💡 In simple words: A friendly, honest way to raise support on the street for good causes. People who sign up passers-by would be rewarded for keeping supporters happy over time, not just for signing them up.

Status: proposal, initial hypothesis. Everything on this page is proposed as a base for discussion. All figures are illustrative working values, not commitments.

Street Fundraising

Street fundraising, the practice of dialoguers approaching passers-by to collect subscriptions for a cause, is one of the most effective yet contested models in nonprofit fundraising. WikiDeal is exploring a transparent, contract-based, community-governed alternative to the traditional agency model. WM-03

No real organization names appear on this page: variables in brackets, such as [NGO name], stand for any association, foundation or coalition. Markers such as WM-03 refer to practices inspired by the Wikimedia movement; see Wikimedia References.

Use case overview

Type	Street fundraising / face-to-face donation
Target	NGOs, associations, foundations
Intermediation	Dialoguers + the WikiDeal platform
Contract model	3-contract system (see the three contracts)
User Group(s)	Street Fundraising User Group (proposed)
Ring(s)	[NGO Solidarity Ring] (illustrative)
Active funders	18 (illustrative placeholder)
Contracts signed	0 (pre-launch)
Cash-to-miles ratio	45% / 55% (illustrative, would vary with the Need-Driven Funding)
Average satisfaction	not yet measured (pre-launch)
Deployment	Regional (Switzerland) envisaged first
Program	Street Fundraising Program
Licence	Free licence: AGPL v3 · GNU/Linux
Status	🔬 Applied research prototype
Maturity	⭐⭐☆☆☆ (in development)

Context: the model observed today

Today, many large associations and coalitions (for example in health, human rights, climate or social justice) outsource street fundraising to specialized agencies. These agencies recruit and manage dialoguers, paid staff who engage passers-by to sign up for monthly donations.

Agencies are commonly reported to charge the equivalent of 12 to 18 months of monthly dues for each new subscriber acquired (illustrative order of magnitude).
An association may not "break even" on a new donor until well into the second year, if that donor stays.
Dialoguers are often young, mobile, on temporary contracts, and loosely integrated into the association's culture.
The passerby has limited information about how the subscription is used in the first year.

Problems with the current system

As described in the initial notes this page starts from:

💰 High agency commissions: up to 100% of first-year dues can go to the agency.
🔒 Inflexibility: contracts are rigid; there is usually no mechanism for sharing revenue over time.
👥 Narrow profiles: mostly young, mobile people can participate as dialoguers (few retirees, few social aid beneficiaries, few committed volunteers).
⚠️ Misaligned incentives: dialoguers are incentivized to maximize sign-ups, not long-term retention.
🔍 Opacity: passers-by do not know where their money goes in the first year.
📉 High churn: many subscribers cancel within 12 months, leaving associations with little after paying agency fees.

The three needs this program starts from

The program is built around three needs expressed by associations and dialoguers:

Workforce flexibility: stands at festivals, markets, train stations and shopping centres need staffing that can scale up and down per event.
Broader profiles: not only students, but also retirees, social aid beneficiaries and committed volunteers should be able to take part, with contracts adapted to each status.
Flexible revenue distribution: instead of a large up-front acquisition fee, revenue could be spread over time, for example 6 months instead of 18, or around 20% per year over 10 years (illustrative options).

The direction explored

The direction explored: WikiDeal would distribute the "acquisition fee" across the life of the subscription, using the bonding curve to generate credits. WM-05

The keys of success proposed for this use case:

Instead of paying the equivalent of the first year to an agency, the association would distribute revenue over time (for example around 20% per year over 10 years, illustrative).
Broader profiles: retirees, social aid beneficiaries, students, volunteers: the intent is that anyone could become a dialoguer.
Community governance: User Groups would coordinate dialoguers, set standards and manage training.
Transparency: every subscriber would see how their subscription is distributed.
Free licensing: the platform is intended to run on free/libre software (AGPL v3, GNU/Linux), community-maintained. WM-09

The corrected side effect

⚠️ A recurring problem in street fundraising: dialoguers sometimes tell passers-by "sign up for one year, then cancel if you want". This generates sign-up commissions but leaves the association with little after first-year cancellations.

