If our project gets too many tokens, for example with this random prcrss or whatever I would like to donate the tokens to another dream. In this way t would be nice to have this chance of redistributing. at the same time i do not know how tokens are translatd into euro which i would like to know in advance ;-)

I would propose that the core team do get a few mire tokens they could use for public service dreams.
unspend tokens shouldremain unspend. the question is a bit the timing. why do you limite the time to spend the tokens. I would suggest the tokens can be used till kiezburn will start.

1 Token is 2,64 Euros

Dont forget the tokens of underfinanced projects!

I would suggest the following system:
1. Distribute all the leftover token based on some system (any system)
2. Take a project with lowest finance rate and redistribute its tokens among other projects.
3. Repeat until all tokens distributed or no more projects left.

Concerning the algorithm, I would rather go for relative distribution. Say 1000 tokens are invested by users, 2000 are left. so for each 1 token a projects has I would give 2 points from the pool 2000/1000, until the project reaches its minimum/maximum target.

Hey @saskia31 , thanks so much for this post, I think it's crucial. I've been thinking about this and was wondering what's the plan for all the leftover tokens (there will be A LOT of them). There are also different kinds of "leftovers" (e.g those of people who didn't vote, but also those of projects who were not funded".
To be honest, this one is really difficult.
I am quite uncomfortable with prioritizing some projects over others because they are "infrastructure" or what-ever (#1). If KBorg decided on de-centralization then that should be like that all the way, and not do a d-tour now by prioritizing those things (rangers, welfare, wristbands etc) over others. I feel that's not fair, and not consensual.
Also #2 is quite problematic - if the system says 10 tokens per person, then this is the system. This suggestion could be good in case of a tie, serving as a tie-break, but def not to decide who will get more leftover tokens! This is very unfair and basically changes the system at the last minute with a huge bias.
The rest (#3-#8) makes more sense to me but i found it also quite unclear in some cases... "get prioritized" is very generalizing. I want this to be fair, and to be fair it has to be clear, so would be cool if more people get involved in the discussion!

Another important point to think of, is how many projects are likely to "drop/skip/pass" in case they get only their minimum or a tiny bit more. I forecast a few of these cases. Would be shame if KB top-up a project so it can reach the minimum, but then having the dreamer passing/skipping. So maybe also another communication round by the dream-guides with their dreamers could be useful (at some point, i'm not sure which) to check on how projects are doing in terms of that.

I personally struggle to formulate an opinion before voting ends. Would be interesting to have some scenarios play out.

I would follow 2 ideas. a) if a dream did not get the minimum tokens we give them back to the original owner and he/she can do what they want. b) we male a pdf booklet with all dreams and send to every who still have tokens as a second cycle to support dreams with tokens.
finally I would then change the exchange rate for tokens to align 50% of the gap, assign another 20% to essential dreams and keep 30% for overspending dreams to get these covered after the burn (postdream-assignment).

The goal would be to communicate a final yes/no + exact amount for every dreamer after the deadline ends. We would want to avoid another round of voting.

Here is an interesting post on how Borderland did it in their second year of using the dreams platform: https://talk.theborderland.se/d/2UvtMkJy/state-of-g?fbclid=IwAR3fr6UO2H1U_RlnODW7dtzeIvaRlX_SFMMXvHDDAfVNOCuMV_Nn9kyKazM

@vladimireske - you have made some interesting statements about using a specific algorithm to redistribute tokens. Do you think it is possible to make your suggestion a option in the dot vote I am going to set up? If yes, could you add it to the list in the post above? ;)

Sure, I did some thinking, trying around and will formulate my thoughts in the evening.

@moony1 - you also mentioned the algorithm to redistribute in a post somewhere else. Is there a link that can be used to put in the dot-voting ?

@saskia31 is it already clear that there is already a decision to either a) redistribute the remaining tokens and why? I remember there was this discussion at some point which tells that radical everything should be a dream and needs voting tokens and b) that there is a algorythm who distributes tokens within his wisdom. The algorithm could use experience from the past or "those who has most will get most" or opposite.. those who got at least will get most or all get even (that means the same amount of tokens")..
The issue is that all of the above methodology has always a good and a bad side..
Thinking that maybe the descision of "how to spend unspend tokens" is one of the most important question I would like to remind you on how we selected the "theme"..
There was even a second round as not all options has been on the table for the same amount of time.
I am very much in favour of do more advertising and also ask people why did they not vote.. maybe there is a technical problem or they do not know and so on..

