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.


[deactivated account] 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:


[deactivated account] 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!


CJ Yetman Sun 5 May 2019 2:25PM

I have updated the description of Proposal B.1 & B.2 above (which was woefully misrepresented originally) and added a tab to the proposal spreadsheet with the full results.


CJ Yetman Sun 5 May 2019 2:54PM

My personal preference is Proposal B.1. I would rather see a bunch of ambitious, popular dreams fully funded, than a bunch of not-so-popular dreams minimally funded.

Proposal B.1 drops 7 dreams total compared to Proposal B.2, but bumps 22 dreams to their fully funded level.

And obviously I prefer the proposals B.1 & B.2 because they reflect the voting of the people that participated, which I think is important and otherwise discounts their participation.


walto Sun 5 May 2019 4:58PM

I added pictures in the main thread of how the different proposals impact token distribution for art installations, performances, infrastructure & Kieze

Proposal A favors more art installations, while proposal B favors more infrastructure & performances

I am also super sad to see so many cool projects not get funded in proposals B, particularly in proposal B1.

I understand the argument regarding funding projects a lot above their minimum @karlowalz so that we can see AMAZING art instead of "minimum viable art", but where I disagree is that the "minimum" means that artists still need to fund a lot themselves. We are funding 100% of all the receipts returned this year (again, this is much higher than the 70% in the previous years and more than e.g. Burning Man does). This means that the minimum really is a powerful minimum, which means that is the money they need to realize the project. the vision was that this would mean no, or very little self-financing for artists.

One example Dream that would not get funded in B1&2 is the magical mists project who has 77 people supporting it and 134 dream tokens, but because it was an ambitious art project, it does not make it... So it boils down to: do we want to support ambitious art projects, or not?


CJ Yetman Mon 6 May 2019 2:06PM

We could just do it for them... reduce every dream's minimum to the amount of tokens they were granted so that every dream is at least minimally funded.


Jessy W Mon 6 May 2019 2:43PM

Wow this is really interesting @waldo. just to be clear, even though infra tokens and granted tokens are separate categories, infra has already been included in the granted tokens sum?


Jessy W Mon 6 May 2019 2:53PM

I would like to note that the Rangers Dream Set the following funding tiers:

BASIC SUPPLIES: 200 tokens 
RANGER STATION: 300 tokens 

Because there is only one minimum line displayed, we like many others stopped receiving many tokens after we passed 200 minimum and received a total of 240 tokens.

We just encountered some setbacks on anticipated free wood as well, which means we will need to meet the Ranger Station minimum (300) in order to fund purchasing some discounted wood we have a lead on, particularly the 8x8 2m posts and some plywood (will use some free slats as well).

I believe it would benefit the community if the Ranger HQ project, as it is a utility, could be considered eligible for meeting a minimum funding allocation, as it was stated in the dream that to fund the HQ AND the wanderers, the minimum was 300.


[deactivated account] Mon 6 May 2019 6:35PM

Pls remove sensory deprivation box from the list we are not doing it this year. Unfortunately when you remove the project on dreamers platform the token are not returned to the investors what I have hoped for.


walto Mon 6 May 2019 6:36PM

Data in the spreadsheet is updated folks, the numbers now are the final ones


Remy Schneider Tue 7 May 2019 7:56AM

I am very much in favor of Proposal A (trying not to be too biased) - primarily because if someone set a minimum, that is the minimum they NEED to make the project happen. I would think that if someone set the minimum at 50€, they are saying that this is the money they need at a very baseline to do the Dream - they communicated that. So if they get 40€, they haven't met their minimum and they have said the project won't happen via their settings in the first place (as I understood it in proposal B). Why would we send money to people who have already stated they can't bring a project for less? My fear would be even more people drop out of their projects... and we would be left with even more money left over that didn't get redistributed.


Lenny Tue 7 May 2019 10:18AM

As a wise Waldo once told me, the point of this process is not to vote for a single option that wins and the rest lose, but to listen to everybody's input and find a solution that incorporates all the valuable ideas. I feel like I can look at all the proposals put forward so far and say, "Yeah that makes sense." While there are certain proposals that don't mix well, others do and I think can coexist. So I don't have a new proposal to make, just a suggestion of how to incorporate the great ideas already thoughtfully assembled.

A and the beginning part of B (both which I favor over C), both look to extrapolate the will of the people and I think both do so in a way. It's true that with B's beginning a disproportionate amount of votes will go to projects for which the dreamers and their friends dumped all or most their tokens on that dream rather than spreading them out like many in the community. It's also true that with A the intention is lost for people who gave several more votes to a certain project because they valued it more. I'm also wary of extrapolating too much because I don't think we can say, honestly, that how half the community voted would also be how the other half would have voted had they been interested in things like participation. Here is where I like what B.1 and B.2 bring to the table.

So I would be fine seeing a breakdown like this

Step one - Distribute %30 percent of remaining tokens via proposal A (extrapolation based on number of contributors), 30% via proposal B (extrapolation based on percentage of total votes) and then 20% via proposal B.2 (raising as many as possible above the minimum)

Step two - any dreams not having reached their minimum by this time have their tokens put back into the pool of unallocated tokens.

Step three - distribute all remaining tokens via proposal B.1 (Raising as many as possible to the maximum)


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 11:02AM

agreed... there is a clear disparity in how "minimum funding" was interpreted... if I take Waldo's interpretation, I would rather see more dreams "minimally funded".... if I take your or my interpretation of "minimally funded" I would rather see more dreams "maximally funded"


Quentin Tue 7 May 2019 1:01PM

First of all, thank you so much for making it so transparent and for involving all :)
Just want to share a (subjective) feedback, looking at our dream : Musotopia

Our target was originally 701 tokens, with a minimum of 228 tokens.
Approaching the deadline, and seeing that we are below the minimum, we decided to reduce our minimum to 190, just to make sure we still get some support.
With the redistribution rules that have been agreed on, it seems that we could have finally keep this minimum and get funded the 228 tokens, which was (and still is) the original need.

As a result, some dreams that had less support from the community (both in terms of total token and/or #granters), and also a lower tokens target, will receive more funding than our project.
I don't know if this is completely fair or if this is actually normal considering all variables. But at least, that's to notice. What do you guys think?

This dream will happen anyway, as we have found other ways to raise money for it. And because it's a dream :) That's what it's made for !
Just to make sure : We are very happy with the outcome of the Dreams platform and excited to bring this project to life, but I thought sharing this could help feeding thoughts for upcoming events.


