The Sia Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
854329649
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Randolph, MA, USA
Phone
7818053482
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Science and Technology N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,298,041
Expenses
$4,842,619
Assets
$42,607,328
Liabilities
$58,026

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nate Maninger (President/Core Developer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nate Maninger (President/Core Developer): $340,954 total reported compensation
  • Alex Freska (Front-end Engineer): $287,038 total reported compensation
  • Luke Champine (Treasurer/Core Developer): $285,539 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Sia Foundation, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit dedicated to supporting the Sia cloud storage network and educating the public about the urgency of data privacy and ownership.

What it reported doing in 2024

Grants Program - Program dedicated to funding research, development, developer tools, and anything else that will support and further our mission of user-owned data.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38.5%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 60.6%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.8; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 44.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 72.7% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38.5% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $341K · 6 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $893K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.