Dream token redistribution for dreams not reaching minimum -

W walto Public Seen by 97

from orientation to finalization
#Kiez Burn Dreams 2019
We had an amazing first year for the Dreams platform with:
* 61,6% of ticket holders participating in the voting process
* 50,6% of ticket holders giving all their grants away

This is much higher than what we had hoped for and what we see in many elections or dream processes around the world

Final decision on token distribution

Who made the decision: The 2019 Dream guides who met in person. These were: Saskia, Joice, Nick, Paul, Lenny, Remy, Waldo + experts Olivia & CJ
When was the decision made: 07/05/2019
Decision summary: Proposal A that favors funding more projects to their minimum and redistribute the 27 leftover tokens among Dreams with the highest # people who gave grants to those Dreams. Video explanation

How much €€€ did my dream get?*
The results in terms of token value & €€€ value per Dream can be found in columns N & O of the "2019: Proposal A1" tab

Why are we talking about token redistribution?

  • We have more dreams tokens/budget available than there were tokens spent (135)
  • several projects did not reach their minimum. This "freed up" 588 tokens.

What have we done to prepare a decision that has the support of the community?


  • Ticket holders can vote until Sunday 5th of May
  • Final token/budget communication: 7th of May

Coming to a decision

We would like to follow the advice process and together discuss different proposals. Ideally, we avoid a vote and instead orientate on our principle: consensual do-ocracy. People can make proposals, but need to actively listen to the input provided by the community. The outcome of that discussion might be to tweak or throw away the proposal based on the discussion.

To facilitate this discussion, we have created a spreadsheet with all the current data, which will be updated regularly with a final update after voting ends.

- 2019: granting overview with a factual overview of the current granting
- 2019: granting distribution with an overview of the granting clustering
- several proposal tabs people can use to formulate alternative proposals (please do not overwrite other people's proposals)


If you have new proposals, please edit this thread and add your proposals to it with a description. Feel free to use one of the empty proposal templates in the spreadsheet above. Please make sure your proposals are understandeable.

Without any proposals

- 49 Dreams got funded
- 11 Dreams would not get funded because they did not reach their minimum
- many tokens leftover = budget leftover ==> proposals address how to redistribute this

Proposal A1

Link to spreadsheet-tab

Concept/Idea: Prioritize Dreams based on the number of individual granters.

Video explanation on this exact proposal

Details: The Dreams that did not reach their minimum but have a high number of individual granters will get their minimum funded. To balance the ranking to also include the size of individual grants, Dreams also need to reach x% of their minimum funding. This x% can be set depending on the final outcome (currently 48%)

- From the 60 eligible dreams, 53 would be funded, 7 did not reach their minimum and won't be funded
- Tokens are redistributed to the following projects: The magical mists, Musotopia, Space Plants circle
- There are 29 tokens left, which are distributed among the top dreams

Proposal B.1 & B.2

(this has been updated to reflect the actual proposal and added a tab to the proposals spreadsheet)
link to spreadsheet tab

Proposal B.1 & B.2 start with the premise that the final token allocation should reflect how ticket holders actually voted with their tokens. The unused tokens are distributed across all the dreams with the same distribution as the used tokens (not including those distributed by KBorg).

For example, if...
DreamA received 20 of 100 tokens used (20%)
after distribution of unused tokens...
DreamA would receive 30 of all 150 tokens (20%)

If you don't do that first, then you risk seriously distorting the token distribution away from how the community actually voted with their tokens.

After that, there is still a pool of tokens that need to be re-distributed because either a dream exceeded its max, or a dream did not meet its minimum.

Proposal B.1 redistributes this pool of tokens by fully funding as many dreams as possible (ranked by % of stretch [over the min] tokens achieved). This results in..
unfunded dreams: 16
minimum+ funded dreams: 17
fully funded dreams: 27

Proposal B.2 redistributes this pool of tokens by minimally funding as many dreams as possible (ranked by % of minimum tokens achieved). This results in..
unfunded dreams: 9
minimum+ funded dreams: 46
fully funded dreams: 5

Proposal C

restistribution tokens are used to encourage more art. Art Projects gets same # of token till max and then the remaining and so on..


Alex Kaos Sat 4 May 2019 5:56PM

After playing around with the possibility to maximize participation of Dreams at the event, and cross referencing with Proposal A, I have concluded that Proposal A is a much fairer system to both the dreamers and the participants who voted. At least compared to any system I was able to devise after a few hours of playing with the figures.


CJ Yetman Sat 4 May 2019 6:16PM

FYI... I’m out for the evening and editing the above on my phone is practically impossible. A lot of what Waldo copy-pasted for my proposal above is out of context if not completely irrelevant to the current state of the data, so take all of that with a grain of salt until I get a chance to edit it tomorrow.


Gini Sat 4 May 2019 8:20PM

I think Proposal A seems fair and reasonable... and my project is one of the Dreams in the red!