The correction explored: revenue would be spread over time (for example 10 years). A subscriber who cancels after 1 year would generate only a small share of the total expected value, and the dialoguer's credits would reflect this. The intent is to correct the misaligned incentive by tying dialoguer rewards to subscriber retention, not just acquisition.

If the subscriber stays 10 years: the dialoguer would receive 10 times the yearly share, the full value (illustrative).
If the subscriber cancels after 1 year: the dialoguer would receive only that year's share (illustrative).
An algorithm could alert dialoguers when their subscriber-retention score drops below a threshold. ⚠️

The three contracts

The use case relies on three distinct contracts. As an entry point, each contract would display its key indicators at the top: duration, cash-to-miles split, payout plan, and average subscriptions per hour (for example 2 to 4 on a regular day, 6 to 10 at a festival; illustrative).

Contract A: Association and User Group WM-07

Purpose: framework agreement defining the relationship between an [NGO name] and a WikiDeal User Group that agrees to conduct fundraising on its behalf.

Integration clause: the User Group would commit to represent the association faithfully and in accordance with its values.
Revenue sharing: a share of subscriber dues (around 10% lifetime in the current working hypothesis, illustrative) would be allocated to User Group operating costs and credits.
Participatory audit clause: the association would retain the right to audit User Group activity.
Non-exclusivity: a User Group could represent multiple associations, with transparent disclosure.
Exit clause: notice period and data portability.

⚠️ Alert clause: if the subscriber retention rate falls below an agreed threshold, an automatic review would be triggered.

Contract B: Association and Dialoguer or Volunteer WM-07

Purpose: individual contract based on an existing internship agreement used as a base model, adapted with WikiDeal credits.

Key indicators at the top of the contract: duration, cash-to-miles split, payout plan, average subscriptions per hour.
Trial period: one quarter, during which either party could end the contract without stating a motive.
Pause: the contract could be put on pause at any time.
Material clause: any material provided would be recorded with its value, with a debt clause if it is not returned.
Quarterly obligations: agreed minimum activity per quarter, including at least one social activity per quarter, and completion of training modules.
Insurance: the User Group would provide civil liability coverage during events (to be confirmed with legal review).

⚠️ Alert icons: contracts would use a graphic nomenclature of alert icons, with three levels: advisory (yellow), warning (orange), suspension review (red).

Eligible profiles: paid dialoguers, volunteers, retirees, social aid beneficiaries (with the required notifications), students.

Contract C: Donation contract (passerby to association) WM-02

Purpose: the subscription contract signed by a new supporter on the street or online, with counterparts.

A recurring WikiDeal subscription (around CHF 1 per month or CHF 10 per year, a discount for paying a year in advance; working hypothesis, illustrative). A subscription can also be offered by a third party, for example an association offering it to its volunteers: see offered subscriptions.
Minimum duration: month to month, cancel anytime.
Counterparts: annual report, event invitations, access to a community area on WikiDeal.
Revenue transparency: the subscriber could see the full distribution table at any time.
Credits: the subscriber would accumulate Miles Credits from a continuous subscription.
Data portability: subscriber data exportable at any time, in line with data protection law (GDPR).

⚠️ Cancellation window: a cooling-off period after the first subscription (14 days in the current working hypothesis).

The Need-Driven Funding applied per event

The split between Rewards (convertible to cash, no guarantee) and Miles Credits (for the community) would depend on the attractiveness of the event, regulated by the Need-Driven Funding. WM-06 Illustrative examples:

Low attraction event (few volunteers, difficult location): up to 100% Rewards (no guarantee), to attract participants.
Medium attraction event (city centre, regular day): around 50% Rewards / 50% Miles Credits.
High attraction event (popular festival, peak season): around 25% Rewards / 75% Miles Credits, the community benefits.

The ratio would be flexible per event, and an algorithm could adjust it based on sign-up rate and volunteer count.

Time bank and resource bank

Beyond monetary compensation, the use case explores non-monetary exchange: WM-08

Time bank: 1 hour of fundraising would equal 1 time credit, redeemable for peer services (training, childcare, legal advice).
Resource bank: members could share resources valued in credits:
- 🏠 Holiday housing (credit per night)
- 🚗 Transport (credit per km)
- 🍽️ Food (credit per meal, via solidarity meals)
Conversion: around 1 CHF equivalent per time credit (advisory working value, not legally binding).