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 1:12PM

Excellent feedback, thank you


Clément Marchand Le Poittevin Tue 7 May 2019 3:34PM

A lot of very good points being raised here, thank you for this very interesting discussion!
I agree with Quentin regarding the last minute change of minimum budget to ensure funding, now having a potential negative impact on dreams with the reallocation.
As I am assuming it would be really complex to take that into consideration in the reallocation of tokens, I am happy with the idea of ensuring a maximum of Dreams get minimum funding while taking into account the votes of the community as much as possible.
Therefore option B2 is what I would think is best, but then again, it is simply my opinion. The option raised by Lenny, while adding an extra layer of complexity on this already not so simple topic, is also a very good in between!

In any case, with the incredibly high participation we have had on our first year of using the Dreams platform (Fuck yeah!!!!), the financial impact of this decision is not extreme.
So while it is important to tend to be as fair as possible, the most important thing to take of all this is how we can improve for next year, particularly on:
- The dream submission and voting deadline. I thought it was a great idea, turns out I was wrong :)
- The communication on the definition of minimum/maximum funding, as it seems it was not clear for all. As a Dream Guide myself I think it is an important part of that job.
- Maybe setting a system in place that ensure minimum fundings cannot be changed after submission (or at least not on the last days), and rather communicate with Dreamers on wether the amount they have reached at the end of the voting period is sufficient for them to actually make the dream happen, although they did not reach their minimum. But I realize as I write it that it can then make Dreamers set a minimum funding higher than necessary, to get more votes and then work with whatever they get. Hmh seems like there is still some thinking to do on this :)


Saskia Tue 7 May 2019 4:42PM

Wow. I am amazed by the discussion here and grateful for all of your elaborate and well thought through input. There is not much to add. So, like other feedback before, my statement will be more of a mix of a personal statement and summary of already brought up positions.

What I think about the proposals

In general, I agree with clement: Lennys propsal seems like the fairest to me as a mix of all proposals, but it IS adding layers of complicated-ness.

In terms of single choices - I have NO clear favorite. Which is the bigger risk? An empty playa with only a couple of AMAZEBALLS dreams realized? A slightly fuller playa with a couple of half-hearted raggedy shack dreams?

So relying on my intuition here I think that most dreamers are heavily invested in making their dream amazing. Relying on my intuition and last years experience I would love to see more things happening to fill up the space a bit. And I believe in he dreamers and the community that we have an excellent ability to make more from less, to think outside the box, to cross- and cofound, to chip in together, to crowdsource. So my tendency is to prefer proposal A1 or B2.

But I am speaking as a person who does not bring a dream of their own so I will not be the person having to chip in from their personal money. I do so by proxy by putting my camp fee into the saloon. So BASICALLY proposal B1 would serve me and my camp (and all of the dreams I guide, as they all hit minimum) better by giving them more. But my gut feeling tells me that I would rather enable more individual dreams to come true than having more dreams funded to the max.

Other remarks
Some of the points mentioned in this discussion have certainly shifted and dragged my point of view all over the place. For example: I was pretty sure that everybody was aware of the meaning of minimum and maximum. But that was a biased and skewed POV. As a dream guide (and as a dreamer) one has probably read through the definition of minimum (the bare minimum to bring your dream AT ALL) and stretch goal. It is mentioned in several places. But as a participant simply distributing their vote, this information was not readily accessibe.
There have been a lot of instances in general where people have voted a certain way because stuff wasn't clear. I, myself, spent quite a couple of tokens to infrastructure projects before KBorg added the tokens granted by production. So I can feel the annoyance of that part. I think there is A LOT to improve in terms of internal and external communications and I am very thankful that the community in general seems to be very forgiving. :)

I can also feel the confusion and frustration on the side of the dreamer as it is a true balancing act to choose minimum and maximum, especially given personal and scewed interpretations of definition. Next year, I think, it will be helpful to provide dreamers with a couple more basic data: Average minimum, average maximum, min/max and so on - experienced based on KB2019 - so there is a better orientation about how BIG to dream in relation to the size of the event. I think there is so much valuable critique in all of your answers - I can't wait to compile all of these things. Certainly I am looking forward to a MUCH improved timeline next year!

Also, I think there is a psychological process of attachment to a dream happening which intensifies over the course of voting. I think it is very reasonable to assume that if someone spent the past month planning out the dream in their head and then they might fail to reach the minimum, they'd rather lower the minimum and fill the gap themselves as this feels like the smaller loss compared to not being able to bring the project AT ALL because one receives no funding. Like musotopia and other projects which decided to lower their minimum & still bring the project.


Mareike Tue 7 May 2019 4:53PM

So I have been trying to wrap my head around all these percentages and spreadsheets and because I can’t seem to figure out what is the best or most fair option I would just like to say what my super personal gut feeling about this is. (And actually I think I voted differently before...) I loved looking at the platform and seeing how so many new amazing projects have been put up (this huge bubble full of ideas, visions ... is kiezburn to me) and I would love to see as many happen as possible. Even with just a minimum. I chose my dream minimum so that i can definitely make it happen in SOME way, maybe not perfect, but in a creative way! Isn’t this also a whole new challenge?? Come on we can do this!! I guess whatever decision will be made, it will be a learning for next year! Im excited☺


Julian Tue 7 May 2019 6:45PM

Hi dear burners,
I found it hard to get through all this as the organization of KB doesn't have responsibles, thanks to Saskia for forwarding me here!
I'm part of the "space plants" dream and we're actually 22 people already deep in the planning and realizing process. We just received much less grants than expected. We are willing to make it happen, but it would be disappointing if we'd each have to pay so much extra.

It's difficult representing a many-sided dream on half a page compared to very concrete small popular projects, independent from what you'll actually able and willing to create.

This is why I vote for option A, to support art independent from popularity.
I'll repost my post from this afternoon:

As a critical opinion maybe relevant for further KBs:
I believe that the dreams platform is just small showing a small, superficial picture of each project.

Also, if you'd depend on token funding to start, six weeks before the festival is too short if you want to get on bigger projects.

And third all these things need to be cleared before, maybe with responsible people and committees.


Lenny Tue 7 May 2019 7:11PM

I'd first like to thank all those who donated their time and participated in this process. A decision has been made by the group after evaluating the proposals made and taking into consideration the opinions shared and the actions of the community. Proposal A will be used to fund the dreams that were closest to meeting their minimum and the rest of the tokens will be spread out across the dreams that had already reached their minimum.