Hello Karlo,
thanks for raising the question wether or not unspent tokens should be distributed at all. Here is a short answer that is summing up my POV and trying to take into account the POV of others as expressed:
Unspent tokens WILL be distributed. For the following reasons:

• People paid money with their ticket and with that money art and structures and everything should be funded. The money should get used for that. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to let the money sit in the bank and I am pretty sure people involved in finances have no interest in figuring out how to send unspent token-money back to ticket holders AND handle that witht he finanzamt. The finance-team and the board are most impacted by this decision and their consent is necessary for the decision.

• The dream guides and dreamers are the one directly impacted by said decision. I as a dream would guide give a veto / do not consent to the decision to stash the money we got from the tickets and not use it. I will not send a mail to my dreamers saying 'Sorry people, we still have like XYZ euros left but people didn't vote so that's why we keep it in the bank and will not hand it out'. I am, however, willing to tell dreamers that there was a discussion and a decision and that the chosen method of redistributing has not resulted in them getting their minimum funded.

• The decentralization did not mean 'forced participation'. Ticket holders have the opportunity to vote for projects and KBorg does not guarantee a lot of things. That's what decentralization means. But it did not and never meant: "If you don't vote you get NOTHING." and it did not meant "KBorg will not make any decision whatsoever." . Ergo: Everybody who has a ticket also has a voice and is more than welcome to make their opinion known and is more than invited to make every decision regarding KiezBurn as long as consensual doocracy is followed. If a ticketholder decides to abstain from their opportunity to vote on dreams that does not mean that their tokens should go to the void.

To your question regarding the distribution method:
There has been no decision on how to distribute leftover tokens. in the end it will be a decision made by the board / finance team. I am leading the discussion about this decision because I personally feel it is an important topic.

There have been suggestions of algorithms by @vladimireske & @moony1 additonally to the suggestions that are listed under current ideas. <

i also agree that advertising the dreams platform more is crucial! It would be way better for everybody if the community decided what was going to be funded. HOWEVER there are some experiences from other events where they kinda said that reaching 50% of tokens spent would already be a huge success.

Hello Saskia, thanks for your pov. I do not fully agree with sone of the assumptions. Forced participations is a bit hatd in the wording but we all ahre that this is a coworked event and that everybody should participating and even better do volonteering. it might be nice to find out what us the ratio of assigned tokens to all tokens. I do assume we gave 10.000 tokens and ny feeling is that we cover currently less then 15%. so is this 15% at all an indication fir something like a minimum threahold reached? no, not for me...
I fully understand that we better spend the money by the way and I was just thinking a bit in this direction to be a bit more radical.

Currently we are at around 18% of tokens spent.
We also had a short hand-rise yesterday at a meeting to find out who has spend more than half of their tokens. That weren't a lot of people. I for myself have not spent all my tokens as of yet.
Given this, I'd currently that we might hope to end up with 30-50% of tokens spent, if we advertise.

Back to the 'forced participation': Yes, I agree. Everybody is supposed to volunteer and participate. But everybody is free to choose and decide how and when to spend which part of their time and also we do not have a volunteer police punishing people for not participating. So if somebody decides to invest virtually zero hours before the event, not even to distribute dream tokens, it is their choice. Maybe they're the person who takes on a ranger and a shit ninja shift and that's how they decide to participate. Does that mean the money they paid with their ticket should not get distributed to art at all? I don't agree. But I can certainly see the appeal for some people to radically 'in your face' seemingly non-contributing people.

So there is a difference between the two statements:
"You HAVE to spend your tokens and otherwise your part of the money will not be used to fund ANYTHING despite you having paid with your ticket for art and stuff on the event."
or
"There is an OPPORTUNITY for you to participate more directly in the distribution of funds if you choose to invest your time to use your tokens. If you choose not to make a choice, the choice will be made for you." (And how that choice is made on behalf of non-voters is discussed here)

Having a discussion with @waldo, made me think, there is an ultimate way to distribute unspent tokens: return them to the festival guest with a message that there will be no art or music this year. Actually well allined with burning principles. What would u say @karlowalz and @saskia31?

