, many studies suggested
that blockchain has a great potential to benefit various sectors
and industries such as education [8] and travel [9].
Similarly, Blockchain is reputedly able to solve the
transparency issues in charity systems [10]. Thus, leveraging
blockchain technology in charity systems could help in
rebuilding the image of charity. Hence, studies and researches
are investigating different approaches to take the advantages
of this technology.
This study aims to tackle the transparency issue.
Therefore, a donation system will be implemented to promote
transparency in charitable organizations‘ campaigns by using
smart contracts to hold donors‘ donations till it gets verified
based on multi-point model to ensure that donations reach
those who need help. The deployed smart contracts store on a
suitable blockchain platform which will be selected after
identifying the important features in blockchain platforms to
get the ideal platform for charity systems. The system offers a
transparent environment for all parties including charitable
organizations, donors, recipients, and charity evaluator
organizations. As well as, all transactions will be made
through this system will be accessible and traceable for the
public.

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
476 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
Fig. 1. General Attitudes towards Charities Regarding Transparency in
North Ireland [7].
II. RELATED WORK
Blockchain technology can play a significant role in
philanthropy to overcome many challenges. So, some studies
have tried to utilize blockchain in a charity system. Firstly,
Nor et al. [11] proposed Sadaqa system for disaster aid crowd
funding. The system focuses on transferring funds to the
people in need during the disaster using Ethereum smart
contract to avoid problems of the modern day transactions
related to transaction fees, potential fraud, absence of
accountability, and transaction time.
Secondly, Hu et al. [12] proposed a charity system using
Ethereum smart contracts, they leverage Blockchain to
improve the transparency in charities and increase the public
trust, the system allows donors to vote on the request of a
beneficiary to involve donors in fundraising and enhance
transparency.
Lastly, D. Jayasinghe et al. [13] built a Bitcoin payment
system that can be used in both an offline environment via the
existing GSM network, as well as, online environment to
provide aid for people living in a challenging geographical
environments with limited internet availability.
Based on the abovementioned studies, this article will
investigate the crucial features in blockchain platforms to find
the most suitable platform for charity system, and then it will
propose a blockchain charity system that relies on a new
model concentrates on enhancing transparency; the model
contains elements that have not been addressed in the previous
studies.
III. BLOCKCHAIN
Blockchain technology has gained widespread attention in
recent years, as it promotes trust and transparency. In 2015 a
report by the UK Charities Aid Foundation [14] points out that
for charities, Blockchain helps to increase transparency,
openness and confidence while reducing transaction costs and
providing new opportunities for fundraising.
Blockchain can be identify as a public ledger, in which all
transactions are stored in a chain of blocks; the ledger
constantly grows when new blocks get approved and added by
the network members [15].
Fig. 2. Blockchain Structure.
Blockchain sorts and encrypts the information inside the
block before adding the block to the chain. What makes the
chain traceable is the blocks are linked with each other in the
chain, giving each block encryption code called a hash [16].
Blockchain contains blocks where each block records
transactions sent between users, hash code which is a unique
code created when a new block is discovered, and a reference
code of the previous block [17]. Fig. 2 illustrates how blocks
are connected to form the Blockchain. Each block consists of
transactions (Tx) that is represented in a hash number using
Merkle tree, as well as other values such as hash value of
previous block (N-1), timestamp, and nonce which is a
random number that can be used just once, these values will
be used to represent the hash value of the current block (N),
and this hash will be stored in the next block (N+1).
IV. KEY BENEFITS OF BLOCKCHAIN FOR BUSINESS
Nguten and Hoang [18] pointed out the key benefits of
blockchain technology that makes it attractive for many types
of businesses, the benefits are:
1) Decentralized: blockchain networks are not controlled
by a central party, which helps to avoid a single point of
failure and take over the network by a small group of users.
Users in Blockchain participate in a distributed network
managed by consensus mechanism to reach the agreement on
the network state.
2) Transparency: All network participants can see the
stored data; in other words, the data stored in a blockchain is
visible to the public.
3) Immutability: Once the data are stored in the
Blockchain, it cannot be changed.
4) Security and privacy: One of the important features in
the Blockchain is the cryptographically secure mechanism
because it helps in promoting privacy and security.
Furthermore, users in the network use a public and private key
for identification and verification. When a transaction occurs,
a user can be easily verified by his digital signature.
V. CHOOSING A SUITABLE BLOCKCHAIN PLATFORM
First of all, two crucial features have to be determined in
the blockchain platform. The first step is to decide on the type
of network, and then to decide whether Crypto-currencies is
needed or not [19].
A. Network Type
Data cannot be exchange without networks; therefore,
networking plays an important role in any field related to

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
477 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
information technology. That is why there are vicarious
network attacks such as mentioned by [20], [21], [22] , and
[23].
With regard to the first step, there are three types of
networks in blockchain: public network, private network, and
consortium network.
1) Public network: It's a permission-less or open network,
not controlled by any organization, anyone can join the
network, and all users are equal; they can read and write
without any restrictions. These blockchain networks are
considered as fully decentralized. Transparency is the most
significant advantage of the public network. However, there
are some disadvantages of Public Network and that includes
slow transaction speed as compared to other networks, and
scalability issue though some steps are already taken to solve
this problem such as off-chain, examples of public network
Bitcoin and Ethereum [24].