Eric Tue 7 May 2019 9:04PM

Thanks everyone who put in time and energy on this. Such an interesting way of doing things and I love how things turned out.


walto Wed 8 May 2019 12:55PM

The Thread description is also updated now to reflect the outcome of the advice process.


[deactivated account] Wed 8 May 2019 1:11PM

Is there anywhere a report on granted token vs redistributed tokens?


[deactivated account] Wed 8 May 2019 1:26PM

If vote participation was 60% and voted tokens were 50%, it should leave 2k tokens to redistribute, or did I misunderstand something? Does not matter, but you overruled the power of people 3 times with your decision, which kinda strange, why use dreamer platform then at all, it just creates unecessary stress and discussion.


walto Wed 8 May 2019 7:35PM

I invite everyone to further add comments regarding the token redistribution process but would like to ask to first think before posting, first read before critisizing and consider the people behind the posts.

This year we have made a huge push towards more transparancy. Unfortuntaly it seems this was not appreciated by several people who have been extremely vocal in this threa. In terms of transparancy, I also want to be transparent that this push towards transparancy did not get the support from everyone, but was a concious choice and try-out this year.

After seeing how the debates have been happening, there will likely be a pull-back towards LESS transparency in the coming discussions and next year. Please be aware of your role in all this and consider being more constructive in your comments.

Thank you.


Remy Schneider Wed 8 May 2019 8:49PM

Hey Karlo - are you accusing Waldo of making a decision maliciously? Because it sounds like a pretty big accusation - one that I am not sure has any basis. The proposal was made, and lots of people weighed in. Instead of pointing the finger, perhaps it's more constructive to work towards consensus. your voice in all of this (to my understanding) has been appreciated - even though it didn't end up being exactly like you wanted it to happen - I am not sure any 1 vision shaped the decision. To me it seems like a fairly open and honest reflection of where we are as a community. I feel like you are gaslighting someone who has put alot of work and been very open throughout a process that is new. What are you hoping to achieve by that?


CJ Yetman Wed 8 May 2019 9:04PM

Damn, I guess I’m the biggest loser here... I spent a significant amount of time developing and implementing two viable, alternative redistribution strategies and then a bunch of time discussing, explaining, and debating them. Hahaha


CJ Yetman Wed 8 May 2019 10:30PM

Karlo, I can only speak for myself, but I promise you that I read every one of your comments and seriously considered/thought about it. In my book, that does not qualify as being ignored.


walto Wed 8 May 2019 10:37PM

I did not push to have one dream funded and I did not make the final decision.

German is welcome to me, in fact, we discussed the idea to integrate Google translate in here.


CJ Yetman Wed 8 May 2019 10:42PM

Also, if the comment about accusing you of bad English is about me, please go back and read what I said... I said I understood the English, and didn't understand the German... and that's my problem because I don't speak much German. If that was directed at someone/something else, then ignore.


Saskia Thu 9 May 2019 5:46PM

Hello everybody,

without wanting to stir up the discussion in an unnecessary way I feel the need to bring my voice to the table regarding the criticism that has been brought up here.
This is mainly due to the fact that Waldo and CJ have been discussing with everybody here and faced some very harsh and personal comments. This is misrepresenting as it wasn’t just the two of them who made that decision.

I want to weight in with the opinion I voiced during the meeting and I would like to explain the reasons behind it. You are then still free to disagree with my position. But I would take offense in the claim that it was to push a personal agenda of a single individual or group of individuals. In fact, the argument is based on the principles.

I would like to set the stage by pointing out the basic assumptions of my reasoning:
Point 1: The voting is over and it wasn’t perfect. A lot of mistakes have been made and will be addressed in future editions of this. The setup is flawed but due to deadlines and real life there is not much to do about that NOW other than being aware and taking it into consideration when making further decisions.

Point 2: In the end, after putting in all the final numbers, one proposal fell out (B2). I have to admit that I am not able to explain in detail why that was from memory.
The two remaining proposals yielded more or less with the same result. In proposal B2 two dreams would be funded to their minimum, in proposal A1 three dreams would be funded to their minimum. The outcome for dreams which have already met their minimum was that under proposal A1 they would get a small amount of tokens less. But even with proposal A1, dreams which had reached their minimum would get some additional tokens on top. So: Dreams which had reached their minimum and would get additional tokens under B2 still got additional tokens under proposal A1 .

We then looked at different other things and put a lot of work into basically making the decision about one complete and rather huge dream.

Point 3:
We looked at the patterns of voters and voting distribution among dreams and time. Who got a lot of individuals voting for them? With how many tokens on average? Is there a time distribution?
We looked at individual statements by dreamers.
We looked at the threads and discussions that have been going on here.

Now here comes opinion I ended up with and brought up in the group. I want to stress that this is MY opinion and only mine and that there have been disagreeing voices and that there was a discussion happening.

The opinion I voiced was: Radical inclusion is the first principle. We should include this dream.

So why did this specific dream deserve radical inclusion (by using proposal A1) more than the amazing ideas that could have become reality with the additional tokens other dreams would have had under proposal B2?

  1. The other two dreams which were funded to the minimum under both proposals were dreams that came from within the community, hosted by Berlin based people already rather well known among Kiez Burn participants.. The third dream is hosted by a group that has never been to Kiez Burn, is not Berlin based and cannot rely on as much of a social network to activate people for tokens in the first place. I think nobody here denies the fact that networking and connections make a difference in voting processes. There is a structural disadvantage for people with less connections to a small, established network of people. Active inclusion is also an act of addressing such structural disadvantages. At least in my books.

  2. Also, the dreamers reached out BEFORE any decision was made and gave an updated description of their dream, which has developed over the month into something with quite a bit of pre-investment. From the sound of it, it was a valuable addition to the whole event.

Again, some people in the discussion group did disagree with me on that. Or maybe not with the argument itself but with the prioritization I personally gave to including that one dream. We did have a long discussion about what would do more good and more bad to the community from an overall perspective and we made the choice to be inclusive of that dream. We are a young And growing community!

Again: You are allowed to disagree with me as well. But I would ask you to take a step back from the thought that there is an evil hidden agenda aimed at excluding the very opinions we are asking for constantly. Everybody is giving such amazing advice. It would be a shame if the same people thought they are not being taken seriously in their concerns.


walto Tue 7 May 2019 8:56AM

I personally do not believe in funding project to the max because of 2 reasons: 1) it does not substantially add to the Kiez Burn experience 2) Probably about 10% of projects will not get realized, so that we will have money leftover anyways to distribute among realized dreams.

Funding to the max does not substantially add to the Kiez Burn experience

What does "fully funded" mean? The maximum does not mean "how much you need so all costs are covered", but " how much you need to realize the perfect version of your project".

I expect, if we fund to the max, what we will see is that people will buy stuff that could easily be borrowed (bluetooth speakers, screens,...) or go more luxurious in their choices (e.g. a fancy sauna vs. a "normal" sauna). I thought this post was also interesting.

10% of Dreams probably won't happen

In the past we saw that about 10% of planned art projects don't happen. In other events that use Dreams, that ratio is even up to 30%. What we said in the dream guide + did in the past as well, is:
- if dreams get cancelled, that money stays in the "Dreams pot"
- Dreams that hand in receipts above their promised budget can qualify to get a piece of that "dreams pot"
- that decision can be made between dream guides & finance (process to be determined this year)

Since 10% probably won't happen, this also means that betting on more Dreams in the beginning, will result in more diversity and art.


walto Sun 5 May 2019 4:16PM

cool, then I think this is reflected in CJ's proposal?


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 8:41AM

presumably a dreamer should be able to achieve their dream if they receive their minimum funding, regardless of whether they were granted the equivalent tokens through the voting process or they were given enough tokens through the post-redistribution process

but, I don't like the idea of redistributing whatever we have left on all the dreams that missed their minimum... that's why I prefer Proposal B.1, because it takes whatever we have to redistribute and gives it to the most popular dreams so that they can be fully funded


walto Tue 7 May 2019 1:03PM

I assume "requested"="maximum" and "Treshhold"="Minimum" in your view? I do want to flag here that you are completely twisting the view. These definitions are not in line with how it was communicated. Changing definitions at this stage, is inappropriate. You are free to interpret it however you want, but this will not change the definitions stipulated at the beginning of the Dreams process 2019.

Regarding your example, I do not see Facebox in your screenshot, but the artist actually explains what he might do different with minimum vs. maximum budget: Btw, the facebox artist uploaded their dream on the last possible submission day, so that made it very hard to reach any substantial amount of tokens...


CJ Yetman Mon 6 May 2019 4:25PM

Please also seriously consider the implication of facilitating, even encouraging, a bunch of manipulation and gaming of the system. People like me (there’s probably a few of us) are gonna look at that and next year when emails go out begging us to vote on the dreams we’re gonna say “yeah right. Why bother? Our votes don’t really count for anything, people are just gonna manipulate it to get whatever they want anyway.” We should be encouraging people to participate in the voting, not discouraging them.


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 11:50PM

  • as far as I can tell, in Proposal A (which seems to be the one selected to use finally), only 135 tokens were unsused and distributed, and 147 tokens were redistributed from dreams that did not reach their minimum
  • as an infrastructure dream, your dream was granted 114 tokens by KBorg (no idea how they came up with that number precisely)
  • the other 127 tokens your dream originally received were granted by ticket holders

walto Sun 5 May 2019 10:29AM

Just to reply to the "kieze" topic. The top dream is and got granted by 193 people thusfar. This is far more than there are Kieze members of Underworld. Several "Kieze" dreams are in a similar situation. I would therefore argue that these Kieze dreams do carry a lot of support from the community.

Regarding infrastructure: that decision was taken by the board, who was elected democratically. The board also decided to be transparent about that decision but indeed, could have been even more inclusive earlier on. Based on the discussion we had about this earlier, I invite you to bring this up on the board elections end of this year and potentially be a board candidate yourself so to make sure we all do a better job next year.


walto Mon 6 May 2019 8:23PM

The rangers dream got funded, with 241 funded and 190 minimum, on the dreams platform. so yay :)


[deactivated account] Mon 6 May 2019 6:34PM

It is already like this on many level (dreamers can and manipulate). As I already suggested to @waldo a fair way is to redistribute the leftover tokens according to the current votes (excluding infrustructure bonus from KBorg and maybe adjust to an amount of votes) and ask whether the project can continue with a final amount regardless of their minimum. If the cant take their token into a pot and redistribute it.


walto Mon 6 May 2019 9:00PM

pictures are outdated, anyone feel free to change them :D


Quentin Tue 7 May 2019 1:46PM

Ok, I thought the Proposal A was already agreed on.
Looking at all proposals, I think my preference would still go to the logic A, especially looking at the outcome = More projects funded.
I think if more projects can be funded (even with a very low grant), each dreamer can then decide if he still can make it happen (by funding somewhere else).

Actually, maybe the main learning from my feedback is that it would be good to have the redistribution logic decided (and communicated) before the closing of the votes.
(Do I need to reach the minimum ? What happens if not? What is the 'min. % funding needed?'..)
Therefore, all dreamers can take decision on changing or not their minimum consciously, being aware of the consequences.


Jessy W Tue 7 May 2019 11:29PM

Cj, determining what should have been done or criticizing me for not setting up two dreams for this is besides the point of the question i am asking. i considered two dreams and thought it would be confusing. My question is, I communicated here that we still had not reached our minimum to build the HQ before the meeting, and I am curious if this was considered and rejected at the meeting, or just not discussed.


CJ Yetman Wed 8 May 2019 12:00AM

I was originally meaning to answer your question by stating that dreams did/could not have multiple minimums (technically speaking)... i.e. only the technical minimum set for a dream was taken into account.


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 11:06AM

I agree that basing redistribution on number of granters versus number of tokens/votes is a🖕🏻to those that gave more than one token to dreams they really liked.... for one, their multi-tokens are ignored, for two, they lost their opportunity to use the tokens on other dreams. I would have voted that way (gave multiple tokens to dreams I liked a lot), but I didn't because I knew this was gonna happen.


Jessy W Tue 7 May 2019 11:51PM

lol @ cowboy. i am in the saloon this year. im not upset or going fast. I pointed out that you sidestepped the question i was asking in order to suggest where the fault lies, which is immaterial to my question.


walto Wed 8 May 2019 1:15PM

@jessywheaton regarding your two points:

Rangers: Last year we spent 93€ on Rangers. The board decided to increase this amount for 2019 to support Rangers getting their own shelter etc. The budget got increased to 300€, which is deemed more than enough to cover the Ranger costs. This was communicated in your thread on Rangers, how this would be displayed on the Dreams platform here. Now, you got even more with a total of 640€!! I also cannot imagine that your Dream guide Saskia did not assist you in understanding the concepts regarding MIN/MAX. If you are now saying that you cannot realize your Rangers dream, please let us know asap so that the money can be released to other dreams. However, before you do that, maybe investigate possible alternatives to your scenario "that the Ranger HQ had not met its minimum but the Ranger team supplies had met the overall dream minimum".
* first off: This distinction was not made before or communicated towards KBORG finance team as an issue.
* I also think it is ludicrous to state that you now all of a sudden NEED over 400€ for Ranger supplies when we made due last years with so little, whereas we have heard very good things about Rangers @Kiez Burn in the past.

* As previously mentioned, for the Rangers HQ: we have a lot of wood in storage that could be used for constructing something + if that fails, you could also use the Toolhaus during the event as Rangers HQ and maybe even extend it towards the front quite easily.

Regarding the token redistribution process:
yes, in the end the proposals were relatively close to each other. Yet, for specific Dreams they mattered A LOT. In Proposal B1 for example we had 3 Dreams that did not get funded, that did get funded in the finally agreed-upon proposal A1.

I am happy the Dream guides got together and were able to come to a consensus based on the discussions here that they could support and defend. I am happy the decision process was transparent, where everyone can understand it if they want to. But hey, that is just me :)


walto Wed 8 May 2019 1:35PM

Less than 100% participation was already calculated in the token value + we had some financial setbacks that reduced budget. Not sure what you mean with the overruling of the power of people 3 times?


Jessy W Tue 7 May 2019 10:27PM


I want to make sure we understand eachother, the rangers dream was partially* funded with 241 tokens, reaching its minimum to supply the rangers but not the minimum to build the headquarters.

My dream explicitly stated that the first 200 tokens would minimum fund the Rangers, and that we needed an additional 100 tokens, and to reach a 300 token funding level, in order to fund the Headquarters.

This is because headquarters cost money in addition to scrap wood in storage (if there are 8 healthy and dependable load bearing 8x8 posts as well as plywood i am unaware of thats dope, nevermind). We need 100 tokens for the HQ because we need to buy things like (8) 2m 8x8cm posts that I do not know we have in storage, as well as wood for 22m2 of surface area to be weatherproof and building a flat table and storage cubbies inside which requires plywood (not just assorted planks).

Going forward I will do everything I can with what I have, and I really want to make the Ranger HQ happen, but I want to be clear that I will be making sure the Rangers are equipped to help others and themselves first (especially with food, water, etc.), and as per the Dream agreement I am not under obligation to meet requirements that were not funded.


CJ Yetman Thu 9 May 2019 6:04AM

Jessy, I’m too old to know Linkin Park lyrics, so sorry if I missed the reference. Here’s the deal... a bunch of us put a lot of time and effort in to doing this... to provide a few alternate strategies to facilitate discussion, to follow the discussion and answer questions and respond to things, etc. If/when people come back and suggest that this whole process was a farce, or that we had an evil hidden agenda, or accuse us of ignoring them when we’ve been doing the opposite, then... well, again I can only speak for myself, but that seriously hurts my feelings and mocks my efforts here... that is not a joke. It’s ok, I’m a big boy and I’ll get over it... but when Waldo comes back to me next year and says “hey can you do that stuff again” I’m gonna say “hell no I’m not getting involved in that shit”... actually, that’s what I said this year before they convinced me to get involved against my better judgement, and exactly what I feared is what happened... a few people come here and sound angry or frustrated or disappointed and start throwing out what sound like insults. Seems pretty obvious that Waldo’s a bit ruffled by the comments and insinuations too.


CJ Yetman Mon 6 May 2019 6:15PM

fyi... I understand the English, but I don't understand the German.

I understand what you're suggesting, and why. It's a valid point, and a worthy intention. But regardless, it creates a situation where dreamers are allowed to manipulate things for the goal of getting funded (that's what I call "facilitating"). And I know for a fact through private conversations that some dream guides have been suggesting to dreamers that they lower their minimums so that they get funded (that's what I call "encouraging").


Karlo Walz Tue 7 May 2019 12:47PM

Waldo, it is a bit unlikely that you have not thought about my definition of minimum. Lets have a look at some of the dreams and see that the ratio of so called "minimum" to "full". 2 of 3 dreams have their threshold of doing below 50%. The overall average of threshold coverage is 36 (roughly spending only 1 of 3 euros.. or a tripod with only one leg) and the average of the dreams which are below 50% is only 1 euro out of 5 euro covered with the threshold (you call this minimum).
I do assume it was wishful thinking that surprisingly you can do savings like spending only 1 out of 5 euro by make a project smaller and with a tight budget..That is in no way possible.
I do assume that all dreams are more thinking that they need another funding.. (private, gofundme and artist or camp members funding kiezburn with more money). It might be good to have a revieew of this assumptions after the kiezburn. I cannot really see how a big dream like "Facebox" can be reduced from 569 tokens to 76 tokens and do not use 500 tokens to realize the project.
To be clear I recommend that we increace the "festival" price with 4 euro to have another 1600 tokens and we can realize more projects full!

I would take this as a learning.


Jessy W Fri 10 May 2019 5:14PM

ok, i see your perspective! thank you for sharing that. i think we dont have different mindsets, just differently angled perspectives. now i see yours better. i can be overly literal at times myself (maybe i did that here too). ill be more considerate of words that carry a critical connotation and more empathetic to the idea that your words are coming from a place of compassion, not criticism.

PS lol at called in to the shadow council :laughing: .


Jessy W Fri 10 May 2019 1:21PM

yea i agree, i added the emoji as a way to telegraph a positive tone but that didnt work (perhaps in part because of the limited selection of emojis, i couldnt find a properly silly detective one). yea, cowboy was offensive, not my gender, not appreciated. i tried to let it pass over. I'm sorry you are hurt by the being told you sidestepped my question. there was no insult or aggression intended in the use of that word. you did sidestep my question (i assume unconsciously) about meeting notes to instead offer criticism of how my dream should have been organized differently from the start etc. It was criticism i had already considered and i didnt think it was really helpful or relevant to my question. I wasnt trying to hurt you by saying your response didn't answer the question i was still asking. i didnt attribute bad intent to your not answering the question, because it seemed like you were doing this multiple times out of the good of your heart, where you were missing my literal Q and responding at a different angle. we talked past eachother you might say. and listened past eachother a bit (me too).

looking at your words again i can understand you better now too. you were giving lots of answers, i was just asking very specific questions. and thats ok. we could switch to german, except my german isnt great.

ps if youre curious what i mean about language, what the other person said, "A decision has been made" is a present perfect tense - the group doing the verb is not mentioned. I was searching for that subject! eventually we got there together.


Bobschi Sat 11 May 2019 1:24PM



walto Tue 7 May 2019 12:16PM

We have in parallel had a process (as linked above in the thread) where dream guides have been talking to Dreamers if they could realize their dream with less tokens than their stipulated minimum. So part of this redistribution discussion got addressed as such. This is not visible in the spreadsheet, but has been going on in the background.

I understand how you interpreted the minimum & maximum is not in line with how it was defined (e.g. in the FAQ) or is common with crowdfunding campaigns. It is a valuable lesson in better communicating what "minimum" means. I do not believe we should however, at this stage, turn around this definition vs. what has been communicated before.


walto Mon 6 May 2019 6:36PM

There should be enough wood in storage for the Rangers station


walto Mon 6 May 2019 8:21PM

yes it is. The infrastructure dreams got funded through the Dreams platform. The advice process around that took place here:


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 9:04AM

sorry, I'll start saying "maximally funded" instead of "fully funded"

if I adapt the wording of my preference to use the minimum and maximum descriptions you just posted, it would be...

I would prefer to maximize the number of dreams that are perfectly realized. :-D

I would guess that I'm not the only one that took all the comparisons to kickstarter and stretch goals in the beginning to heart. I viewed the maximum as what dreamers really wanted to do, and the minimum as the least they could get away with doing something.


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 11:24PM

The way the Dreams platform was setup, there is only one minimum and one maximum per dream. I know it's too late now, but maybe you should have set up two separate dreams? I think this whole thread made it clear that there was definitely some misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what was meant by "minimum".


Karlo Walz Mon 6 May 2019 4:09PM

please consider my recommendation not just a joke! that is unfair.
my proposal take intoaccpint that a budget planning involves cost of uncertain amount like „transport 100 euro“. If you check this in more detail you mind find that 100 is too less or too much or you do not need it at all cause you find another fream which can transport your stuff because they got full budget.
the minimum threshold is an own limit and a guess only - nothing more! I know there was a definition but who cares about written definitions.
the topic is should we deny dreams because they are below their own minimum assumption. maybe THEY want to reduce it to Zero.


Karlo Walz Tue 7 May 2019 7:23PM

Hello Julian. One of our teammember from last burn just opened a gofundme and got some 300 euro, enough to fund the gap we realized we had for this project to be realized. we also merged two projects into one to save money and effort and also we reused material from last year...
we could merge transportation from hamburg. there are ideas to make it happen.


Jessy W Tue 7 May 2019 10:45PM

thank you i read that, but didnt see any confirmation it was followed up on, just that you asked it to be done.


Jessy W Tue 7 May 2019 10:51PM

-there were i believe 2,000 or 3,000 extra tokens to be distributed
-we were a utility with one of the top 10 supporter numbers
-we had still not met our HQ building minimum

I am disappointed to hear that the community decided to grant us less than 5 of the redistribution tokens. However, my disappointment becomes acceptance, and I realize I am only required to create what the community feels worthy of funding. oh well. ho hum.

@waldo im open to alternative ways to make it possible, but I dont want to stretch myself any thinner after making clear my budget boundaries. im down to talk wood storage and backup solutions when you can.


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 11:42PM

Slow down cowboy, I'm not criticizing you... I clearly predicated that with "I know it's too late now". I'm just stating the fact that if in your mind there were two separate minimums for two separate things, then it probably would have fit into the purpose of how the platform was setup better as two separate dreams. And also emphasizing that one of the things we learned in this discussion is that the "minimum" concept was not understood the same by numerous people (including myself).

So to answer your question directly... no, no statements of having multi-minimum targets in the dream descriptions (for any dream) were taken into account in the decision making process here. The entire discussion is here in this thread. It was not done behind closed doors.


Jessy W Tue 7 May 2019 11:51PM

oh i thought there would be a meeting on the 7th with an inner group to discuss? 

so was the final decision just made by the poll vote?


[deactivated account] Wed 8 May 2019 1:37PM

The math does not add up in the Excel, I did not analyzed why, but probably there is a reason for that :)


Jessy W Tue 7 May 2019 10:59PM

thanks lenny! Sounds like we wanted to make sure as a community to make sure minimums were met. Was the fact that the Ranger HQ had not met its minimum but the Ranger team supplies had met the overall dream minimum taken into account in the decision? We were not, and have not been allocated the funding level Ranger HQ requires.




Jessy W Wed 8 May 2019 11:29AM

oh yea no problem on the vagueness. i meant to say vague and mysterious but got distracted. but thanks for clarifying. So there is an inner shadow council, is what you're saying..... :nerd: sounds like we all made a huge amount of hoopla and hand wringing, i saw @waldo furrow his brow in thought pretty heavily over the options, and in the end it didnt even matterr. but maybe we all learned a lot about algorithms, no?

*this is meant as a joke in case thats not clear. there isnt a secret shadow council. i was trying to show how silly that was. backfired


walto Mon 6 May 2019 8:26PM

sorry to hear Vlad! Will be missed. Took it out on the spreadsheet.


Jessy W Wed 8 May 2019 12:15AM

cj thank you for that explanation of where the discussion took place but i still dont know the answer to my question. who made the final decision and how? did we just use the poll numbers? i was curious how that would play out… Lenny just said 'a decision has been made by the group’, sounds very vague.


Remy Schneider Sun 5 May 2019 8:51AM

Hey @alina - Thanks for the input - I agree alot on some of the measures that you mentioned. I am not sure that revoting would be an appropriate measure right now. We are taking a bunch of learnings from this year (the first year we are doing this) and I wholeheartedly agree that timing could be better. However, in many of the proposals we get a huge number of projects funded all the way - to me this is a great success. Since over 50% of votes have been cast, I can't imagine that we would see this level of participation if we were to wipe things clean.

We had mentioned a few times that infrastructure projects would get funded. We have to have a minimum on these, and instead of just funding them with whatever budget was determined, we wanted to open to the community "how nice do you want these infrastructure projects" which is where the voting came in. I do feel like it was discussed, but I also know that next year would likely do infrastructure projects as a separate vote (e.g., specific tokens for each set of projects).

I am in favor of proposal A, but would also be happy with a reallocation in another way. The thing I wouldn't be in favor of is revoting after so many people have already voiced an opinion. Most of the votes didn't start coming in until a week or two before voting ended. Most projects were there already - and those that got added at the last minute are among those with the least number of votes. Again, I hope we can do this differently next year. We adjusted the timeline for dreams + voting as soon as we realized that the timeline we chose was problematic (it doesn't fix it, but hopefully helped mend it).


[deactivated account] Sun 5 May 2019 9:51AM

@remyschneider if the principles here are radical democracy, fairness and transparency, there is no way around it apart from a re-vote. We have to admit that anything else would be putting KBorg patches on what was a largely skewed process. I value the work and effort that went into this, appreciate the experimentation and understand this is not easy. But this being an open forum, have to take the open mic to cast my view - as in, we do not deliver on transparency and fairness - including proposal A. N.B. For full disclosure: my motivation here are the values that I mention. I am a dreamer and my dream will not get funded as it did not get enough votes despite it being one of the first ones on the platform. I want to integrate that learning and see that this is not a dream that resonates with the KiezBurn population, therefore it does not need to materialise.


walto Tue 7 May 2019 12:19PM

Sounds like we are moving in the right direction! :)


walto Tue 7 May 2019 1:16PM

Cool to hear from you!! We have not agreed on a redistribution system yet! So this kind of input is valuable.

I think only in Proposal A, there is one project with a higher minimum than yours that gets funded ( although lower #granters/hearts were given. Your argument seems to shift the proposal towards not funding that The Space plants Circle Dream and redistributing the leftover tokens from that dream over other dreams (e.g. Proposals B1&2)


Lenny Wed 8 May 2019 8:38AM

@Jesse, I'm sorry for my vagueness. Emails are being crafted to all the dreamers with more details. I was just trying to relay the decision so people who couldn't make it to the meeting weren't left hanging. CJ is right, no new proposals were brought up at the meeting. So we only chose from the proposals that had been developed, rather than trying to evaluate and give certain amounts to individual projects based on need or to help them achieve certain goals. That would have been too long of a conversation to have and we needed to make a decision last night. CJ is also right when he says there wasn't a big difference between the proposals in the end as there were less tokens available for redistribution than most of us imagined because it had been factored into the value of the tokens that not all of them would be spent. In the end the difference was only a matter of one or two dreams reaching their minimum so we decided to chose the proposal that helped them (proposal A) because that seemed to be the will of the community. In the final days of voting, the large majority of tokens were given to dreams to help them reach their minimum rather than giving more to dreams who already reached theirs. I hope this clarifies things a bit more.


CJ Yetman Tue 7 May 2019 11:57PM

There was a meeting Tuesday evening to discuss which proposal to choose, but all of the debate and discussion about what they are, what the consequences would be, etc. is here. Obviously, people must have discussed things privately as well, but hopefully everyone brought their opinions here as well. Once the final data from the Dreams platform was available, it turned out that the results of the various proposals were not very different.


CJ Yetman Wed 8 May 2019 8:16AM

I don't see where you asked that question. ?


CJ Yetman Wed 8 May 2019 2:11PM

Is the purpose of calling it an "inner shadow council" to suggest that there is some nefarious conspiracy against you? I take offense to that.


[deactivated account] Wed 8 May 2019 1:44PM

Hahaha, now I got it, kiezburn is a financial piramid, if 60% of token were granted there will be no more money in the pool.


walto Wed 8 May 2019 4:25PM

@vladimireske sorry you feel that the preferences of the people who voted & were involved, were not taken into account. I think we did our best to do so. As an example that is not even outlined above: your algorithm got the most votes, I studied your calculations and informed with you what the logic was behind it, and this was incorporated in the arguments above.

If you feel your algorithm was misrepresented, it seems an opportunity was missed from your side, to present an alternative proposal in detail in this redistribution process. Unfortunately we could not wait for more alternative suggestions beyond 07/05 to make a decision, because Dreamers need to know their budget.

Regarding the budget, you can find details regarding the token value in this talk thread: and as mentioned, we had to reduce budget due to financial setbacks outside of our control.


Quentin Thu 9 May 2019 12:53PM

Transparency to that level is something new. Even in burn communities.
New stuff always bring more debates, but also frustration and fear.
I wish we can continue in that direction of even more transparency, and that some comments from 'several people' will not change that.


Jessy W Thu 9 May 2019 9:40PM

and i am sorry if i gave the impression that i was in any way associated with the people making outlandish criticisms at you or that i thought anything was nefarious. I was not and did not. my attempts to ease the tension with friendly, light humour have reminded me that perhaps my humour lately has become more subtle and dark than i realized, despite my best intentions. i wanted people to laugh together and break whatever tension was going on, ill stop doing that.


Jessy W Thu 9 May 2019 2:49AM

tell me you guys understand that is a joke, right? seriously im trying to keep it light here, quoting linkin park lyrics, being positive, @waldo lets talk on the phone? i dont like the way youre misrepresenting me (i did communicate this information to you directly in this thread for example) or threatening to cancel the dream (i never said i was going to scrap it, what?). you seem defensive about the vote thing, which again, is fine in my book. i am just accepting and responding according to the process about what the dream plan said and need to talk with you about wood to move forward. if people are angry at you tell them to can it because it wasnt your decision, as we all know it was the deep and mysterious shadow council...


walto Thu 9 May 2019 4:39PM

Apologies, it just became a bit much yesterday. I did appreciate the many responses and the diversity in the kind of responses given. Not always easy to stay 100% ;-)


Remy Schneider Thu 9 May 2019 5:48PM

Fuck... I hear that sometimes. @cjyetman that is a tough post to read - thank you for posting it.


CJ Yetman Fri 10 May 2019 4:37PM

We’re probably going to have to agree to disagree, because it doesn’t look like we’re gonna land on the same page. Here’s my perspective…

I responded to your post in which the only actual, literal question, i.e. the sentence that ended with a “?”, was "Was the fact that the Ranger HQ had not met its minimum but the Ranger team supplies had met the overall dream minimum taken into account in the decision?”. I responded with…

  1. A flat statement that the dreams platform does not allow for anything but one minimum.
  2. An expansion on that, with the intent to make it clear that the only way that two separate minimums could have been considered was if there were two separate dreams.
  3. An acknowledgment that what was meant by “minimum” was not perfectly clear to everyone.

Looking at it now, I can kind of see how that doesn’t super directly answer the question with a simple yes or no, but the intent was to give an explanation of why no multi-minimums were, nor could have been “taken into account in the decision”, and the belief that the simple answer “no” was overwhelmingly, obviously implicit in that.

You responded by characterizing that as criticism and side-stepping. I do not believe it was either.

In my world, “sidestepping” has a negative connotation. It is not simply failing to address something by accident. It is intentional avoidance and/or misdirection. I did not intentionally avoid nor misdirect your question, and frankly, I don’t believe that I unintentionally did either.

Both have a negative connotation and both imply intent. If you add that up, it sounds like an accusation of intentionally doing something negative to you, twice over. That’s why it was annoying to me. And now you’ve kind of doubled down on it, albeit with some additional qualification that I do appreciate. I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m sorry I made you feel that way. That was not my intention.

But in the end, it sounds like what you really wanted to know was “who” made the decision. I apologize for not inferring that. I’m a very literal person, just ask @jainahirai ;-)

some further clarification/context just in case:
- I’m an United States of Americanian and a native English speaker
- I did call in to the shadow council meeting after being asked to, listened to much of the conversation, shared my thoughts, but signed off before the actual decision was made
- I do not have a dream, nor am I associated with any dream, nor do I have any significant interest or preference for any dream in particular


Karlo Walz Mon 6 May 2019 5:11PM

absichtliches oder unabsichtliches Missverstehen ist halt so eine feine art der meinungsäusserung und ditto das jetzt ein wenig übermässig elaboriert zu schreiben. Ich wiss ja nicht ob du selber ein dream eealisieren willst oder nicht aber die unkte die wir hier besprechen führen dazu wieviel zusätzliches geld ich persönlich zum kiezburn dazusteuern „darf“.
waldo wollte ein limit einstellen und aber es kann ja neue Erkenntnisse geben dass sagen wir ein grosses projekt einfach absagt weil es auch bei den minimum token nicht realisierbar ist weil dinge eben teurer sind als gedacht.
ebenso kann es sich rausstellen dass pauschal 100 euro transport nicht nötig sind wenn man ein van zusammen nimmt.
ich finde das ganz normal dass man bei der budgetplanung nachfragt. das ist sehr üblich sogar denn jede planung ist eine Schätzung


Jessy W Thu 9 May 2019 2:54AM

im sorry you feel so hurt, waldo. i tried to tag you in some fun ways here to make the atmosphere less contentious, but i dont think it worked. All the decisions were made by all of us and they all ended up being about the same.


Karlo Walz Sun 5 May 2019 11:51AM

Waldo wenn du die Dreams nach der Anzahl der Teilnehmer die Tokens gegeben haben sortierst und entsprechend mit Zusatztoken (vom Leftover) belohnst benachteiligst du strukturell alle "kleinen" Dreams. Denn qua Struktur bekommt man mehr Tokens einfach wenn man nach mehr fragt und damit auch mehr Menschen die das unterstützt haben. Ich finde die Anzahl der Unterstützer ist kein gutes Kriterium sondern sogar eher ein schlechtes weil es Bias fördert.
Meine Einstellung ist dass dreams die kein Minimum bekommen haben eben keine Zusage bekommen und mit den Leftover tokens erstmal alle Dreams gleichmässig Tokens bekommen bis sie ihr Budget erreichen (das war hier großzügig Maximal genannt wird ist übrigens immer noch das Minimal Budget, nur um das mal zu erwähnen). Erst wenn diese Dreams alle Ihr Budget erreicht haben dann würde ich das nächste Dream über das Minimum haben das prozentual am nächsten zum Minimum steht..etc..
Ziel sollte es sein, dass maximal Dreams ihr Gesamtbudget bekommen und nur wenige sich um eine Zusatzfinanzierung kümmern müssen.
Es kann einfach nicht sein dass die Künstler die hier was beitragen dann auch noch Kiezburn privat finanzieren müssen, also das mehrfache an Eintritt zahlen damit alle anderen mehr Entertainment haben. Klar ist es nett wenn KBORG soviel Dreams wie möglich hat aber es ist einfach unfair.


CJ Yetman Fri 10 May 2019 8:56AM

All good... we all need to be reminded sometimes that our humor doesn’t always come through well in text. I’m not sure if all my tongue-in-cheek comments went over well (cowboy was intentional, rangers and saloon etc.)

Some of it was not jokes though, like saying I was sidestepping your question when I was trying to answer it. And others’ pretty blatant accusations. I’m not beating a dead horse here, just clarifying what irked me.

This isn’t directed at you specifically Jesse, but in general, I think we need to be really clear about the intention of the polls and voting here. I thought Saskia did a good job of that this time, making it clear that it was not a binding vote and ultimately the board and finance would make the decision, informed by the discussion and the poll. I’ve also fallen into that trap and was annoyed when a decision didn’t match the results of a poll, but I’ve finally been converted and view Talk as a discussion platform, not a decision making platform... mostly thanks to @waldo relentlessly fighting the good fight.


[deactivated account] Wed 8 May 2019 1:39PM

People voted with their tokens. People voted for a redistribution strategy and people talked here about their preferences and as far I can see it all was not considered while making a final decision.


[deactivated account] Thu 9 May 2019 3:47PM

@waldo I understand the pains of the process and am grateful to the few driven individuals putting time and effort into finding the best way to make dreams happen. I also believe this comment above to be disappointing. I feel that I have always stayed respectful, understanding of the pains of the process and fair in my comments. I took my Kiez-citizen-Talk-participator duty seriously. If you review my posts, you will see that I used my voice to stand for fairness and clarity which I believe to be important values of any democratic process. I would love that to be appreciated.


Jessy W Thu 9 May 2019 8:26PM

I feel exactly the same CJ. To be clear, i do not and never thought there was a 'vague and mysterious shadow council' and i didn't realize that would be taken seriously or interpreted as criticism. im sorry that it was, that must have been alarming to read, when read with an accusatorial tone! i was smiling and curious as i wrote these messages, and was actively trying to lighten the mood, and highlight how silly such accusations are. I thought the word 'mysterious' was silly enough to make my tone clear over text, and then i further added upbeat bad pop song references, a funny emoji, a reference to waldos cute furrowed face, and a positive ending about algorithms to make my attempt at an upbeat, silly tone extra clear. my attempt still backfired. both waldo and you had the same reaction though, not just you. could be a cultural thing, but also if its not fun whats the point?

I was in a good mood and tentatively curious but not invested in the different options. im pretty sure i voted for 1A which is what i think won, and i was told they all looked the same anyway, so it didnt matter. i was curious if there was time for a specific request. From my perspective, I was treated as if i was coming from some other angle, maybe on some team or side or something. Everything felt so primed towards aggression. i dont have a side. so im just going to stay out of talk communication as much as possible, i find the written communications very painful and not fun anymore.

i said this earlier and ill say it again: all the possibilities came out almost exactly the same and many people contributed to the decision. why anyone would criticize anyone for us choosing choosing A1 or B2 or whatever is beyond me because it wasn't one person's decision.