What to do with leftover dream tokens? - first orientation
!!!VOTING IS LIVE NOW!!!
What are we discussing?
Here we discuss and decide with Kiez Burn Participants what is going to happen with leftover tokens.
Why are we discussing that here?
Because decentralizing the art grants situation and letting the community have a say in what's going to be on the event was the core idea of the dreams platform. Hence they should also have a say in what is going to happen with unspent tokens. This is in line with consensual do-ocracy.
If we're so radically do-ocracy why don't we leave unspent tokens unspent?
- Leaving thousands of euros on the bankaccount of the Verein makes virtually no sense at all and also might come with implication in terms of taxing, finances and Vereinsrecht
- It is in no ones interest that we save up money from tickets that people bought for this year and not use it for the experience ticket holders paid for. There is no force to vote. Not using the money people paid because they have not used their tokens would be punishing the whole community for the non-volunteering of the inactives. This would be a minus-minus situation
- Veto by one Dream Guide. They will not walk up to dreams which did not get funded and tell them 'Well there is money but we decided to not spend it because people did not use dreams enough."
What are leftover tokens?
There are going to be unspent tokens (aka tokens that never got spent in the first place), Tokens that belong to yet unsold tickets (we are basically sold out tho) AND there are going to be 'comeback-tokens' (aka tokens that got assigned to projects which did not hit minimum funding).
How is the decision making process?
- We gathered Ideas with the dream whisperers (done)
- Gathering Ideas from the community (done)
- Getting some input from tech, finances and other positions wether or not they are actually ABLE (tech wise) to work with the ideas presented (semi-done)
Have an anonymous dot voting (In Progress)
Apply the options in their ranked choice outcomes until most tokens are spent (after voting ended)
Important: Some of the options available can be implemented parallel or can be used in conjunction. Also we will most likely run through more than one round of distributing leftover tokens. F.e. the first choice is to fund all public service upgrades up to their minimum funding goal. This will not use up all the art grant. In this case we will then switch to the 2nd favorite option. Another option would be the proposed algorithm which would take care of distributing ALL the tokens
Chances
This is a chance to cancel out biases in the token system. Biases that can be cancelled: Camp bias (camp-based projects have a tendency that camp members spend their tokens on their own camp), Recency and Latency Bias, Bias towards entertainment and away from public service, Bias for big projects which need a lot of funding.
There is a good chance that 30%-50% of tokens will go unspent, especially since this is the first year we are using the Dreams platform. Once we have all the ideas, we we should rank them - as there will probably be several ways to distribute funds before we run out.
Current ideas
The ideas are sorted. They are ranked after dot-voting results among dream guides/whisperers from favorite to least favorite. Options 6 to 8 did not get any votes from dream guides.
- Funding public service upgrades which are within 25% margin of their minimum goal
- Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal
- Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal
- Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage
- Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding.
- Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded
- Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to all projects which have **not yet met their minimum funding goa
- Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding
Some Ressources & Links
Borderland Post Refarding Redistribution Decisions made there 2018
walto Sun 28 Apr 2019 8:59PM
yes, lots of improvements to be made :) We even have a tag "learnings for future" in the dreams group :) Feel free to add to it, although this one is already on our radar quite prominently. Here is the full discussion on them: https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/OshiwAeI/infrastructure-dreams-let-s-fund-them-
Btw. you cannot undo your granting of hearts? Didn't know that...
Poll Created Tue 30 Apr 2019 10:00AM
Community Voting - What happens to leftover tokens. Closed Fri 3 May 2019 8:00AM
Thank you every one for voting and putting in your opinion.
The idea of the algorithm, which distributes tokens relative to the amount they already got, got the most votes. Shortly after that, people seem to want to fund projects which already hit their minimum.
Random distribution options got the least dots in this vote.
Only 17% of people put down their vote. Collum gave an explanation for that, which I account for the lack of participation. Next to general voting laziness.
There was a lot to learn from this poll on several levels. On a personal level I am annoyed by all the really good suggestions dropping in after the voting started. BUT of course I am more annoyed by the timing than I am by the actual content of the suggestions. Written out opinions and discussions which have been had in the community, here in the thread and on meetings, will be taken into account.
On a personal level, I would have wished some of the great suggestions were made during the two weeks the discussion about this topic was up before the vote. I clearly see how this vote could have been way better structured/worded/presented and I hoped to kinda make it 'better' by having a discussion leading to it. That all the suggestions about how to make the vote better (choose better options, less complicated & co) came during the vote itself was a bit of a shame but I guess that's also normal.
We tagged this post 'learning for the future' and I surely took a lesson in decision making processes.
Dream voting is going to end in a couple of days and we are looking forward to a lot of funded projects already. :)
Next steps: Finances, Tech & Dream Guides will work hard to get projects funded and redistribute leftover tokens. :)
Poll to decide what happens with unspent tokens.
To read up on the discussion so far please read this discussion. I recommend reading up on the discussion because there have been a lot of valid opinions on different options.