2) Private network: The second type of the blockchain
network is the private or permissioned network; it is
centralized or partially-centralized as compared to the public
network; it is controlled by a single organization that has the
permission to write in the ledger, read can be public or
restricted by participants. The advantages of this network are
the transaction speed, and it is considered more scalable than a
public network; however, it is not transparent since a single
organization controls it. An example of a private network is
Heyperledger, one of the popular private network platforms
[25].
3) Consortium network: It is a semi-private network
owned and controlled by a preselected group of members.
This group of members has permission to write in the ledger,
and read can be public or restricted by participants, it is more
secure and has better scalability; however, it is less
transparent. Marco Polo platform is an example of a
consortium network [26].
Each blockchain network has unique features to offer;
therefore, choosing a suitable platform would rely on the
system requirements, for a charity system transparency has the
highest priority. Thus, the public network is ideal for
organizations that thrive on trust and transparency.
B. Crypto-Currency
The second feature is to decide on the need for crypto-
currencies. It is a currency that only exists digitally, that
usually has no central issuing or regulating authority but
instead uses a decentralized system to record transactions and
handle the issuance of new units, and that relies on
cryptography to avoid counterfeiting and fraudulent
transactions.
The most important feature about crypto-currency is that it
is not controlled by any central authority or a third party. It
can be sent directly between two parties with minimum
transaction fees and allow users to avoid the high fees that
traditional institutions impose [13].
The crypto-currency was the first application of
Blockchain presented by Nakamoto [27] in 2008 and it is
known as Bitcoin. Since then, a lot of crypto-currencies have
arisen, such as Ethereum, Tether, and many others.
There are many benefits that can be gained from
Blockchain that would positively affect the existing charity
systems. As pointed in previous studies [13] and [14], the
benefits that can be obtained from using crypto-currency are:
1) Reducing transaction cost: One of the notable features
of Blockchain is its low international transaction fees.
2) Transaction speed: In Ethereum, once a user clicks on
send, the transaction will broadcast immediately, it takes some
time to get confirmed, the time can be determined based on
the gas amount that users are willing to pay.
3) Donation provisioning: Sending the donations to the
recipient can be challenging in some cases. For instance,
humanitarian financial aid distribution in war zones can be
blocked if the country‘s bank system is subject to sanctions,
Ethereum transactions can reach the recipient without needing
to use any bank system.
C. Smart Contract
The third important feature is the smart contract. It is a
computer program that allows the charity system to control the
transferring of crypto-currencies and assets between users and
these contracts are stored in a decentralized ledger. Many
studies have suggested Smart Contract as a primary factor for
charity system based blockchain [7], [10], and [13]. The first
use of the smart contract was made by Ethereum [28].
It can also be defined as a set of instructions represented in
computer code published on a distributed network that
receives inputs, executes instructions, and provides outputs. It
can enable a charity to over other features such as routine
provisioning of donations, record keeping, donation requests
to donors, and automatic audit reports of a charity activity
[13].
D. Consensus Algorithm
The fourth important feature that should be taken into
account is consensus algorithm or mechanism which is the
backbone of the Blockchain and the core element of any
blockchain platform. It plays a vital role to ensure the
network‘s security, integrity, and performance [18], and [29].
The most popular consensus mechanism is Proof of Work
(PoW) that was first introduced by Nakamoto [27]. It relies on
the computing power to distribute a new block among network
peers. PoW is used by many platforms such as Bitcoin and
Ethereum. The second popular consensus is Proof of Stake
(PoS) that was created as an alternative to PoW mechanism
because of the high energy consumption of PoW consensus;
PoS relies on the participant‘s stake rather than computing
power. Different protocols have been introduced PoS
approach with slight differences; such as Ouroboros [30] and
Casper by Ehereum [31], another study suggested combining
POW and POS such as Proof of Activity (POA) [24].

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
478 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
Furthermore, some platforms implement PoS, such as
Peercoin, However, studies are still needed for more analysis
and investigation for the Proof of Stake mechanism [29].
Thus, a specific algorithm will not be chosen, since it is
currently under study, and it can be changed in the future. For
example, Ethererum is planning to switch from PoW to PoS
[31].
VI. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
Choosing a suitable platform for any type of business is an
essential step before implementing blockchain [19]. However,
there are many varieties of available blockchain platforms
with multiple features. This problem called Multi-Criteria
Decision-Making (MCDM), which is defined by "making
preference decisions (such as evaluation, prioritization, and
selection) over the available alternatives that are characterized
by multiple, usually conflicting attributes" [32]. To cope with
this problem, Farshidi et al.‘s system [19] will be used.
Farshidi et al.‘s system is called Decision Support System
(DSS). The system formulates the Blockchain selected
platform as an MCDM problem to find a suitable platform that
supports the required features. They have extracted a set of
blockchain features from online documentation of blockchain
platforms. A list of the important features has been identified
by researchers and experts.
Based on the DSS they are other features that need to be
taken into account along with the abovementioned features to
get the most suitable Blockchain platform, however, they are
not crucial as the mentioned features, but they can help to
differentiate between platforms. The features are:
1) Market positioning: It is measured by the Numerical
feature like transaction speed, popularity in market and
platform‘s maturity, and by Boolean feature, which is the
number of innovations that platforms support, such as;
Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence, etc.
