Seems like anonymity solves all of these (but introduces some other challenges)
Also, one wonders why so many big charity donors are anonymous.
Not only asking, but giving is a potentially sensitive act that sometimes (perhaps from modesty) demands discretion/anonymity.
When giving money to a homeless person I notice I'll prefer to do it when nobody is looking, and move on quickly, avoiding too much of a "thank-you".
It's not just that act has to be "Kantian".
There's definitely something about giving that carries the same barrier, and it's remedied by anonymity. I'll put cash money in a charity box, but would never use an identifiable card/digital method.
Charities ought to know this if they're wise. that the "cash-less" society is the death sentence for them.
Sometime in the early 2000s the most of British charity was transformed (dragged through the mud) by corporate whackjobs, PR gurus, and Feng Shui design soothsayers to align their ley-lines and whatnot.
Charity shops stopped having any actual bargains in them, and the money boxes we used to enjoy putting spare change into vanished.
They made up all kinds of bizarre, frankly unbelievable stories about how the staff "weren't trained to handle cash" and that robbers would steal their charity tins (in broad daylight outside Waterloo station under 200 CCTV cameras... like Jimmy Reckon!)
Then all those charity scandals about abuse and corruption came out.
Heartbreaking what a few clueless, vicious vandals and scumbags in suits can do to brand reputations earned over centuries.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/secret...