Creation of Kyopol System (aka: "Symbiotic City"): the Internet as a catalyst for civic engagement and citizen's activation -

I copy the information that we provided for the ChangeMakers challenge:

Most of the info provided there applies perfectly for EdgeRyders.

[I tried to share this in my profile… but the system didn’t save it and destroyed all my editions :frowning: ]



Finally, the Internet is promoting, from below, new forms of democracy in which the citizen is the protagonist

About Your Organization

Asociación Ciudades Kyosei (Symbiotic Cities Association)

Spain, Non‐profit/citizen sector organization

How long has your organization been operating?

More than 5 years


Entry Form title

Kyopol System (“Symbiotic City”): the Internet as a catalyst for civic engagement and citizen’s activation -

Select the stage that best applies to your solution

Start-Up (a pilot that has just begun operating)

THE NEED: Describe the need for your solution and the size/dynamic of the community (ies) you will engage

The “political class” of most democratic countries is losing the public support, and with it the democratic legitimacy of their mandates. But our democratic systems were not designed to operate in such an interconnected and immediate world, and thus the requests from citizens -which want to play a more prominent democratic role- are not being satisfactorily coped with.

Kyopol attempts to solve this problem by providing citizens and politicians tools that promote a stronger citizen incidence at the municipal level, which is where the interaction representative-represented is easier and closer. There is a need for new tools and methods which enhance the ability of both citizens and politicians to work together in solving their daily problems, and thus promote a renewal of politics. A true democracy needs to be guided by an intense and constant dialogue between politicians and the citizens.

This is the challenge that Kyopol System aims to face: promoting, from below, from neighborhoods and cities, the kind of democratic learning processes that will allow us to interact with each other in a symbiotic way, and thus improve the political and civic functioning of our societies.

THE SOLUTION: Please explain what your solution offers and how it is innovative. How will you put your solution into the hands of users or beneficiaries? Be specific!

The challenges that our cities face need to be solved through intensive cooperation between the government, civic society and the economic actors that live and work in them.

Kyopol System aims to make “citizen engagement” much easier, attractive and powerful, and thus help each of these actors to attain their needs through symbiotic collaboration. Through dialogue and cooperation, civic links are established and reinforced, and a feeling of “belonging to a common environment” is generated.

To realize this vision, Kyopol is being built “bottom-up”, based on the visions of its future users, which participate in its design and creation. Users are the ones who know better their environment and their capabilities and needs. By means of a collaborative design process, users are determining which functionalities generate more benefit for them and thus make the system more sustainable and replicable. The interaction with Kyopol is going to be simple and intuitive. The features will be aligned with the users’ interests: they will not feel like they are doing a “civic effort”, but getting informed and taking care of things that are “worth” it and, at the same time, having fun.

The system exploits the knowledge that the Association has accumulated since 2005 by performing interdisciplinary research in Brazil, Spain and Guatemala. Web 2.0 collaborative tools and concepts are going to be integrated in Kyopol, to create synergic effects that promote enough usefulness as to attain the critical mass of users that is required for such a system to work satisfactorily.

THE MODEL: Walk us through a specific example of how your solution makes a difference through use of information technology and media

• Kyopol supports and facilitates public engagement in populations of any size, increasing the effect and incidence of civic collaboration. It supports both online and offline initiatives, and is available both for “citizens driven initiatives” (bottom-up) as for initiatives promoted by government and public agencies (top-down).

• Kyopol makes easy for people and groups that are willing to promote a civic initiative, to inform about it to all potentially interested fellow citizens and organizations. Conversely, through a system of “alerts”, Kyopol allows citizens and organizations to stay informed about the initiatives that deal with themes and places of their interest.

• Kyopol promotes the development of “high quality” civic initiatives, by providing tools, methodologies and teaching resources that promote a participation which is transparent, informed, balanced, profound and documented.

• Kyopol works, in short, as a decentralized and transparent “Facebook of civic engagement”, which would be regularly used by citizens and institutions of all kinds, to inform (/inform themselves) about civic initiatives taking place in the places they care for, and deal with subjects that matter to them. Kyopol acts thus as a “civic neural system” for the city, which guides collective reflection and civic action, and keeps a transparent record of all civic processes conducted in the city over the time.

• Using a fractal model of administration, Kyopol obtains a sustainable critical mass of users, and thus favours an exponential growth of the usefulness generated and its viral spread.

THE MARKETPLACE: Who are your peers and competitors? What challenges could these players pose to your success or growth?

Experts have long indicated that e-Participation systems promoted “top-down”, from governments, are inefficient, technologically backward and unable to fulfill the real needs of its users. This is why the EU has not obtained much results, despite having invested more than 100 million euros in the last 10 years.

However, the systems developed from CSOs have also not had a real success: they have not been able to expand its use virally, in a sustainable way. Financial constraints and a poor understanding of the environment where they operate prevented them from generating a irresistible “usefulness” that would have lead to an exponential growth.

