Lottery
A ticket purchase is required. Only buyers can win.
How do we distribute funds to founders? A lottery among vetted applicants, a community panel, an expert panel, hybrid models. Which modes are values-aligned, fair, and legitimate, and what effects do they have on whom?
Working hypothesis: each application follows this path. Pre-screen, phase check, one of four allocation modes, SROI assessment, payout, monitoring. A re-investment loop is possible.
Three mechanics under review for acquiring micro-backers. Compared along three axes: who funds the pot, who takes part, who wins. Status: under discussion.
A ticket purchase is required. Only buyers can win.
Everyone receives a free ticket. About 5% top up the pot with a donation.
External backers fund the pot. Only the target group enters.
Both allocate in different contexts than ours, both yield sound lessons. One shows how a lottery scales to millions of participants. The other shows how chance and an expert panel can complement each other without devaluing either.
Unconditional allocation, charitable association, since 2014.
Around 1.1 to 1.2 million registered participants, 2,343 winners over ten years, €12,000 per draw (€1,000 × 12 months). The 2025 DIW companion study finds no labour-market withdrawal, around a third of recipients save, and just under 8% pass donations on.
Our takeaway: A lottery scales to millions of participants when the entry barrier stays low and the winner story stays tellable.
Partially randomised procedure in research funding, since 2017.
A two-stage allocation: an expert panel screens first, then a lottery draws from applications that fit the programme aim and clear the quality bar. Chance kicks in only after that bar, not before. The foundation aims for greater diversity in the funded pool and better odds for risky research. A 2018 to 2022 companion study (Röbbecke and Simon, "Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung" 2/2023) reports high acceptance among applicants and reviewers.
Our takeaway: Chance and expert judgement don't have to compete. The order matters: quality filter first, lottery second, which guards against arbitrariness and reduces bias.
Lottery-based allocation exists in Europe in three clearly distinguishable areas. A multilingual search (DE, EN, FR, ES, NL, IT) plus a cross-check against the German federal funding database found no established programme in a fourth area: funding for entrepreneurs.
No established programme in Germany or Europe currently allocates entrepreneurial funding by lottery or random selection. What the Unternehmer:innenfonds is proposing would be without precedent across Europe.
This page is part of our ongoing exploration, where we collect research, meetings, materials, and discussions on this block. Content is still taking shape. If you’d like to join in or get access, a short message is enough.