inaturalist is .org rather than .gov which means that we’re only here discussing the usefulness of money as a measure of usefulness because enough people have voluntarily self-sacrificed to spend their own money on inaturalist. evidently these donors to inaturalist believe it’s useful enough to be worth their sacrifice.
option 1: your beef is with inaturalist donors.
let’s try and narrow it down…
x = donors spend the perfect amount on inaturalist
y = donors spend too many dollars on inaturalist
z = donors spend too few dollars on inaturalist
i’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be concerned about x. so is it y or z? it’s hard for me to imagine you being concerned about donors spending too many dollars on inaturalist, since clearly you believe that inaturalist is useful, given that here you are, using inaturalist.
therefore, z. your beef is that donors aren’t spending enough of their own money on inaturalist. therefore, go ahead and try to persuade them, using your correct information, that they are underestimating the usefulness of inaturalist.
option 2: your beef is with other donors.
perhaps your beef is with people who donate to wikipedia instead of to inaturalist? again, go ahead and try to persuade them, using your correct information, that they are underestimating the usefulness of inaturalist.
perhaps it’s cool and hip to believe that markets solely serve to perpetuate global and social inequalities. but this belief is not based on anything solid. unless i’m mistaken. please think things through and let us know which donors, exactly, your beef is with.