The Future of the D&D Treasure Pot Seen Through the lens of the Medecine Wheel

Summary — Day Three Action Session: The Future of the D&D Treasure Pot Seen Through the lens of the Medecine wheel

Core purpose

This was an Action Day reflection session about what had happened with the D&D Treasure Pot, what it revealed, and how it might continue.

The pot had now reached £1,000+, meaning the original £500 had effectively been match-funded by the community.

The session asked:

What have we learned from this experiment, and how do we carry it forward without killing the magic?

1. The Medicine Wheel as a lens

Phelim brought in Harrison Owen’s use of the Medicine Wheel as a way to look back over Open Space.

The four archetypal directions were named as:

Archetype/Function

Deer

Leadership / stepping forward

Bear

Management / slow practical work

Mouse

Community / care / ground-level attention

Eagle

Vision / looking ahead

This became a way of asking:

* Where was the leadership in the pot experiment?

* Where was the vision?

* Where was the community?

* What management is now needed?

The important distinction was that vision and leadership are not the same thing.

2. The pot crossed a threshold

The move from £500 to over £1,000 felt significant.

Not just financially, but energetically:

£800 felt like money.

£1,000 felt like a threshold.

It made the experiment feel suddenly more real and potentially expandable.

Patrick’s £200 contribution was mentioned as the thing that tipped the pot over the threshold.

3. The tombola idea

A playful idea emerged: turn the final draw into something with the feeling of a tombola / raffle / village fair / potluck.

Not just one monetary prize, but possibly other offerings too:

* objects from shows

* useful things

* symbolic objects

* donated prizes

* odd theatrical artefacts

* things people bring from home

This was not only practical; it was about community ritual.

The image was:

You may not win the £1,000, but you might win the theatrical equivalent of a bottle of Bristol Cream or a strange sacred object from someone’s show.

This led to a wider thought: every object or gift could become a creative project in itself.

4. Honour all the projects, not just the winner

A strong concern emerged: what happens to all the entries that don’t get drawn?

The feeling was that the unchosen projects should not simply disappear.

Possible actions:

* put all entries on the wall

* photograph or document them beautifully

* let people see them

* allow others to offer help

* maybe create symbolic emblems for each one

* treat the unchosen entries as compost, not waste

This was important:

The pot is not only about the winner.

It is also about releasing all the hidden projects into visibility.

5. Gift economy, not transaction

The group returned strongly to the difference between:

* money as transaction

* money as judgement

* money as funding bureaucracy

versus:

* money as gift

* money as blessing

* money as trust

* money as release of energy

Phelim described the danger of mission drift: that the pot could easily become another transactional funding scheme unless its spirit is protected.

The essential quality to preserve:

A gift given without strings.

No proof.

No obligation.

Just tell the story.

6. Donors and money-people may want this too

An important insight surfaced: people with money often also suffer from transactional systems.

Phelim described investors attending an Open Space process and feeling unusually humanised and connected.

The group wondered whether donors, consultants, companies, or wealthy people might actually be excited to be brought into this kind of living field, rather than treated as distant funders.

The pot could become a healing space around money:

Not “donors over there” and “artists over here”,

but people in one room, connected to real dreams.

7. Simplicity versus complexity

There was a live tension around whether the pot should evolve into something more structured.

Ideas included:

* separate pots for different Medicine Wheel energies

* specific categories for projects

* donors choosing directions they care about

* multiple pots if the amount grows

* support systems attached to the winner

But the group also felt the danger:

The moment we categorise too much, we begin recreating funding culture.

The counter-argument was strong:

Keep it simple.

One pot.

One draw.

Trust the room.

A possible future principle emerged:

* if the pot becomes much larger, then the structure may need to change

* but for now, protect the simplicity

8. Lottery with meaning

The lottery remained central.

But this was not seen as random in a trivial way.

It was described as:

a lottery with meaning.

The meaning comes from the fact that every entry has already crossed a threshold of care. Someone has stepped forward and placed it in the middle.

