TIME's Second Philanthropy List Puts Influence Ahead of Dollars

TIME published its second annual TIME100 Philanthropy list on May 14, 2026, and the most revealing thing about it is who made it. The class is unranked, grouped as Leaders, Titans, Trailblazers and Innovators, with no ordering by the size of anyone's check. It includes an AI-safety funder, celebrities whose foundations build local infrastructure, and the Dells, who seed investment accounts that children cannot touch until they turn 18. A list built a decade ago would likely have ranked donors by dollars given, the way the Chronicle of Philanthropy's Philanthropy 50 still does. TIME's list selects its honorees, without ranking, as the people it judges most influential in shaping the future of giving.

The reframe matters because published lists have long shaped the public definition of what counts as major giving, and the best known of them, the Chronicle of Philanthropy's Philanthropy 50, has cataloged the donors who gave the most since 2000. On that list, the measure is the size of the gift. The new list, which selects for influence rather than amount, implies something else, namely that a dollar matters in proportion to the territory it opens and the practice it changes. That is a standard the dollar alone cannot satisfy, because a large gift to a well-worn cause opens no new territory at all.

For nonprofit and foundation professionals, the list is a quiet warning about positioning. An organization that pitches funders on the scale of its budget is selling against the old rubric. An organization that can show which practice it is changing or which territory it is opening is selling against the new one, and the new one is the one TIME's list points toward in public.

For digital and crypto-native giving leaders, the shift in rubric confirms what the infrastructure argument has always assumed, because the case for on-chain giving has always rested on opening new territory rather than on giving more dollars: reaching donors who cannot access traditional vehicles, verifying outcomes without intermediaries, and building giving rails that persist after any single institution decides to close. A sector list that selects for influence over volume now carries the argument you have been making into a mainstream outlet.

For donors and family-office advisors, the list is a signal worth carrying to clients, because the prestige a major gift buys is being repriced. A client who wants to be seen as a serious philanthropist can no longer arrive there by size alone, which means the advisor conversation has to include what the gift will change, not only what it will fund.

For corporate giving and CSR leaders, the influence rubric lands directly on program strategy, because a corporate philanthropy program that measures success by total dollars matched or employees participating is using the metric TIME's list set aside. The programs that will define the next decade of corporate giving are the ones that can show which practice changed, which community's capacity grew, or which field now works differently because the company was in it. Volume is the old story. Territory is the new one.

For NGOs and international organizations, meaning nonprofits that work outside government, many of them across country borders, the influence frame changes the funding conversation in a specific way, because organizations operating across borders often carry strong evidence of territory opened and practice shifted. The NGO that can show it changed how a government delivers a service, or how a community manages a resource, is the organization the new rubric was built for, which means NGOs that learn to tell the story in influence terms rather than budget terms are well placed to meet the standard.

The diagnostic question for any organization or donor reading the list is simple. If your largest gift this year were described in one sentence, would the sentence name a sum, or would it name something that did not exist before the gift?

"The new media frame for major giving is less about how much and more about how much new territory the dollar opened, and that is a rubric the dollar by itself cannot pass."EILEEN HERNANDEZ, THE STRATEGIC STEWARD

Share this𝕏 / TwitterLinkedIn

This is the Strategic Steward argument in miniature. On this list, influence rather than size is the unit of philanthropic seriousness, and the framework that prepares for that shift is the Technological Value Proposition pillar of the DIA Protocol, because value is measured by what the infrastructure enables rather than what the transaction totals.