How we're choosing a hunger-relief partner.

First, the current state: we have not named a partner. The $8 earmarked from every subscription accrues in a dedicated meal fund and we publish a monthly fund report. That fund pools toward a $50,000/year commitment — the commitment we have chosen to reach before signing, so a partner is approached with a year of funding behind us rather than a promise. Once we cross it, we sign with the charity we select, meals ship at the agreed per-meal cost, and real partner receipts publish alongside the fund report.

Six criteria the choice will be made on.

First, direct impact per dollar. The organization should convert money to meals, or an equivalent food-security outcome, with minimal overhead.

Second, global reach. LADLE has subscribers in roughly 40 countries; a single-country food bank felt narrow.

Third, a published per-meal cost. This is what lets us make the "10 meals per subscription minimum" claim in concrete terms. Until a partner is named, $0.80/meal is our working peg — the figure large humanitarian food programs commonly publish. If the partner's number differs, we re-do the math publicly.

Fourth, receipts. The partner has to return a unique reference for every donation that subscribers can verify directly with the partner's donor support. That verifiability is the whole trust mechanism this company is built on.

Fifth, audited numbers. Independently audited, publicly disclosed financials.

Sixth, no entanglements. No political, religious, or corporate ties that would give a subscriber pause.

We are not publishing the shortlist while conversations are open. Naming organizations we haven't signed with would be a trust signal we haven't earned. When the choice is made, the reasoning publishes at /impact/choosing-a-partner with the scores.