So the draw does not say:

This project is best.

It says:

This is the one the universe has handed us today.

That removes the shame of rejection.

If your project is not drawn, it was not judged inadequate. The dice simply did not fall that way.

9. Choosing yourself

One of the strongest insights was that putting something into the pot may be as important as winning.

Phelim noticed this in someone stepping forward with their project — the act itself was a moment of self-leadership.

The pot helps people practise:

* choosing themselves

* naming desire

* making a hidden project visible

* resisting the internalised funding voice that says “am I worthy enough?”

The pot does not choose you because you are good enough.

It chooses through chance.

That is part of its medicine.

10. Support should also be gifted

There was discussion about supporting the winner.

The consensus seemed to be:

* yes, support can be offered

* but not imposed

* coaching, producing help, advice, connections can be gifts too

* the recipient should not become burdened by an obligation to succeed

Isaac’s offer of coaching was cited as a good model:

Here is support if you want it.

No pressure.

No strings.

11. Accountability through presence

A subtle ethos emerged:

We are accountable because we are here.

Not accountable through forms, reports, outcomes, or evaluation.

Accountability comes from:

* showing up

* placing something in the middle

* being witnessed

* telling the story later

* staying in relationship with the community

This links the pot directly to Open Space principles.

12. Practical next steps

The immediate action plan was:

For this D&D

* complete the tombola / draw

* number the entries

* place entries on the wall

* pull the winning entry

* give the pot

* tell the story

After D&D

* write a report / reflection

* bring the story back to Improbable

* discuss responsibility with the board

* consider legal / charitable framing

* invite people who want to stay connected

* use this year’s story to seed next year’s pot

13. What needs protecting

The session identified several things that must not be lost:

* the simplicity

* the trust

* the randomness

* the feeling of gift

* the visibility of all projects

* the absence of pitching

* the absence of judgement

* the joy

* the community ritual

* the connection to Open Space

14. Final insight

The session ended around the emotional and energetic impact of the experiment.

The pot was seen as releasing energy.

One participant named it simply as:

kindness

And another added the crucial reciprocal piece:

accepting responsibility to receive the kindness.

So the Treasure Pot is not just a funding mechanism.

It is a practice in:

giving, receiving, trusting, choosing oneself, and allowing money to move without humiliation.

Final part of story.

‍ ‍

The money was pulled from the treasure chest..

The Improbabilions

Something quite beautiful happened.

We ended up with 38 entries in the D&D Magic Pot.

Names, ideas, needs, dreams — all placed into the middle.

At the end of the day, we drew one at random.

Number 38 of 38.

The very last one.

I heard—

Sam had almost forgotten to put it in.

At the last moment, it went into the pot.

And that was the one that came out.

The project

Chosen by the lottery

Is [fieldstation.no](https://www.fieldstation.no)

An extraordinary artist residency on a remote Arctic island at 71° North —

a place where artists from all over the world come to step out of the noise of everyday life and immerse themselves in landscape, community, and deep creative work.

A place of midnight sun, polar nights, and real adventure.

And, crucially: time and space to think, make, rest, and reimagine your work.

Artists from all disciplines come here to step out of the noise of everyday life and immerse themselves fully in their practice — whether that means making, researching, dreaming, or simply starting again.

It’s not easy.

It’s not comfortable.

An adventure.

Something else.

They’ve recently been turned down for funding around 20 times.

So

No pitch.

No judging.

No panel.

No one argued for it.

No one judged it.

No one compared it to anything else.

It was simply placed in the middle.

And then… it was chosen.

There’s something in this that feels important.

Not just about this one project —

but about what happens when we step outside systems of worthiness, competition and persuasion,

and let something else move.

A gift in.

A gift out.

And now we follow what happens next.

Just over £1000,

a room full of people,

and something like trust… or timing… or magic.

Whoever comes is the right person.

Whatever happens is the only thing that could have.

Now we follow the story.

Previous
Previous

Lets Help Get Zoe To Juilliard

Next
Next

Art Making Arts