2) Capacity: It is measured by scalability technologies
used, such as side-chains, Sharding, Plasma-chains, Off-chian-
state-channels and On-Chain Transactions.
3) Development: It is measured by programming
languages support, such as; Soildity, Python, JavaScripit,
C++,.Net and Golang.
4) Flexibility: It is measured by resilience technologies
such as Sybil attack resistant, Spam-attack resistant, Quantum-
computing resistant, Instant transaction Finality, and Hard-
fork resistant.
5) Integration: Which means a platform that can integrate
with the other systems, and it is measured by Interoperability
technologies that supported by the platform such as Atomic
Swap, Cross-chain technology, Enterprise system Integration.
The score will be indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where
0 represents the least suitable platform and 100 represents the
most suitable platform. The following figure shows the result
of the top 10 feasible platforms for the proposed system based
on these features:
 Network type: public network.
 Smart contracts: yes.
 Crypto-currencies: yes.
 Consensus algorithms: Proof of Work or Proof of
Stake.
 Market Positioning: High Transaction Speed, High
Maturity, High Popularity, High Innovation.
 Programming languages support: Solidity, JavaScript
and python.
 Interoperability technologies: any (Not specified).
 Scalability technologies: any (Not specified).
 Resilience technologies: any (Not specified).
Fig. 3. The Result for the Suitable Platform based on Decision Support
System [19].
Fig. 3 shows that Ethereum scored 100, which is the
highest score among other platforms; because it supports all
the selected features. NEO is the second platform scored 93; it
has a lower score than Ethereum, because it does not support
all features.
VII. ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY
As addressed above transparency issue in the current
charitable organizations; and presented Blockchain as a
solution that will help in tackling this issue. In addition to
Blockchain other elements can be used, the following section
discusses two important elements that can help in improving
the transparency in charities.
A. Monitoring Charitable Organization
Evaluation and assessment of charitable organizations by
another type of non-profit organization specialized in charity
evaluation is one of the solutions to improve the transparency
and give donors more confidence to contribute. This kind of
organization called charity evaluator, and their job is ensuring
that fundraising in charitable organizations is being organized
and performed in a satisfactory manner and that the
administration of the collected funds is adequate, one example
on this organization is International Committee on
Fundraising Organizations (ICFO) [33].

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
479 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
Therefore, having a Charity Evaluator organization in a
charity will help in improving transparency and encouraging
donors to donate confidently. It will also provide an additional
layer of assurance in the prevention and detection of misuse of
donors‘ funds.
B. Offering a Refund Option
Donazzan, Erkal, and Koh experiment showed that
offering a refund option has a positive impact on giving
behaviour and increasing confidence [34]. Another
experimental study also showed that offering a refund option
could increase the contributions [35]. Therefore, offering a
refund option in a charity system has a potential to increase
the confidence and the amount of contributions.
VIII. SYSTEM MODEL
Fig. 3 displays system processes flow; the system‘s main
processes accrue through two main pages login page that lead
to the user profile and view campaigns page to view campaign
details.
Fig. 4. System Flow Diagram.
According the Fig. 4, the system starts with two main
processes, first login process for two types of user charitable
organizations and evaluator organizations, they should login to
interact with their campaign, to do so, they need the admin
approval, if they received the approval, charitable
organizations can create and deploy new campaigns on
Ethereum network, and evaluator organizations can validate
them.
On the other hand, campaigns will be accessible to the
public without the need for logging in, so that donors,
beneficiaries, and visitors can view campaigns‘ details that
have been created by charitable organizations.
IX. THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM
Fig. 5 illustrates the proposed system design; the system is
a decentralized web application (Dapp), where the web
application is (client side) that is connected to the Ethereum
Network (server side) through web3 that allows the system to
interact with the Ethereum network. Users are required to use
Metamask Ethereum wallet in order to interact with the
system smart contracts, donors however, can donate by using
Metamask or any other Ethereum wallet.
The Dapp will deploy the Campaign Factory smart
contract once, so that the system users in particular the
charitable organization can interact with this contract to
deploy their campaigns. Additionally, the system will be able
to track all campaigns that have been deployed through it.
Dapp users and visitors can view details of all campaigns
contracts that have been deployed by charitable organizations.
Donors can send money to the contract directly without the
need to sign up, whereas, Charitable Organization and Charity
Evaluator Organization should submit their information and
wait till their application gets approved by Administrator.
Once the Charitable organization‘s application is approved,
they can interact and create any number of campaigns they
want through a predefined Metamask wallet address. On the
other hand, Charity Evaluator organizations are responsible
for monitoring and evaluating charitable organizations‘
performance and campaigns.
Smart contract details with all transactions will be stored
in the Ethereum blockchain network. Mysql database is used
to store charitable organization and Charity Evaluator
credentials and information.
Fig. 5. Client Server System Architecture.
Fig. 6. Use Case Diagram.

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
480 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
As shown in Fig. 6 they are four types of users in the
proposed system:
1) Administrator: the Administrator is responsible for
accepting or rejecting users‘ applications, as well as deleting
users. He can also terminate any campaign‘s contract if he
feels that the campaign does not meet the requirements.
2) Charitable organizations: this type of users has a
profile; so, charitable organizations are required to provide
information about the charitable organization‘s name, address,
email, contact number, registration number, number of
employees, mission and goals of the organization, in order to
sign up to the Dapp. Then they need to verify their email
address, upon which they will then be able to create new
campaigns if their applications get approved by the
Administrator. Charitable organizations‘ profile will be
available and accessible to the public.
