Infrastructure dreams - let's fund them!

W walto Public Seen by 59

Hey folks,

There are a couple of infrastructure dreams to which we have committed to spend Kiez Burn production tokens on. Could we, before we communicate to more ppl to please vote, attribute these tokens to those dreams?

these are the infrastructure dreams with the promised tokens:
- rangers: - 300€ - 113 tokens
- welfare: - 400€ - 151 tokens
- workshop guide booklet: - 650€ - 246 tokens

Gate related: (total 850€)
- wristbands: - 250€ - 95 tokens
- The Monkey Gate Yurt - - 600€ - 227 tokens


The philosophy of putting infrastructure projects on the dreams platform was the following: KBORG funds the minimum amount and then through the dreams platform additional funds can be raised. KBORG only guarantees minimal service.

current situation We did not mean to wait so long with channelling this KBORG money to these projects, I believe we failed there timing-wise. We are now trying to get that done in the fastest way possible with the least "hurt" as possible, by doing it quickly.

what to do now? Publicly saying that we were too late with this, and these are the amounts and that we should better in the future, is the best I can see us do as of now.


Benjamin Föckersperger Mon 22 Apr 2019 11:47PM

i agree. I spent a big part of my tokens on rangers, since I think this is mandatory. I was anyways wondering why those are even in dreams.


Saskia Tue 23 Apr 2019 8:05AM

Daniels point in the discussion is very valid. But - despite the fact that next time everybody knows to make such decisions BEFORE and that they are important and spark emotional reactions and all - there is nothing that can be done to change that right now.

People who were at leads meetings and read protocols were - I think - aware of the idea of pre-funding structures and dreams that are important tho the community.

@benjaminfockersper - These things are in the dreams because KBorg is not making them happen. They happen if community decides they will happen. I do agree tho that having to battle for funding for SUCH an important structure is maybe a tiny bit too much of a task for most people. If you're commited like that you might be part of KBorg or super engaged in your own camp already in a small community like ours.

We absolutley have to discuss on how to do this next time.

For now: I'd go for adding the production tokens in the end. I'd take this as a chance to see how our community is wired & how they decide to spend their tokens under a lack of certainty.
Only important thing: @waldo I saw you put something in the budget sheet (was it rangers of welfare? Cannot look right now). If there is a '-300' added in the budget sheet and then the budget € number from the spreadsheet is transferred over to dreams, aren't the production tokens factored in? Or is this another 300 Euro that you substracted there?


walto Tue 23 Apr 2019 10:09AM

I have also added the gate related dreams


Daniel Regev Tue 23 Apr 2019 3:07PM

In the current (problematic) situation, I kind of agree that if we send a personal email to all those who have a ticket for Kiez Burn, encouraging them to vote (by the way, I think it's important that people who did vote, will NOT get this email, this is pure spam - is there a way @henrik ? Maybe even manually, if not?), the KBorg funding should be transparent to these "new" voters, and be shown in the platform.

At the same time, I encourage people to get involved in the discussion @saskia31 started about how to distribute leftover tokens (I can't find the link, can someone please post it here). If we already failed at being fair&transparent, let's try to minimize the fail and be as fair as we can.


[deactivated account] Wed 24 Apr 2019 8:20AM

@waldo @danielregev @henrik @saskia31 I agree these need funding - especially if the means are there. BUT this allocation of KBORG tokens skews the whole voting process immensely, invalidating the experiment completely. I propose that if the three projects above are financed (artificially-undemocratically) from KBORG funds, they SHOULD BE REMOVED from voting Dreams platform (coming back to the point raised and discussed earlier with @henrik who mentioned this was an experiment). Also @waldo can we please choose the eco toilets as a more pertinent infrastructure please, over the printed brochure? Or make a vote? I strongly believe that these are necessary infrastructure that aligns to KBurn vision way more than printed guides. Speaking of which, can we please have a PDF/self-printout guide? 1000 of these will be printed, half of them used and all of them MOOPED - all for a steep price tag that could go towards more sustainable projects (eco toilets!!) (in my individual opinion)


walto Wed 24 Apr 2019 9:29AM

The philosophy of putting infrastructure projects on the dreams platform was the following: KBORG funds the minimum amount and then through the dreams platform additional funds can be raised. KBORG only guarantees minimal service.

current situation We did not mean to wait so long with channelling this KBORG money to these projects, I believe we failed there timing-wise. I am now trying to get that done in the fastest way possible with the least "hurt" as possible, by doing it quickly.

what to do now? Publicly saying that we were too late with this, and these are the amounts and that we should better, is the best I can see us do as of now. I personally feel this is already an improvement versus last year where there was ZERO transparency on where which money went to which projects.

Regarding decentralization: we realized that not everything can be decentralized and that decentralization is a process, a balance and a movement. A lot of things got decentralized, and some, where we thought we could decentralize, got centralized, "build" being one of those.

Regarding budget: this was the board's decision. So in terms of who got to decide where the money went: the board which was elected end of last year. These kinds of global decisions on the budget were not decentralized this year, and I personally do not see them getting decentralized in the future. I invite you to partake in the next elections and raise these topics during the general assembly end of this year.

