Bytecode Alliance Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863131901
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Wilmington, DE, USA
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$269,793
Expenses
$268,399
Assets
$994,032
Liabilities
$138,342

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Oscar Spencer (Director)
  • Pat Hickey (Director)
  • Tyler McMullen (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Non-profit supporting software development projects, their communities, and related activities

What it reported doing in 2025

All of the bytecode alliance foundation's activities are dedicated to creating secure new software foundations, building on the standards such as webassembly system interface. Webassembly, developed initially to run untrusted code inside web browsers and subsequently adlopted by all major browers, has unique qualifies that make it an attractive safe and secure general-purpose computing platform at all scales, from small embedded devices to global data centers. The bytecode alliance and its member organizations are currently collaborating on runtimes that can execute webassembly applications and components, runtime enablers that allow portable generation of webassembly code accross operating systems and runtimes, and language tooling to integrate webassembly as a target environment for programming languages and software development toolchains.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.7; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 12 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.