I still have the impression this is a technical issue that peopke did not vote aka spend.
It is again another system and in addition this works only if you use the same email address then for buying the ticket. I would prefer if people can up to when the gate is opening can spend their tokens!!
Every dream knows the sitaution of their tokens and they can decide themselves if they wanna do it or not (aka remove minimum threshold)
you know who has not yet spend any tokens and has not logged in: send them an email and we tell them how it works to sign in and to vote.

@saskia31 here is an sample google sheet which makes token distribution: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ev_9eDO52Izw8UNtXSbcd8vr1lC7oulw34yEdenKeUI

Building it I realized that there is not a single distribution but 3 questions we need to answers:
1. Who to distribute leftover tokens - what is a fair and sane way to do it
2. How to decide which projects wont make it after we have no more tokens to distribute and what to do with their tokens
3. Distributing tokens should we only move projects to their min goal, or try to move all projects to max goal keeping in mind our distribution algorithm

This is 3 questionnaires I would create, and they decide on the formulas for the excel doc and then it is done - token our distributed in a fair mode and transparent mode.

For the sample document:
1. I devided the leftover tokens equally according to how many tokens project got from the votes. Tokens were adjusted to reduce big camp effect by allowing only 3 token per vote.
2. After all tokens were distributed projects with the lowest financed % were dropped first (which is fair, but creates funny side effects).
3. Projects were financed only till their minimum goal

This implementation of algorithm, left 500 out of 1700 tokens undistributed, which have to decided manually; since according to the rules is just fine.

I would personally suggest the following rules for the real distribution:
1. All tokens are distributed equally among all project according to how many tokens they got already - which makes project interested in bootstrapping in the coming two weeks if they wont the project to get financed (o token projects wont get anything). @waldo suggestions the tokens number should be adjusted to the number of votes and maybe an expert modifier score can be added, for instance - main sound stage can get a 20% boost to their tokens from KBorg.
2. After all points distributed drop those first which has the furthest from their goal psychically, so out of two projects one has 100 out of 200, the other 250 out of 400, the second project should be dropped first. Set project points to 0 or to the originally voted amount and ask if they can go with this amount.
3. Finance only to min first, ask projects to reevaluate their min before we go into token redistribution!

It is a long algorithm, but it is complete and fair and answers most of the questions, at least i see no big holes in it for now :)

Thanks for proposing creating this ! Overall, this sounds like a fair and transparent approach to redistribute unspent tokens (Which I fully agree should be spent).
Not very sure about the 'expert modifier score' tho, it is bringing some kind of subjectivity..

If currently at 18% tokens spent, should we postpone the deadline until we reach a certain threshold (that we would define beforehand) ?
I am confident that much more tokens will be spent when the event is approaching.

Agree on expert score, but @karlowalz had a partly valid argument that 20% votes might not be enough to approximate people choice, plus some things are more critical than others. I would put this option on the table to make a smoother transition from no financed projects to amazing event.

@quentinfeugere - there was a poll yesterday and there was a decision to postpone deadline for voting until the 5th. Letting it go much longer is not possible due to the fact that, at some point, all dreamers must be informed about wether and if yes, how much they get funded. They need to start building stuff quickly, after all!

Saskia this is your assumption only but this is not what i think if realisation if a dream. if a dream is not in dull covered you have to think about alternative ways for funding. Independent if 10% or 50% or 90% is covered. minimum hhreshold is just a nice idea but not a funding. No dream would complsin if they finally get more then they could expect today.
I see this as folliws: If you really redistribute tokens with any algorthm starting from 10% and distribute 90% zhen this dream election was a complete disaster.
no excuse!!

@karlowalz this is common concept of accountability and transparency, as a dreamer you ask for money and you promise to deliver a gift. In order to make community be able to make a choice you need to communicate what do you need and for what. Minimum goal is very important, it is a mean of communication, the least amount of resources you need to make your dream happen. You can always set it pretty high, but then it is a game, if the community wont give it to you your dream is not going to happen at all. These are the rules of the game, and they are simple and very fair to all participants (at least I see now big loopholes).

