What happened
Mixed outcomes. Early organizers reported broader participation and lower coordination costs. Later, steward Francesca Pick encountered low-priority spending, timing advantages, and unused allocations. She judged the projects more strategic after three facilitated rounds, although that judgment leaves open whether the funded work produced better long-term results.
- The 2014 design reserved core expenses before discretionary allocation; anyone could propose a bucket, while allocation rights initially followed financial contributions. Collaborative Funding: dissolve authority, empower everyone, and crowdsource a smarter, transparent budget
- During continuous funding, money remained unused in some accounts, proposals were difficult to compare, and attention was scattered across the network. Sharing power by sharing money: the evolution of collaborative funding in Enspiral
- Time-boxed rounds added strategic discussion and a facilitator. Pick reported three rounds allocating about US$40,000; her favorable judgment concerned the strategic quality of the selected projects. Sharing power by sharing money: the evolution of collaborative funding in Enspiral
What might explain it
Participant explanation
Synchronized rounds may improve comparison by placing competing proposals in view at the same time. Sharing power by sharing money: the evolution of collaborative funding in Enspiral
Alternative explanation: Different proposers, funding levels, or greater organizer experience could also account for the changed portfolio.
Plausible
Giving every contributor control over an allocation can spread power while still leaving coordination work concentrated. Collaborative Funding: dissolve authority, empower everyone, and crowdsource a smarter, transparent budget Sharing power by sharing money: the evolution of collaborative funding in Enspiral
Alternative explanation: A network with stable priorities and experienced participants may require less facilitation than this transition did.
Questions to take into practice
- Distinguish permission to propose from rights to allocate money.
- Can members compare alternatives before committing their allocations?
- Provide a separate route for urgent proposals that cannot wait for a round.
What remains uncertain
- Did the projects funded through facilitated rounds produce more lasting value than those selected through continuous allocation?
- How did unequal allocation rights and members who rarely participated affect the resulting budget?