3) Charity evaluator organizations: they are similar to
charitable organizations in terms of the signup process;
however, their job is overseeing and monitoring the charitable
organizations‘ campaigns and evaluating their performance.
4) Donors: they are not required to login in. Donors can
send money through Metamask wallet or any Ethereum wallet
to all campaigns‘ smart contract, and they also can get their
money refunded any time during the lifetime of the campaign.
X. SYSTEM‘S SMART CONTRACTS
The proposed system has two smart contacts.
A. Campaign Factory Smart Contract
Campaign Factory is a smart contract that has been
deployed before the launch of the Decentralized Application
(Dapp). This is to enable the charitable organization to deploy
their smart contract (Campaigns) through Campaign Factory.
Therefore, Dapp will be able to track all campaigns that have
been deployed by the charitable organizations. This contract
has two functions:
 To create a campaign: this function invokes by a
charitable organization to create a new contract, the
function‘s parameters are minimum target amount of
Ether needed to finalized the campaign, originator
Metamask wallet address, description about the
campaign, campaigns parties‘ information, beneficiary
wallet address, and the end date of the campaign.
 To list deployed campaigns: the Dapp calls this
function to display a list of all campaigns that have
been deployed by charitable organizations.
B. Campaign Smart Contract
A charitable organization deploys this contract through the
Campaign Factory smart contract; parties involved in this
contract are Charitable Organization, Charity Evaluator,
Donors and Beneficiary. Campaign smart contract shows
information about the campaign and receives Ether from
donors, as well as, holds donors Ether until all conditions
stated in the contract are fulfilled. Later, it will allow a
charitable organization to finalize its campaign; once the
campaign gets finalized, the funds will be sent to the
beneficiary. Once the campaign is completed, no one can
interact with the finalized contract, and it will remain as a
reference that stored all transaction and information. The
Campaign contract performs the following functions:
 Donate(): this function allows donors to donate for the
campaign through the website application by using
Meta mask Ethereum Wallet extension in the browser.
When a user clicks on a donate button, the website will
invoke the donate function from the Campaign smart
contract, and Ether will be sent to the contract.
 Receive(): this function gets called when the donors
send money from any Ethereum wallet other than
Metamask wallet. It allows the Campaign smart
contract to receive Ether from anywhere.
 Refund(): this function gives donors the right to get
their money refunded at any time they want as long as
the contract has not been finalized.
 CharityEvaluatorApproval(): Any charity evaluator
organization can execute this function, it will change
the value of ApprovedByEvaluator from false to true,
and this will indicate that a charity evaluator
organization has approved the campaign.
 BeneficiaryApproval(): Similar to the Charity
Evaluator Approval function, beneficiary confirmation
is also required; beneficiary only can call this function.
 Finalize(): This function can be called only by contract
originator (the charitable organization) in order to
transfer the money to the beneficiary.
 TerminatetheCampaign(): The contract originator or
the Administrator can call this function. It sends the
Ether back to donors and blocks any future interactions
with this campaign.
 VotetoTerminate(): The function can be called by a
donor who has donated to the campaign to vote for
termination of the campaign.
 GetSummary(): This function gets called by the Dapp
to display campaign details to the public.
Note that Metamask Ethereum wallet is required for all
parties if they want to interact with the deployed contract,
except, contribution or sending money to the campaign can be
either by Metamask or other Ethereum wallets. Campaign
smart contract rules are:
 Once the contract gets deployed, funds will be held in
the smart contract in the Ethereum blockchain network
till the campaign ends.
 When the campaign ends, only a charitable
organization can finalize the contract to transfer the
funds to the beneficiary address.
 A charitable organization cannot finalize the campaign
without other parties‘ confirmation (Charity Evaluator
and Beneficiary), should have passed campaign end

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
481 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
date, and the funds should reach the minimum amount
of Ether.
 During the lifetime of the campaign contract, donors
can get their Ether refunded at anytime they want.
 During the lifetime of the campaign donors can vote to
terminate the campaign if they are not satisfied. If end
date has already passed and 50% of the donors are not
satisfied with the campaign the charitable organization
(campaign originator) will not be able to finalize the
contract, and they will be required to terminate the
campaign.
 If the campaign end date has already passed, and the
contract‘s conditions are not fulfilled, a charitable
organization or Administrator can refund Donors
money by calling the termination function.
 Once funds are sent successfully to the beneficiary, the
campaign will not accept any new transaction, and no
one can interact with it. However, all transactions and
information will remain available and accessible to the
public.
 Charitable organization (campaign originator) and
Administrator can terminate the campaign at any time,
when they do so, consequently, funds will be sent back
to donors and the campaign will not accept any other
transactions.
XI. MULTI-POINT MODEL
Fig. 7 illustrates how the Multi-point approach has been
applied in the campaign smart contract; the campaign should
go through seven processes, each of which is designed for a
certain player.
For example when a charitable organization wants to
finalize its campaign, the request through MetaMask wallet
will be sent to the campaign smart contract in a transaction
form to invoke the ‗finalize function‘. The campaign contract
will first check if the sender ID is same as the contract
originator ID to ensure that only the campaign originator
(charitable organization) can finalize the campaign. It will
then check if the campaign is validated by a charity evaluator
organization, and verify that the beneficiary has confirmed the
campaign and that 50% or more of donors are satisfied with
the campaign. The campaign contract will then check if the
campaign target is achieved and the campaign has reached its
end date. Only when these conditions are met, will the
transaction be confirmed and the campaign is finalized.
