talk.kiezburn.org
Sat 4 May 2019 1:43PM

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?

Timeline

  • 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.

Tabs
- 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)

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

Tab
- 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%)

outcome
- 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..

CY

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.

CY

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.

W

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 https://dreams.kiezburn.org/dreams/26 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?

CY

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.

JW

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?

JW

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 
ALL RANGER SUPPLIES: 500 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.

https://dreams.kiezburn.org/dreams/24

DU

Deleted User 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.

W

walto Mon 6 May 2019 6:36PM

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

RS

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.

Load More