Frankly i dont understand your point if you need more money for the dream set the minimum higher, you can do it any time without re approving your dream..

"promise to deliver a gift.", NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE.
This is not a contract.. this is an intension.. a wish.. whatever..
it is a dream.. bur reality is something else..
If I create a dream which will cost 500 Euro.. and my fellow burners tokens me only 200 .. then. I am not forced to provide 300 out of my own pocket.. just because I set minium to 200. That is just the beginning of the game.. which means I need to think about if I really wanna do it or not..
Even if you finally get 100% of all requested token does not mean that someone is forced to do anything.. maybe he changed his mind.. and will not do anything and that is fine too at least if he tells the KBORG.
The point is that we do not offer a dream and beg for support!
We offer some art.. and it would be nice if our fellow burners might at least wishes that the dream comes true..and at least spend their tokens.
If my fellow burners think that spending tokens is too much work and they want to spend their time with sitting in the sun and making selfies all who wanted to contribute might re-think if gifting something which is unwanted is really a good thing.
What I would like to tell you is . that at the end of a dream someome sit and do have emotions.. and re-distributed tokens are useless..

Absolutely true, 100% with you here.

Well, yeah, redistributing token is like jerking off :)

@vladimireske - I would like to bring the voting online.

I will link to your comment LINK as an answering-option. I hope that works.

If you do not want the answer option in the poll to be a link, can you please provide me with a short (2 lines?) anwering option to sum it up?

I plan to bring the vote online tomorrow by 2pm .

I do not like an algorithm! Every alg is wrong and unfair and intransparent.
if you really wanna redistribute then we should nominate 5 people and they get the chance to grant 100 tokens

Old wizardy way :), not sure about it - too much pressure on the five chosen ones and the ones who will select them, unless you have a list already.

Not sure if joking or serious.

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 ... :-/

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...

@saskia31 Maybe this would be less practical than I realize, or maybe it's kinda too late to consider new options, but what about redistributing the leftover tokens among the people who have spent their tokens/are interested in actively participating in the distribution of grant money, and letting all those people decide how to spend their new little pile of tokens? Or even offering all of those people the option to get a new pile of tokens to spend if they request it, as that way you could be reasonably sure that everyone who gets "extra" tokens will be active and spend them promptly?

This would have the benefit being very simple (conceptually, at least - I don't know if the execution would be difficult) and still being pretty democratic, especially if a reasonably large percentage of ticket holders end up using their tokens. And it's "fair" in the sense that everyone who is interested enough in this topic to participate in the process still gets an equal say in how the money is spent.

@meghan3 - Hei Meghan. Thank you for your input. I think this is an interesting option to consider in the future. I do not intend to chnage voting options after the fact so I will not add this option. The thread and the discussion about leftover tokens has been up and running for a couple of days at that point - that's why I am not adding options that drop in now. I am a bit sad about that tho, because your suggestion is an interesting one and worth taking a look at. I see other disadvantages, but also advantages.

@waldo can we have a 'learning for future' tag here as well?

Yeah, totally understandable - there would have been a better time for me to have thought of and mentioned that idea :)

Why cant we add this? I think this is the best idea yet.
Those who have voted may be more invested in the outcome of what projects we see. Redistribute the tokens to them and let those decide where we invest them

@erinjeavonsfellows

We can't add this because I am against adding it during the running vote. :)

Creating voting options after the vote started is NEVER a good idea and just invalidates the complete vote. We saw what happened with the theme-voting. We do not have the time to re-start the vote, as we are going to need to make a decision about redistribution at the 6th. So the vote will stay as it is!
I am pretty sure meghans suggestion will not go unnoticed and I think, too, that it is a good one. But, again, I was having this thread open and inviting people to offer possible voting options for 14 days before the vote started.

If I allowed new options to be added now, I would need to EITHER allow every new suggestion to be added OR I make a personal judgement wether or not I like the idea enough to be added to the vote each and every time. I hope you can see why both of them are solutions I am not willing to hassle with.

Additionally, the option Meghan suggests would drag the dreams-process to go on for a couple more days. Dream voting ends at the 5th and will not be re-opened.

**But I really like the idea and I think it would be worthwhile to think about an option to do this next year. It would require a vote of several rounds where, each time after a deadline, unspent tokens (as well as tokens belonging to cancelled projects) get redistributed among those who voted.