As shown in Fig. 6 the first step is to check the campaign
status. If the campaign is finalized by its originator, users will
no longer be able to interact with the finalized campaign. They
can however continue to read the campaign details. The
important point of this approach is to ensure that before the
campaign is finalized or completed, it has to go through Multi-
point campaign finalization process. This process would
involve various parties in the fundraising process.
Fig. 7. Multi-point Model.
XII. SYSTEM INTERFACE
The system pages will be shown in this section, the system
is a Dapp. The following points and figures illustrate the
system pages, the Dapp interface consists of:
 Home page layout: Fig. 8 shows the home page of the
Dapp. It is the first page that will be displayed for users
- the first page that users will view in the website.
This page provides a short description about Blockchain
and Smart Contract, as well as the latest two campaigns run by
charitable organizations are displayed. From the navigation
menu, user can go to the campaigns, about us, login and sign
up pages.
 Campaigns page layout: as shown in Fig. 9 on this page
users can check all campaigns that have been created
by charitable organizations through the Campaign
Factory smart contract. A list of campaigns will be
displayed, consisting its campaign title, charitable
name, short description about the campaign, and
campaign status (to show if the campaign is
completed).
Fig. 8. Home Page Layout.

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
482 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
Fig. 9. Campaigns Page Layout.
 About us page: This page includes system directors‘
personal information such as name and email address.
This page is also accessible to the website visitors to
enable them to get in touch with the board members
should the needs arise. Fig. 10 shows this page layout.
Fig. 10. About us Page Layout.
 Signup page layout: Fig. 11 illustrates this page layout.
On this page the two types of users allowed to sign up
are the charitable organization and charity evaluator
organization. Users are required to fill fields that are
divided into four main sections; first section is login
information which includes user email and password.
The second section includes organization name,
mission and goals (for charitable organization) and
standards (for charity evaluator organization), number
of employees, address, and the registration number of
the organization. The third section is the contact
information such as phone number, email, and website.
In the last section users are required to enter theirs
Ethereum wallet address.
 Login page: as shown in Fig. 12 from this page users
can access their accounts once their credentials are
keyed in. The two fields that users are required to fill in
are their email and password. If a user doesn‘t have an
account yet, he/she should go to the sign up page
through a hyperlink provided underneath the fields
form, or through the menu bar to create a new account.
Fig. 11. Signup Page Layout.
Fig. 12. Login Page Layout.
 Campaign details page: as Fig. 13 shows, this page
displays all the details of a campaign; it is the main
page of the Dapp since most of the interactions with
the Campaign smart contract will take place on this
page. Here, donors can donate to a campaign. The
second section is used to show information about the
originator of the campaign (charitable organization),
which includes name and Ethereum address of the
organization as well as a button to visit the
organization‘s profile and a hyperlink to send users to
the Etherscan to check its account. Details on the
charity evaluator information are also displayed here.
'Waiting for validation from evaluator' message will be
prompted if the campaign has yet to be validated by a
charity evaluator. The beneficiary information is
shown at the bottom of the page: as who is/are the
beneficiary/ies, their physical address along with their
Ethereum address and a hyperlink to visit their account
in the Ethereum network. Underneath the beneficiary
information section, unhappy donors could claim for a
refund and vote to cancel the campaign. In addition,
campaign information is shown under the campaign
image - campaign title, short description about the
campaign, and campaign status (it will be funded if the
campaign is still running and completed if the
campaign is completed and does not accept a new
transaction). The minimum amount of funding needed
for this the campaign is displayed with a progress bar

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
483 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
to show the percentage of the campaign balance, and
donors rating (if a donor had requested for a refund of
his Ether and voted to cancel the campaign hence
affecting the rating). The same page also displays the
campaign details such as start and end date, campaign
target (the minimum amount), campaign balance,
number of donors, number of unsatisfied donors,
campaign manager name and email, campaign
Ethereum address, and campaign goals.
Unlike the general users, the two types of logged in users
(charitable organization and evaluator organization) can also
see/access to the following buttons:
1) Evaluator organization’s button: This button is for
evaluator organizations to validate a campaign.
2) Charitable organization’s button: Only charitable
organizations can see this button to either finalize or terminate
the campaign.
 Charitable organization‘s profile: After a user has
verified his account and logged in, he needs to wait
until his account gets approved by the admin. If
approved, new campaign button will be appeared on
the user‘s page as it is shown in Fig. 14 and he will
then be able to update certain information such as
address, number of employees, phone number, contact
email, missions and goals, and email. The user will
also be able to see his campaigns and access it to
finalize, terminate, or just check on the campaign
status.
Fig. 13. Campaign Details Page Layout.
Fig. 14. Charitable Organization‘s Profile Layout.
As shown in Fig. 15, if the user wants to create a new
campaign, a new page will be opened. This page is only
accessible to the charitable organizations. To create a new
campaign, the user will furnish some relevant information on
the campaign, i.e. title, short description about the campaign,
minimum target needed to fulfil campaign goals, beneficiary
Etherum address so that the funds will be automatically
transferred to this account after the campaign is completed and
finalized, campaign goals, beneficiary information, campaign
manager information, and end date.