During the last 6 years our association has been researching this area, as a way to get vision, technical capacity and the commitment required to design really transformative tools. As a result, we have also established links with institutions and professionals who are now helping us to design and test a system “that actually works”. In Kyopol’s DNA includes openness and public service vocation: we will try to convince any ‘competitor’ we meet that we all -and the goals we serve- win more by partnering and cooperating than by competing.

Social Impact

This Entry is about (Issues) FOUNDING STORY: We want to hear about your “Aha!” moment. Share the story of where and when the founder(s) saw this solution’s potential to change the world.

It was during 2005. This year I researched in Brazil -with a grant from the Ministry of Int. Cooperation- Internet’s potential to strengthen local participation in Latin American countries. I studied various participatory avenues by participating in them and interacting with the participants: Participatory Budgeting, People’s Assemblies, MST, CSOs, NGOs, political parties, unions, neighborhood associations…

I soon realized that this puzzle was very difficult to solve, because each of the actors involved in “Civic Engagement” were missing some pieces needed to complete it: politicians lack confidence and will; activist lack awareness of ICT’s potentials; scholars do not feel the “taste” of civic engagement, programmers have not experienced the face-to-face processes of social struggle…

We wrote some articles explaining the “Main foundations to design municipal e-Participation systems”… But that was clearly not enough. If we wanted “empowering” tools to be created, we had to involve ourselves directly to play a “connecting” role between IT and meatworld. So we founded the association. We have been reflecting and networking since then. Now, finally, we started to build KYOPOL.

Specify both the depth and scale of your solution’s social impact to date

The projects of our Association are currently at a crucial point. After finishing the research and pre-design phases (below we show their most important achievements), we are now starting the construction and testing of Kyopol, with the help of our “Pioneers’ Group”.



  • Research on e-participation and civic engagement in Catalonia (2004), Brazil (05-06) and Guatemala (07-10).

  • Experiences: ICT and municipal transparency (09), ICT and plans. participatory development (10). Indigenous region in Guatemala.


  • Preparation of articles, book chapters, monographs, audiovisual materials and teaching aids.

  • Conferences: Project perspectives presented in Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Guatemala, Venezuela and Brazil.

  • Teaching courses and seminars on e-Participation.

  • Price awarded at CLAD Congress to our coneptual foundations.


  • Partnerships with institutions and individuals interested in contributing to the associaion’s projects (see below).

  • Recognized in the field of European e-participation as an innovative and relevant actor.

What is your projected impact within the next 1-5 years? Is your idea replicable? If so, how?

The creation of Kyopol is underway. 57 “pioneers” (from 7 countries) representing the various groups of system’s users, are now helping us to create and improve Kyopol prototypes. Pilot testing is planed to start in H1 2012 at the Corredor del Henares region. The system is created with the explicit aim of extending its use “virally”. In June 2013 we aim to activate it throughout Spain (see picture), and to start pilots in several countries in Latinamerica and Europe.

If the extension of Kyopol’s use in spanish municipalities goes as planned, by the time of the next municipal elections (due in 2015) Kyopol might have contributed much to strengthen the participatory and civic landscape of many spanish cities and regions, and could thus affect significantly several election results.

Winning entries present a strong plan for how they will achieve and mark growth. Identify your six-month milestone for growing your impact

Prototypes have been validated and improved by Pioneers, and an Alpha system is available to conduct pilot projects.

Six-Month Tasks

Task 1

Consolidation of the Core Group and the “Pioneers Group”. Maturing of our collaboration processes and tools [by 2011.09]

Task 2

Develop the first working prototype of the Kyopol [by 2011.11]. Testing and improvement. Start pilot projects [by 2012.03]

Task 3

Extend and strengthen partnerships with stakeholders for the pilot projects, in the municipalities and Villalbilla-Alcalá.

Now think bigger! Identify your 12-month impact milestone

Pilot projects were developed successfully and we are ready to extend use of Kyopol to several Spanish Autonomous Regions.

12-Month Tasks

Task 1

Create a functional alpha version of Kyopol, based on the learnings from the pilot projects [till 2012.10]

Task 2

Partnerships with relevant actors for expansion process (Fed. of Townhalls &Neighb Asoc., 15M, DRY, Regional Govt., …)

Task 3

Establish and validate business models, financ. and sustainability models. Alliances with institutional partners.

How many people have been impacted by your project?

101 - 1,000

How many people could be impacted by your project in the next three years?

More than 10,000


Explain how your company, program, service or product is structured


What barriers have hindered the success of your project to date? How do you plan to overcome these and other challenges as you grow your solution?

The obstacles were much related to a lack of institutional and financial support from existing institutions. We have invested a lot of energy trying to get support from government agencies, supra-state institutions (EU & OAS) and regional governments… without success. Unfortunately, traditional innovation support programs do not work well to back “social entrepreneurism”. This has forced our project lead to combine his dedication to the project with some other activities that allowed him to earn his livelihoods. All in all, this has slowed much our progress. The lack of full-time developers dedicated to building the system has also been an obstacle.

But… to overcome these obstacles, as Peter Pan once said… “all we need is faith and trust… and a little bit of pixie dust!” :slight_smile:

How do you see the information-technology and media sectors shifting over the next decade? How will your solution adapt to and/or drive that changing environment?

