That is really a sad state of affairs. You can create something that helps and is used by millions of people in the world, but unless those people have disposable income, you're likely screwed as far as earning enough to keep doing it. Better do something that a much smaller number of rich white people will pay you for instead.
If people don't have money, it means this should be a financially backed non-profit, or the underlying issues should be fixed first. It's not sad that you can't make money where there is none.
You would be surprised how much aggregate purchasing power "poor people" have.
As someone that lives in a third world country, the biggest companies are those that sell lots of products to the masses - not the boutique shops that sell to "middle & upper classes". i.e. the "bottom of the pyramid". In fact, Carlos Slim (the richest man in the world) has a ton of companies that sell to the bottom of the pyramid, and he is doing fine ;)
The businesses, here, that target the middle-to-upper classes tend to struggle.
So I am fairly certain there is a way to monetize this.
In fact, some users do want to pay to keep their site alive. So we just need to balance the amount that is paid and make sure resources are effectively allocated.
So do many other companies in many other countries - including utilities in the US - but the owners are not the richest people in the world. In fact, they probably don't come in the top 10.
I say that to say that having a monopoly is not a guarantee of maximum success.