Fig. 15. Create New Campaign Page Layout.
The user must use his predefined Metamask address so
that after clicking on the create button, his MetaMask wallet
will pop up and display the transaction fee. Once the user
clicks on the confirm button, only then will his new campaign
be deployed in the Ethereum network.
 Charity Evaluator Organization: as Fig. 16 shows the
charity evaluator organizations‘ profile is very similar
to the charitable organization. After a user verifies his
account and logged in, he needs to wait until he gets
the admin‘s approval.

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
484 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
Fig. 16. Charity Evaluator's Profile Layout.
Similarly, when the user account gets approved, a
campaign button will be appeared in his account and the user
will be able to update certain information such as address,
number of employees, phone number, contact email,
standards, and email address.
Fig. 17. Charity Evaluator Campaigns Page Layout.
The user can also see those campaigns that have been
validated by him as shown in Fig. 17. When the evaluator
clicks on the campaigns buttons on the page, a list of
campaigns will be displayed and the user can then access to
information such as the campaign details and whether or not
the campaigns are validated.
XIII. TEST SYSTEM‘S SMART CONTRACT
The Dapp contracts have been tested locally; Rinkeby
Ethereum test network is used during the test to obtain virtual
Ethereum tokens for donation and expenses required for the
test.
Infura provides a suitable entry point for the Rinkeby
network. MetaMask wallet was used to store the Ethereum
tokens and complete the corresponding transactions. At the
same time, a Web3 instance completes the interaction between
the website and the Ethereum network. Table I shows
accounts and their balances that have been utilized for testing
before the campaign is being deployed.
The campaign includes a description of the campaign,
goals, information about the Originator and the Beneficiary,
end date of the campaign to notify the public that the
Originator will be able to finalize the campaign after that date,
it also displays the campaign balance along with all
transactions that have been made and the minimum target
amount needed to achieve campaign‘s goals (the minimum
target for this campaign is 1 Ether).
Table II illustrates all interactions with System contracts;
the first transaction made by Originator to create a new
campaign. 0.00141 ETH of the gas limit was used to execute
the create function in the campaign factory smart contract. The
second transaction was made by the Donor A to send 0.25
Ether from his wallet to the testing campaign smart contract,
the gas fee used to execute this transaction was 0.00012 Ether.
Donor B also donated with Ether to the campaign at a
different amount of 0.10 Ether. After that, the Originator tried
to finalize the campaign, but the transaction failed because
some requirements have not yet been fulfilled.
TABLE I. ETHEREUM ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR TESTING
THE SMART CONTRACT
Account
Address
Balance (ETH)
Originator
0x38e7be22eaFc465042f1b92c13D68
5342Bb034AC
1
Monitor
0xbB1E68cE914f95b4aB86d81581Bb
25aB5C2B3402
1
Beneficiary
0x4a6F69e31BE1a5A3E4d7A794ba7
6a2Ba71f9DB93
0.0007
Donor A
0x21A1292D940090AB830eF88D0fb
1891F0A220596
1
Donor B
0x0C69Ff3624c607Bc3Aca6BF8f2D
5f93bb3B4bDD3
1
Donor C
0x2700556Ab9a1eb2D39c1D53C22b
40E5982671457
1
TABLE II. ALL INTERACTIONS WITH THE CAMPAIGN SMART CONTRACT
Originator
Action
Message
Notes
Manager
Create a new
campaign
Confirmed
Transaction
-
Donor A
Donate (0.25
Ether)
Confirmed
Transaction
Contract balance 0.25 Ether
Donor B
Donate (0.10
Ether)
Confirmed
Transaction
Contract balance 35.0 Ether
Originator
Finalize the
campaign
Failed
Transaction
Failed transaction: because the
contract has not been
confirmed and verified by the
beneficiary and the monitor.
Beneficiary
Approval
Confirmed
Transaction
-
Originator
Approval
Confirmed
Transaction
-
Manager
Finalize
Failed
Transaction
Failed transaction: the end
date has not passed yet, and
the target balance has not
reached.
Donor C
Donate (0.65
Ether)
Confirmed
Transaction
Contract balance is 1 Ether
Originator
Finalize
Failed
Transaction
Failed Transaction: because
the end date has not passed
yet.
Originator
Finalize
Confirmed
Transaction
The contract finalized and the
Ether sent to the beneficiary,
no more interaction can be
done.

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
485 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
The campaign includes a description of the campaign,
goals, information about the Originator and the Beneficiary,
end date of the campaign to notify the public that the
Originator will be able to finalize the campaign after that date,
it also displays the campaign balance along with all
transactions that have been made and the minimum target
amount needed to achieve campaign‘s goals (the minimum
target for this campaign is 1 Ether).
Finally, the originator was able to finalize the contract and
transfer the money to the Beneficiary when all the
requirements and conditions have been fulfilled.
Table III presents the accounts‘ balance after the Testing
Campaign has been finalized. All of the Testing Campaign‗s
transactions with time and fees are recorded on Ethereum
blockchain as shown in Fig. 18. The figure is taken from
Etherscan website, a search engine that lets users look up,
confirm and validate transactions on the Ethereum network.