Bidirectional evaluation

The use case explores a bidirectional evaluation system: not a binary rating, both parties express themselves. The dialoguer evaluates the association and the association evaluates the dialoguer. WM-10

Balance-of-judgement indicator: a dedicated, independent page would display how balanced each party's feedback is over time.
Pre-written feedback lists: standard phrases per category (professionalism, communication, impact, and so on).
AI-assisted suggestions: based on session data, the AI could propose relevant feedback phrases.
Credits for feedback: completing feedback would earn credits (around 1 CHF equivalent per minute in the current working hypothesis, with a cap; illustrative).
Refusing to give feedback would lead to significant deductions.
Associations would also be evaluated by dialoguers: poor management or lack of materials could be flagged transparently.

Categorization of associations

By theme: environment, human rights, health, culture, education, local development.
By geographic region: cantons (CH), departments (FR), provinces (BE), and so on.
By type of organization: emergency relief, long-term development, advocacy, services.
Attraction indicator: a composite indicator covering the financial dimension, the festive dimension, the socialization dimension and the quality of the venue.
Public statistics: success rates and numbers of participants would be public.

User Group coordination

Collision avoidance: a calendar system would prevent two similar organizations deploying at the same place at the same time.
Festival contacts: a shared database of festival organizers, permits and contact persons, used for selections.
Elected delegates: associations would elect delegates, forming an operational bureau.
At real cost: coordination would operate at real cost, with any surplus returned.

Two distinct User Groups

The initial notes distinguish two separate User Groups:

Street Fundraising User Group: fundraising (donations) for NGOs and associations, the subject of this page.
Internship User Group: semi-paid internships and training placements, learning by doing, based on an existing internship agreement used as a base model.

Training model

The training model explored is participatory and bottom-up, not top-down instruction: WM-11

Regional meals (quarterly): informal knowledge sharing, peer feedback.
Thematic committees: dialoguers self-organize by interest (sports, culture, and so on).
Seniors coach juniors: experienced dialoguers would mentor newcomers and earn credits for mentoring.
Online modules: a set of required modules (platform, contract basics, communication, ethics, AI tools).

AI assistance

The WikiDeal internal AI could send real-time messages to dialoguers: WM-12

"3 hours on site: your current score is 2.1 subscriptions per hour against a target of 3.0. Consider changing location or pitch."
"High foot traffic expected at [festival name] tomorrow: 8 spots available. Sign up?"
"Your subscriber at position #127 has been active for 18 months. Well done!"
"Community credits: your User Group is 40 credits from the next milestone."

Illustrative scenario

Scenario (all names are variables in brackets): [NGO name] partners with the WikiDeal User Group [User Group name] in [city] for the annual [festival name] on [date].

[Dialoguer first name], 63, a retired teacher, signs up for a 4-hour slot at [stand location]. Her target: 3 subscriptions per hour (illustrative).

At 3 hours in, the WikiDeal internal AI sends: "[Dialoguer first name]: 3 hours on site, 7 subscriptions so far (2.3 per hour against a target of 3.0). Suggestion: move 50 metres north, near the main stage."

By the end of the shift, she records 13 subscriptions. With the Need-Driven Funding at 50% for this popular festival, the value would be split 50% Rewards / 50% Miles Credits for the community pool.

Her Rewards (no guarantee) would be visible in her dashboard. The community pool Miles Credits would flow to [User Group name] for collective projects.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why is the WikiDeal subscription so low compared to an NGO donation?

A: The WikiDeal subscription is the platform subscription for the intermediation layer. Associations would set their own donation amounts. WikiDeal's role would be to manage the contracts and credits system, not to replace the donation itself.

Q: Can a retired person really be a dialoguer?

A: That is the intent. The use case specifically opens the dialoguer role to retirees, students, social aid beneficiaries (with the required notifications) and volunteers. The contracts would be adapted to each status.

Q: What happens to credits if the association leaves WikiDeal?

A: Credits would be issued on the bonding curve and belong to the individual. They would not be association-specific: if an association leaves, credits already earned would not be affected.

Q: How would the revenue spread work in practice?

A: In the illustrative 10-year option, for each active subscription, around 20% of the yearly value would be allocated to the acquisition cost each year for 10 years, instead of the full amount in year 1. A dialoguer who enrolled a subscriber who stays 5 years would receive 5 yearly shares: the same logic, but spread over time and tied to retention. A shorter spread (for example 6 months instead of 18) is another option under discussion.

