Despair without knowing it in poor gifts

First, it can be linked to the verse. Although, in simple terms, it seems that the lesson from the verse is only needed to teach that there is no obligation to give them to the poor (to seek the poor), since it says, “Leave them alone” (and do not give them). Therefore, it means that once it is renewed, there is no obligation to give, it is already a profligate and not from the renewal of the verse. I saw in the Path of Faith that it was written that the poor near know and have probably despaired, and only in the poor far away is it despair without knowing. But it seems urgent to me. It is more likely in my opinion that although gifts from the poor are from the wealth of the poor tribe, there is no real ownership here, only the right to take. In any case, a pauper is not required. Either because the owner is a pauper and now has no poor claimants, or because even if it is from the wealth of the poor tribe, there is no tangible ownership here (if only because there are many owners here and there is no defined head who should despair. They do not have a head of the tribe), and therefore despair without knowledge is enough to turn them into paupers. And this is of course also according to the law that despair without knowledge is not despair, with the wealth of the poor tribe, despair is.