Some important additional information:
- This poll is going to have a huge influence on the decision on how to distribute unspent tokens. But people like finance lead, backend tech and dream guides might weight in on the decision: Their work is directly connected with the outcome of this decision as they are needed to enable the decision to come into practice
- I am going to use dot-voting so every voting person can make a weighted vote
- I deleted the 'public service upgrade' option from the voting because public service and infrastructure have reached their minimum funding through preassigned production tokens
- Aiming to announce a decision before the voting on dreams end
- As I cannot enter links in a proper format in the answering-options, here is the link to the algorithm proposed by @vladimireske
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Points | Mean | Voters | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Using the proposed algorithm (see link above!) | 29.9% | 61 | 2.1 | 29 | ||
|
|
Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding | 28.4% | 58 | 2.0 | 29 | ||
|
|
Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding. | 13.7% | 28 | 1.0 | 29 | ||
|
|
Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal | 11.8% | 24 | 0.8 | 29 | ||
|
|
Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage | 8.3% | 17 | 0.6 | 29 | ||
|
|
Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal | 4.9% | 10 | 0.3 | 29 | ||
|
|
Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded | 1.5% | 3 | 0.1 | 29 | ||
|
|
Randomly distributing leftover tokens to all projects which have not yet met their minimum funding goal | 1.5% | 3 | 0.1 | 29 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 0 | 0 | 140 |
29 of 169 people have participated (17%)
Karlo Walz Tue 30 Apr 2019 1:21PM
| 6 - Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding | |
|
|
|
| 2 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding. | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Using the proposed algorithm (see link above!) | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens to all projects which have not yet met their minimum funding goal | |
|
|
I do not recommend or favour a logic which supports a lot od dreams just above the minimum. to get minimum is a pain in the ass for the build team as it might mean that the parties involved have to decide if they wanna fund the gap which results that the artist have to fund the art for all which is unfair.
re allocation should only happen if community has proven that they want the dream by reaching already the minimum.
leftover is an extra to reach full token request only
Deleted User Tue 30 Apr 2019 3:19PM
| 8 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens to all projects which have not yet met their minimum funding goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding. | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Using the proposed algorithm (see link above!) | |
|
|
Go team random!
Daniel Regev Wed 1 May 2019 9:49AM
| 8 - Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens to all projects which have not yet met their minimum funding goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding. | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Using the proposed algorithm (see link above!) | |
|
|
I don't think it's healthy/sustainable to have looot of projects which are "just above minimum". Looks like a lot of dreams already hit minimum - I'd like these dreams to be super mega cool and not "barely making it" (having a hard time and probably not doing it again). At this point, with many Dreams hitting minimum, it's time for quality>quantity. Esp after Dream submission deadline was extended so much.
It's really hard to plan a budget and it's great when you have a bit more flexibility!
Whitney Wed 1 May 2019 10:20AM
| 4 - Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding. | |
|
|
|
| 4 - Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Using the proposed algorithm (see link above!) | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens to all projects which have not yet met their minimum funding goal | |
|
|
I think the best way would be to distribute the tokens equally among all projects that have reached their minimum funding OR are just a few tokens away from the minimum. Because imagine you’re a project that’s just below the cutoff, you only need 10 more tokens or whatever, it would seem unfair that you don’t get any boost when there are so many unspent tokens to be redistributed. And then if projects fold because they don’t get enough funding, their tokens can be equally redistributed again.
Deleted User Wed 1 May 2019 10:55AM
| 8 - Using the proposed algorithm (see link above!) | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens to all projects which have not yet met their minimum funding goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding. | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage | |
|
|
Go team random!
Jan-Christian Kaspareit Thu 2 May 2019 11:06AM
| 1 - Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding | |
|
|
|
| 1 - Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding. | |
|
|
|
| 1 - Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 1 - Using the proposed algorithm (see link above!) | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens to all projects which have not yet met their minimum funding goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal | |
|
|
I am pro diversity. So the more projects we can find the better.
Still I think, that dreams that reached minimum funding should still be able to get some more love. The minimum funding is a pretty random amount for a lot of the bigger dreams. Even for our smallish saloon we'll spend at least 2000€ to bring it to Kiezburn. I can imagine the financial effort to create something big like Underworld.
Definitely distribute tokens to infrastructure! I think it's okay, if there is some manual input.
Bobschi Thu 2 May 2019 6:10PM
| 3 - Popularity based system - prioritizing projects which have a lot of individual contributers instead of projects with a few generous backers and fund them up until their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 3 - Funding projects that have already met their minimum, but could be even better with more funding | |
|
|
|
| 2 - Using the proposed algorithm (see link above!) | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are within 10% margin of their minimum goal to get them the minimum funding. | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Priority system within the ranking system -> e.g., projects are ranked on priority of lowest % needed to meet the minimum funding. E.g., projects with smallest % to meet their minimum get prioritized over those with larger percentage | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Funding dreams which are NOT part of a camp but brought by individuals which are within 20% of their minimum goal | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens** to ALL projects which are not fully funded | |
|
|
|
| 0 - Randomly distributing leftover tokens to all projects which have not yet met their minimum funding goal | |
|
|
I am missing an option to prioritise camp dreams. It's more likely that a group of people will show up, and will show up again.
Owl · Thu 25 Apr 2019 9:18PM
maybe a bit off-topic: improvements for next year could include to better mark infrastructure projects, and maybe collect the dreams first and then have a specific voting phase. I've spent all my Hearts last week, and after that some more interesting projects (which are not infrastructure) showed up. If I could/had relied on that infrastructure projects would profit from leftover hearts, I would had sent one heart or two into a different direction. Now I can't help anymore ... :-/