TABLE III. ETHEREUM ACCOUNT AFTER THE CAMPAIGN SMART
CONTRACT IS FINALIZED
Account
Address
Balance (ETH)
Originator
0x38e7be22eaFc465042f1b92c13D6853
42Bb034AC
0.998501
Monitor
0xbB1E68cE914f95b4aB86d81581Bb2
5aB5C2B3402
0.99997
Beneficiary
0x4a6F69e31BE1a5A3E4d7A794ba76a
2Ba71f9DB93
1.000616
Donor A
0x21A1292D940090AB830eF88D0fb1
891F0A220596
0.749872
Donor B
0x0C69Ff3624c607Bc3Aca6BF8f2D5f9
3bb3B4bDD3
0.89988
Donor C
0x2700556Ab9a1eb2D39c1D53C22b40
E5982671457
0.349902
Fig. 18. Etherscan All Transaction Details.
XIV. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
The study proposes the Multi-point approach to tackle
transparency issue, in which the fundraising process should go
through multi acceptance and specific conditions before it gets
finalized. In other words, rather than having a campaign
managed and controlled by one party, this approach involves
other parties between the charitable organization and the
beneficiary and empower them to improve the transparency in
fundraising. Thus, that could help in strengthening the
relationship between the charitable organization and donors.
Furthermore, it will create a transparent environment that
could affect positively on the charitable organizations and
increase the quantity and amount of donations to charities, as
well as boost donors trust.
The biggest issue in the existing Dapps‘ campaigns is that
they are fully controlled by one party which is the campaign‘s
originator, so they can spend funds anytime and anywhere
without any constraints. The proposed Dapp allows donors to
play a significant role in the campaign. When the contract gets
finalized by the originator the funds will be sent automatically
to one direction (beneficiary address) that has already been
defined in the campaign.
In addition, existing Dapps do not offer refund option nor
do they ensure that the donated funds are sent to the
beneficiary. On the other hand, the proposed Dapp ensures
that donors can get their money back at any time during the
lifetime of the campaign.
The Multipoint approach in fundraising is concerned about
empowering donors and involving charity evaluator
organizations in the fundraising, between a charitable
organization and a beneficiary, in which, charity evaluator
organizations are responsible for evaluating and monitoring
charitable organizations‘ campaigns. With the presence of the
charity organization evaluators who act as a party ensuring
transparency and authenticity of a charity body, donors
involved in the fundraising process are protected from
fraudulent charities. Moreover, donors can evaluate campaigns
and play a major role in the fundraising process. The Dapp
interacts with two smart contracts: the Campaign Factory
smart contract that uses for creating and tracking charities‘
campaigns, and the Campaign smart contract that creates by a
charitable organization to receive and hold donors funds.
Based on certain conditions such as the campaign status,
charity evaluator‘s evaluation, and donor satisfaction, the
smart contract determines whether or not the funds can be
sent. Besides, all interactions (transactions) with the
Campaign smart contract are accessible and traceable and they
will be recorded in the Ethereum blockchain.
Finally, based on the above discussion the Dapps‘s smart
contract has been tested and has proven that it can deal with
the lack of transparency issue in charity, in consequence,
rebuild trust and confidence in charity.
XV. CONCLUSION
Many people have a passion for contributing to society,
and they want to donate generously to charitable
organizations. However, the lack of transparency in charity
caused a trust issue. Transparency is essential in fundraising to
maintain public trust, and should be the top priority for charity
organizations. Therefore, the research proposed a Multi-point

(IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications,
Vol. 12, No. 7, 2021
486 | P a g e
www.ijacsa.thesai.org
approach based on the usage of Blockchain technology to
overcome the transparency issue in charity. First, it
investigated the potentials of Blockchain can improve
transparency, and then it analyzed the important features
related to Blockchain that should exist in the charity‘s
Blockchain platform. The significant features are public
network, crypto-currency, smart contract, and consensus
algorithm. Finally, the system was tested and proved that it
can enhance transparency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks to Faculty of Computer and Mathematical
Science (FSKM) at Unversiti Technolgi MARA, Shah Alam
for all the reference resources and support.
REFERENCES
[1] O. Dijk and M. Holmén, ―Journal of Behavioral and Experimental
Economics Charity , incentives , and performance R,‖ vol. 66, pp. 119–
128, 2017.
[2] E. Ahmad, ―Pakistan Institute of Development Economics Food
Insecurity in Pakistan :,‖ no. September, 2018.
[3] N. Hyndman and D. Mcconville, ―Trust and accountability in UK
charities : Exploring the virtuous circle,‖ Br. Account. Rev., vol. 50, no.
2, pp. 227–237, 2018.
[4] J. T. A. Prakash, ―Will You Trust Me ?: How Individual American
Donors Respond to Informational Signals Regarding Local,‖ Volunt. Int.
J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 621–647, 2017.
[5] D. Mcdonnell and A. C. Rutherford, ―Promoting charity accountability :
Understanding disclosure of serious incidents ☆,‖ Account. Forum, no.
September 2017, pp. 1–11, 2018.
[6] A. Hind, ―New development: Fundraising in UK charities—stepping
back from the abyss,‖ Public Money Manag., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 205–
210, 2017.
[7] I. Mori, C. Commission, and N. Ireland, ―Public trust and confidence in
charities,‖ 2016.
[8] A. MacHado, M. Sousa, and Á. Rocha, ―Blockchain Technology in
Education,‖ ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser., vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 130–
134, 2020.