Q: What is the corrected side effect exactly?

A: Some dialoguers tell passers-by "sign up for a year, cancel after". This gets them a commission while leaving the NGO with little after the cancellation. The proposed correction ties credits to subscriber retention, not just acquisition.

Q: How would the per-event ratio be determined?

A: The algorithm could consider the number of volunteers available, the historical sign-up rate at that location or event, the weather and the time of year. A low supply of volunteers would mean a higher share of Rewards (no guarantee) to attract participants; a high supply at a popular event would mean a larger share going to Miles Credits.

Q: Is this legal under Swiss, French or Belgian labour law?

A: The contracts are intended to comply with applicable labour law. For paid dialoguers, standard employment protections would apply. For volunteers, the association volunteer framework would be used. Legal review is part of the required community roles (see Contribute as a legal professional).

Q: Can a User Group represent multiple associations at once?

A: That is the working hypothesis, with full transparency. Subscribers and dialoguers could see which associations a User Group represents. Conflict of interest rules would prevent representing directly competing organizations.

Success indicators (illustrative targets)

Key performance indicators proposed for this use case. These targets are illustrative and community-modifiable as the program matures. See also the WikiDeal success criteria.

Indicator	Illustrative target	Description
Active dialoguers per month	at least 100	Registered dialoguers conducting at least one session per month
New subscribers per month	at least 500	New subscribers enrolled through street activity
Subscriber 12-month retention	at least 60%	Share of subscribers still active 12 months after enrollment
Session reporting compliance	at least 95%	Sessions with complete before, during and after reports filed
Alert rate (yellow or above)	under 2%	Share of dialoguers receiving any alert level per quarter
Cost per subscriber enrolled	around CHF 8 or less	Total program costs divided by new enrolled subscribers
Miles Credits distributed	tracked	Total Miles Credits distributed to dialoguers, published monthly

Quality criteria (proposed)

Quality standards proposed for this use case, inspired by ISO-style quality frameworks. They would be reviewed by the community.

Standard	Dimension	Criteria	Illustrative target
QS-SF-001	Process quality	Every dialoguer would complete the required training modules before the first session. Compliance verified automatically.	100% training compliance
QS-SF-002	Ethical standards	Zero tolerance for misleading subscription advice. Random audio monitoring (with consent) and subscriber satisfaction surveys are options under discussion.	0 confirmed violations
QS-SF-003	Service quality	Post-session feedback completed within 24 hours by all dialoguers. Feedback quality reviewed by User Group officers.	at least 95% feedback rate
QS-SF-004	User satisfaction	Annual subscriber survey: share who would recommend the subscription to others.	at least 70% would recommend
QS-SF-005	Governance	Each User Group would hold a general assembly and publish an anonymized activity report.	100% governance compliance

Rules

The detailed rules proposed for this use case (definition and scope, core principles, mandatory rules, ethical standards, User Group governance, alert system, best practices, exclusions, dispute resolution) are on a dedicated page: Street Fundraising Rules.

Portal structure (model)

This portal follows the standard WikiDeal market-portal structure. Each market portal offers the same set of content types (the base contract, models, amendments, addenda, lawyer-validated contracts, legal references, compensation, etc.), even when some are still empty:

📋 Portal structure: how this market portal works · full model
Rules of the game	Portal Main, the governing conventions for this portal
Base contract	Contract Base, the foundation contract and its clause cultures
Models	Contract Model(s), concrete models built on the base
Amendments	Base Amendment · Model Amendment
Addenda (avenants)	Base Addendum · Model Addendum
Lawyer-validated	Contract Validated, contracts validated by lawyers
Legal references	Legal Reference, by country and language
Compensation	Compensation, Conditions · Pricing & Scales · Miles Credits
Use cases	Use cases, real pilot examples
Alerts & prevention	Alerts & prevention, alerts, risks and common errors together
Statistics	Statistics, usage statistics and common error statistics
Signature	Signature, signature management, see the open call on contract signature
Tutorials	Tutorials · FAQ
Debates	Debates (Talk)

Some sections may still be empty: they are listed so the structure is available and ready to fill. Each element is explained on the Portal Structure Model page.