If there are serious concerns about artists getting demotivated by all of the above, then first of all, I apologize. Second: if the transparancy here is hurting, I only see as an alternative to make this intransparent again, like last year, and silently fund these projects. I do not see the potential to go back on our commitments in terms of money promised to people & projects .

some specific points
@alina every ticket holder got about 25% of their ticket value available for dream funding, we total almost 3x the amount for art grant funding this year. How would partially funding these infrastructure projects, when only 20% of participants have voted, invalidate the whole dreams project?
@alina the eco-toilets are funded outside of the dreams platform, the 2 toilet dreams have to do with deco & pissoirs? (ie: non-essentials)


Remy Schneider Wed 24 Apr 2019 10:39AM

@waldo - I agree with your comments, and I also think (having been involved with Art Grants last year) that we had exactly these conversation except in a very closed setting. We can not expect to fund all of the Dreams, and we also can not expect all the tokens to be spent. At some point we can only take community input (which we are doing now), encourage people to vote (several posts about this already + upcoming email), and then figure out the best way to ensure that things are funded in a systematic way.

I am actually super interested to see what the data says once dream voting is closed. there are several methods which we can pick from to distribute the left-over tokens. DPW projects may or may not get a priority, but it should be considered that infrastructural projects are in many ways the most inclusive (my opinion). Some of these discussions have happened before - here are some of the comments from Borderland for reference (we don't have to take them - just helps to inform:

We won't repeat things exactly this way next year to @danielregev's point, however the way we did it the last two years had so many more flaws (super stressfully and in-transparently) that I am thrilled about how this discussion is going.

A final note that at some point we will have to take a position, and that will happen within the next week. How we choose to do things in the future can also be documented for improvement in the following years. I have full confidence that we will come up with the best solution possible this year already.


[deactivated account] Wed 24 Apr 2019 12:29PM

@waldo Want to say a big YES to transparency and again big thank you for initiating this wild experiment for the community. It is painful now, in three years this will be fluid and awesome. Agree with @remyschneider - last year's art funnel was not working properly. This is way better. Additional comment: Maybe the lack of clarity and tricky semantics do not help? Something to pay attention to? The toilet dream is called "The dream of eco toilets". I thought this meant we went with TOI TOI solution (other toilet dreams depicting TOI TOI in space does not help???) and wanted to add some self-built eco-urinals to that. The other two should be clearly marked as UPGRADE - as in, WELFARE UPGRADE or RANGERS UPGRADE. As in, make it clear the basics are there/financed by Kborg, but there is an option to upgrade the service to a better tent/more structure/etc. if people want to put their votes there. Also, still resisting the printed program as a necessary infrastructure piece to get Kborg token allocation with all my might! It's crazy moopy! It's getting more tokens than all the other stuff! Why??? Let's go paperless please or print out bare necessities = one big beautiful map to post at Arbeitsamt ;)


Benjamin Föckersperger Tue 23 Apr 2019 10:11AM

I suggest using/distributing the infrastructure tokens now and clearly mark in the dreams, that this is "additional" funding to make it even cooler.


Daniel Regev Wed 24 Apr 2019 8:55AM

I agree with @alina and as I was mentioning in a different discussion [], this KBorg funding makes things quite unfair and hurting the process immensely. We are risking seriously demotivating artists. We are declaring "radical decentralization" but de-facto not going for it, and it kinda bothers. Alina's point about the toilets VS guides also touches on the "de-hierarchy" VS. "actually yes hierarchy" - who gets to decide which infrastructures are more important than the others, why, and is this process transparent and decentralized?
I LOVE LOVE LOVE the WWW guide. do we have to have them for this Burn to happen? NO! We can def have a PDF/self-printout version and that's it. Hundreds of Euros that can go somewhere else... It's cool to be a dream, but for the dream to be funded by KBorg? This is why I was using the words unfair & not transparent earlier in the discussion. It stings quite hard.


Benjamin Föckersperger Wed 24 Apr 2019 12:45PM

Upgrade suggestion = perfect.
Printing: Some people don't want their phone on burns so I suggest having paper copies for the whatwherewhen guide + big printed timesheets in a central area for everyone to look at.
Save paper but have it available for those, who want it.


walto Tue 23 Apr 2019 10:05AM

@benjaminfockersper - The reasoning of putting the infrastructure dreams on the dreams platform, was to enable these infrastructure dreams to collect more money for further upgrades than the basics provided by the production tokens.

Given that philosophy, why would we wait with adding the production tokens? This will just confuse more people... And btw: in the end we might want to add our production tokens and not be able to because it would be over the maximum...

But maybe I am not seeing it, what would be the drawback of giving those tokens now?


walto Tue 23 Apr 2019 4:02PM

Let's do our best :) Let's craft a good message here :)


Daniel Regev Tue 23 Apr 2019 4:00PM

Dear @waldo , I was referring specifically to the issue of transparency & fairness around the comms withing the platform regarding KBorg funding some projects. I think it was a fail - call it a learning - I don't think the wording matters much, it has been done. Let's move on.
If it's a success in terms of transparency & fairness (and eventually more art + easier receipts process) we shall find out in the end. Therefore having these current discussions is valuable and I encourage everyone to get involved so the community decides.


[deactivated account] Wed 24 Apr 2019 1:28PM

Yes @benjaminfockersper I am that no-phone person, so last year at Borderland I printed out the program two-sided on recycled paper in B&W at home and shared it with a few neighbours, too. Which was nice :)


walto Tue 23 Apr 2019 3:51PM

I do not think we are failing Daniel. The level of transparancy & fairness in this whole process is already much much higher than last years. The amount of volunteers that got involved in the process, and the amount of art grants, is much much higher than last year.

This year's process is a success thusfar. We have overlooked some aspects (which we also expected to happen), but those are learnings, and not failings.

this is Saskia's post: