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)

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"

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.

Excellent feedback, thank you

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 :)

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.

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☺

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:
https://talk.kiezburn.org/d/tXlaBxCY/dreams-funding

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.

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.

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