Gold Mind Group Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 883937257
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Mt Charleston, NV, USA
- Phone
- 6267129118
- Rating
- 37
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Counseling, Support Groups
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $114,302
- Expenses
- $59,319
- Assets
- $54,983
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Steven Zhang (President)
People named in this filing
- Steven Zhang (President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To advance education, scientific innovation, and charitable purposes by identifying, incubating, supporting, and accelerating frontier technology ventures that address critical humanitarian challenges. Gold Mind bridges emerging technologies with real-world societal needs by providing education, mentorship, research, technical assistance, and startup incubation programs focused on improving healthcare, education, economic opportunity, environmental sustainability, public safety, and other areas that benefit the public.
What it reported doing in 2025
Gold Mind incubated and supported the development of Workstance, a workforce technology initiative focused on improving employment access and workforce outcomes through technology. During the year, Gold Mind provided startup incubation, mentorship, strategic guidance, and operational support to advance the organization's development and public-benefit objectives. Workstance received $54,280.43 in incubation support, which was used to support product development, organizational growth, and mission-driven programming aligned with Gold Mind's charitable and educational purposes.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 82
- Sustainability: 75
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 48.1%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.