[9] H. B. M. Hadzir and F. H. Bin Yusoff, ―Blockchain Based Data
Structure for Travel Entourage Tracking System,‖ 2019 4th Int. Conf.
Inf. Syst. Comput. Networks, ISCON 2019, pp. 538–541, Nov. 2019.
[10] H. F. Atlam and G. B. Wills, Technical aspects of blockchain and IoT,
1st ed. Elsevier Inc., 2018.
[11] R. M. Nor, M. M. H. Rahman, and T. Rahman, ―Blockchain Sadaqa
Mechanism for Disaster Aid Crowd Funding,‖ no. 211, pp. 400–405,
2017.
[12] B. Hu and H. Li, ―Research on Charity System Based on Blockchain,‖
IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 768, no. 7, 2020.
[13] D. Jayasinghe, S. Cobourne, and K. Markantonakis, ―Philanthropy On
The Blockchain,‖ 2012.
[14] Charities Aid Foundation, ―Giving Unchained: Philanthropy and the
Blockchain,‖ Charities Aid Foundation, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2015-publications/
giving-unchained-philanthropy-and-the-blockchain.
[15] X. Chen, ―Blockchain challenges and opportunities : a survey Zibin
Zheng and Shaoan Xie Hong-Ning Dai Huaimin Wang,‖ vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 352–375, 2018.
[16] M. A. Jamison and P. Tariq, ―Five things regulators should know about
blockchain ( and three myths to forget ),‖ Electr. J., vol. 31, no. 9, pp.
20–23, 2018.
[17] J. Herbert and A. Litchfield, ―A Novel Method for Decentralised Peer -
to - Peer Software License Validation Using Cryptocurrency Blockchain
T echnology,‖ no. January, pp. 27–30, 2015.
[18] C. T. Nguyen and D. T. Hoang, ―Proof-of-Stake Consensus Mechanisms
for Future Blockchain Networks : Fundamentals, Applications and
Opportunities,‖ vol. 7, pp. 85727–85745, 2019.
[19] S. Farshidi, S. Jansen, S. Espana, and J. Verkleij, ―Decision Support for
Blockchain Platform Selection: Three Industry Case Studies,‖ IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. PP, pp. 1–20, 2020.
[20] N. S. Selamat, F. H. M. Ali, and N. A. A. Othman, ―Polymorphic
malware detection,‖ 2016 6th Int. Conf. IT Converg. Secur. ICITCS
2016, Nov. 2016.
[21] M. A. M. Yusof, F. H. M. Ali, and M. Y. Darus, ―Detection and Defense
Algorithms of Different Types of DDoS Attacks Using Machine
Learning,‖ Lect. Notes Electr. Eng., vol. 488, pp. 370–379, 2018.
[22] S. M. Jawi and F. H. M. Ali, ―Rules and results for SSL/TLS
nonintrusive proxy based on JSON data,‖ 2016 6th Int. Conf. IT
Converg. Secur. ICITCS 2016, Nov. 2016.
[23] M. Azizi and M. Ariffin, ―Data Leakage Detection in Cloud Computing
Platform Investigation and Review of Cloud Computing Security View
project,‖ Artic. Int. J. Adv. Trends Comput. Sci. Eng., vol. 8, no. 1, pp.
400–408, 2019.
[24] I. Bentov, C. Lee, and A. Mizrahi, ―Proof of Activity : Extending
Bitcoin ‘ s Proof of Work via Proof of Stake,‖ no. 240258, pp. 1–19,
2013.
[25] W. Viriyasitavat and D. Hoonsopon, ―Journal of Industrial Information
Integration Blockchain characteristics and consensus in modern business
processes,‖ J. Ind. Inf. Integr., vol. 13, no. June 2018, pp. 32–39, 2019.
[26] A. Banerjee, Blockchain with IOT: Applications and use cases for a new
paradigm of supply chain driving efficiency and cost, 1st ed., vol. 115.
Elsevier Inc., 2019.
[27] S. Nakamoto, ―Bitcoin : A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,‖ 2008.
[28] Ethereum, ―Ethereum Whitepaper | Ethereum.org,‖ 2013. [Online].
Available: https://ethereum.org/whitepaper/. [Accessed: 11-Jun-2020].
[29] E. Deirmentzoglou and G. Papakyriakopoulos, ―A Survey on Long-
Range Attacks for Proof of Stake Protocols,‖ IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp.
28712–28725, 2019.
[30] A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov, ―Ouroboros : A
Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol,‖ 2019.
[31] V. Buterin and V. Griffith, ―Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget,‖ pp. 1–
10, 2019.
[32] C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, ―Multi-objective decision making–methods
and application. A state-of-the-art study,‖ New York Springer-Verlag,
1981.
[33] W. Burkhard, ―Monitoring Charitable Organizations: Criteria and
Assessment Methods,‖ Comp. Gen. Pharmacol., no. March, pp. 25–26,
2003.
[34] M. Donazzan, N. Erkal, and B. H. Koh, ―Impact of rebates and refunds
on contributions to threshold public goods: Evidence from a field
experiment,‖ South. Econ. J., vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 69–86, 2016.
[35] J. A. List and D. Lucking-Reiley, ―The effects of seed money and
refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university
capital campaign,‖ J. Polit. Econ., vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 215–233, 2002.