It is a much much more sophisticated process that certainly needs more planning.

This seems like an interesting and important topic.

I find the information about the topic, and the options presented to vote on, far too complicated. I imagine that most people will read this, think it's important, and then not vote because it's too much work to understand what the options mean. Similarly to what @waldo shared above (hard to form an opinion before voting ends).

I don't have a practical suggestion on how to settle this now. I think that many people have been excluded from participating in this decision because of how it was presented. I'd recommend this be used as a learning for future improvement.

Personally, I'm withdrawing from this process now because I'm unwilling to invest the mental effort to decode this complex set of options.

Thank you for your opinion, callum. Any practical advice on how to make it better next time is highly appreciated.

One idea that comes to mind would be to focus on what people prefer as an outcome:
* As many dreams as possible should be funded to their minimum.
* All dreams should be prioritised by the number of tokens (so if 50% of tokens are allocated, every dream gets double).
* Non camp dreams should get extra credits.

I'd also suggest that it would make sense to decide this before the voting starts for next year. That way people can make decisions based on how the votes will be counted.

Hei Callum,

reading your suggestion I am giving myself a facepalm. Sounds like a WAY better strategy to approach this and I wonder why I haven't had that idea myself. It is much more clear and easy to approach for the voters and the detail questions could have been solved my a smaller number of more deeply involved people. I am absolutley with you here and hope that a suggestion like this pops up BEFORE I initiate such a vote next time. Again, the discussion around this voting and what are the options and all has been up for more than two weeks now and I kinda would have loved to read THIS input of yours before I put the vote online. If I had I would have taken your suggestion without any hesitation.

I also do agree that this decision needs to be made before the dreams voting in general. We are way too late with this. Hopefully we can take a lot of lessons with us for next year. Thank you a lot

Since the objective of the dreams platform is to let the community decide on what gets funded, to deal specifically with the unallocated/un-used tokens, I would assume that current votes are a reflection of what the community wants as a whole, and therefore multiply all votes by total amount of tokens / number of tokens used... after which you will have all tokens allocated, but retain the exact same distribution of tokens across all dreams. After that, you will likely still have a problem with some dreams being over-allocated beyond their maximum, and some dreams still not meet their minimum, which leaves a pool of tokens that have been allocated but still go unused... but that's the case in almost all of the proposed schemes I've read above. At that point, you only have two choices... either you re-allocate tokens randomly (which is essentially equivalent to basing it on how close they are to their minimum), or you re-allocate them non-randomly (which implicitly means you've ranked the projects based on some criteria)... so choose one and go with it.

Dont forget there is not a single music camp financed :facepalm:,

if the pink system wins, i suggest all under-financed projects readjust their minimums.

@saskia31 @callummacdonald thanks for formulating clearly what i tried to tell in my post with calculation algorithm.

The Saloon and the Tripod are both music related camps.

So not a single one of the BIG ones got financed.

Saloon got 250 euro out if needed 2k, tripod no idea, I thought they are building a huge tree house.

I feel like a lot of the possibilities could have been regrouped as they are very similar, increasing their chances to win.
But as I did not weigh my opinion here sooner, well, I can't a´complain.
Now I do not think allocating funding only to projects having already reached their minimum is the fairest way to go, as projects close to being minimally funded or having had a lot of interest from the community would not have a good chance.
While it can seem a bit complex, the algorithm seems to me like the solution that takes all this into account and treats the whole thing fairly and transparently (if explained to the community), while leaving some room for the Dream Guides to reallocate some of the tokens afterwards.

I am sorry that I have missed the vote.. I still struggle a lot with the platform and its features..
Not very sure to understand if there is already a final outcome for the decision, but I also like the algorithm approach, regardless you reached your minimum or not, sound the most fair to me.
Keeping in mind that the funding of a project can have multiple sources (Fundraiser events, contribution from the projects members, etc..) it might be that even projects that don't reach their minimum can still happen. After the grant is announced to the dreamers, it's a case by case thing whether each dreamer think he can realize its dream with that amount or not. If he can't then, the fund get redistributed to others..

good points, we are now seeing with all the dreamers, who among them can do the project even with less tokens than they applied for.