Øystein Sat 4 May 2019 9:31PM

unable to create a doc rigth now, bad connection.
I think both Proposals are touching on something important. but right now I'm unable to comprehend Proposal B.
Can someone continue on this thought, helping me with making it more mathematical/spreadsheet friendly;

All dreams that are not fully funded will receive extra tokens in a % proportion.
So exampel:
dream A is applying for 1000 tokens, with 500 minimum, and currently have 600.
Dream B is applying for 100 tokens, minimum 50 and currently have 30.

They would now get let say 10% extra added to their funding. so dream A would now get 660 tokens, and Dream B would have 33 tokens.

One could also put in a calculation where a dream that has reached a minimum would get a lower % then a dream which has not. So in example, dream A would get 5% increase ending up with 630 tokens and B would get 10%, ending up on 33 tokens.
Then we repeats the process until all tokens are distributed.

If a project is still not minimum funded when all tokens are distributed, one takes the tokens from that dream and distribute in the same way, making other dreams greater.

My intention with such a system is to value the amount of tokens each dream got, which to me sounds fare. another, maybe easier way to do this, would be to increase the value of each token.

I guess this is similar to proposal A, expect here one would valuate the tokens, and not the individual voters.


Alina, also known as Universe Sat 4 May 2019 10:39PM

@waldo Proposal that encourages and funds dreams according to number of voters (so, popularity) seems fair HOWEVER my problem with this is... 1) what about LARGE CAMP DREAMS getting more votes because they are just that - camp dreams? I have seen camp application forms actively encouraging/demanding the that hippie lobbying?! ;) 2) undemocratic KBORG TOKEN ALLOCATION to infrastructure projects that happened to 3 KBORG-preselected projects, skewing the actual "people vote"? 3) dreams COMING IN LATE - as the voting started when dreams were still coming onto the platform - as far as I have seen at least 3-5 of them joined towards the very end? We should have closed dreams applications first and started the vote after. in this light, PROPOSAL A IS NOT FAIR, it? :nerd: If we wanted this popularity approach to work democratically, we would need to address all three points somehow..... which CJ's approach might be doing but lacks the full info for me to understand right now...?
PROPOSAL C is rather than trying to somehow clean this up and post-rationalize - which is not possible to do fairly, because the process was skewed, we vote on token redistribution approach FIRST because that too, influences the outcome, so people should take that into account when voting - then give ourselves another 5 days and RADICALLY REVOTE :raised_hands:


Alina, also known as Universe Sun 5 May 2019 8:00AM

very good point @karlowalz - agreed!


Alex Kaos Sun 5 May 2019 9:53AM

Thanks for the input Karlo. You have a free hand to display the results of your theory by applying it to a proposal tab in the spreadsheet. If you don't have the technical knowledge on how to do that then I would suggest recruiting someone to assist you in your vision. Naturally, we want's a practical outcome of distribution and so someone actually has to process the data to display the results for the community to decide.
The current proposals were processed by participants and the results of the decisions are clear for view (although CJ's proposal needs updating with the new budget and dreams information). I spent a couple of hours doing the same but found in the end that Waldo's proposal A to be a much more balanced and fair outcome of the dreams process.
The question of Infrastructure vs Art doesn't come into proposal A because all infrastructure projects are already funded.
Also, this redistribution may not favor those who chose a lower minimum funding as opposed to those that chose a higher minimum funding. But that is completeley project dependent.
I would hope over the next year our development of the process and "regulations" of the Dreams platform will allow for a more transparent and fair voting and redistribution process.


walto Sun 5 May 2019 10:14AM

@karlowalz If I understand you correctly, you say that we need to fund the minimum for dreams so that artists do not need to fund parts themselves? That would indeed be the goal, this is why we asked for a minimum that the dreamer needs in order to realize their dream. This year we also fund 100% of the receipts given in (up to the budget that will be communicated on the 7th) instead of 70% in the last 2 years.

The philosophy behind this was (in part) also to indeed not leave artists funding (large) parts of their dream themselves, but offer the most support we can garner.


walto Sun 5 May 2019 10:19AM

@karlowalz I wanted to address your concerns regarding infrastructure, which I think are very valid (the vote for giving redistribution tokens to infrastructure projects was also lower). Therefore, I created a proposal A.2.

I made a judgement call on all the dreams and put them into 4 categories (they are not perfect, e.g. the communal oven is now "infrastructure")

The impact this has on the distribution between art, performance, kieze & infrastructure can be summarized in these two tables:

Proposal A

Proposal A.2

More details in this tab:

Please be aware though that votes are still coming in, and this is only the current distribution.


Jaina Hirai Sun 5 May 2019 1:11PM

Insofar as reading the number of individual supporters for a Dream as a basis for assuming strongest level of community support, I can say that my token votes do not reflect this. As i waited until after the April 30 dream submission deadline, and many had already voted, i looked at which of my favorite dreams had already met or exceeded their minimum and cast my votes to support my second tier of favorites, underdog Dreams that had yet to meet their minimum. This was of course my choice but i did not realize the potential redistribution impact at the time. Lesson for next year!

Load More