As Tim Berners-Lee wrote in a recent article, “the ability to engineer successful [web] applications requires [an interdisciplinary approach and] a better understanding of the features and functions of the social aspects of the systems.” This is precisely the approach that our association has been working with.

“The Web is changing at a rate that may be greater than even the most knowledgeable researcher’s ability to observe it.” Internet is about to impact on our political systems… and Kyopol would like to be at the forefront of that change.

Failure is not always an option. If your solution fails to gain traction in the next two years, what other applications of the idea could you explore?

Our project is configured as a multidisciplinary learning process, which aims to understand how to put the Internet on the service of our societies’ political development. It is clear that, in order to achieve it, well-designed platforms are required, which are able integrate offline participation processes with online functionalities. They must provide features that meet the needs and abilities of the citizens, and succeed in generating a pleasant experience of “civic engagement”: it must be fun!!-.

That is why, if -for example- in two years we have been unable to extend the use of the system to the levels have set as objective, or we have failed to achieve the “small critical masses” that are needed to create an empowering participation… we will not consider it as much as a failure, but as a “still unfinished learning process”. Everything we have achieved to that moment will be the basis for further learning and improving. Considering that, in the meantime, we will have been strengthening ties with other institutions and individuals who share our goals, we will surely be in a much better position to address the challenges we encounter.

That said, we should note that our plans include various alternative scenarios. These scenarios consider different ideas, features and possible uses of the system; and depending on how everything unfolds, we will give prioritize some of them over the others.

For example, one of the features the system should provide, is to be integrated with the formal and informal education systems. This way, it will promote a “hands on” learning of “participation” from the school. But this is not one of the functionalities that we have prioritized to be in the first alpha.

Many of these features are meant to support “business models” that generate revenue streams that will ensure the sustainability of the system. For example, we aim to provide specific functionalities for municipalities, which will facilitate their polls, surveys, deliberative and participatory processes, in a very cost-efficient way. A town hall would be willing to pay a subscription to have access to this functionality, and thus the operating cost of the system could be covered. Crowdsourcing, advertising, partnerships with regional institutions, micro-contributions… are some of the many possible mechanisms for self-financing that we are considering.

As shown in the “Spyglass Model” for the creation of Civic Software (search for it in the picture section), we consider “Sustainability” as a cross-cutting element that must be taken into account for all the dimensions of the project: from infrastructure for development and the base collaborative processes, to the institutional governance arrangements for the system. We consider that if the whole project is going to succeed… each of these dimensions must be sustainable on its own.

In the case that, after two years, not all dimensions are sustainable… this will mean that we have to continue learning and collaborating with others to achieve it.

Expand on your selections, explaining how you will sustain funding

As noted before, the system includes several features that provide channels of funding: partnerships, micro-payments, crowdsourcing, selling services, business platform, and so on.

However, what is really essential to promote the scalability and sustainability of the system is to minimize its operating costs. Kyopol administration is based on a model of “fractal” and multilevel governance, which allows the users to administer the system at the closest possible level to issues (each neighborhood, city or region). Users are also creating the content that keep the system alive. Thus, a small central team (in the style of the Wikimedia Foundation) would have the responsibility for channeling and enhancing collaboration, as well as to direct the improvement of Kyopol’s features and procedures.

Tell us about your partnerships

We have established partnerships with institutions and individuals interested in contributing to our projects, including: University of Alcalá (ES), Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey (MX), Federal University of Ceará (BR), Inter-American Network on Electronic Government (INT), Escola de Formação de Governantes de Ceará (BR), Pan-European eParticipation Network (EU), Inter-American Organization for Higher Education (INT), 15M (ES), Independent Municipal Party (ES), MuNET e-Government (OAS), Catep - Social Intervention Cooperative (ES) + many individuals.

What type of team (staff, volunteers, etc.) will ensure that you achieve the growth milestones identified in the Social Impact section?

The project aims to operate with a minimal cost. Therefore, our process of collaborative design and construction has been structured to allow individual contributors to participate with just a small effort and without being remunerated. Currently just one person dedicated full time to the project. He is coordinating a “Core team” of 19 volunteers, and a "Pioneers Group” (alpha testers) with 57 members.

In two years we will probably need to have a “full time” team formed by 3 people, who will take charge of the development and support system.

Changemakers is a collaborative and supportive space. Please specify any community resources you would need to grow and sustain your initiative. Select all that apply

Investment, Collaboration or networking, Pro-bono help (legal, financial, etc.), Mentorship.

Specify any resources you might offer to support other initiatives. Select all that apply

Research or information, Collaboration or networking, Innovation or ideas, Mentorship.

Please elaborate on any needs or offers you have mentioned above and/or suggest categories of support that aren’t specified within the list

Our fundamental profile is “multi-disciplinary activists and researchers”, and thus we could provide to the Ashoka network the items that have been listed.

With regard to our demands… they indicate what we now mainly need: some minimum investment levels and the tremendous visibility and “networking” possibilities that being a member of the Ashoka network provides. We are open to collaborations of all kinds (we have already identified several projects in this call that would be similar or complementary to ours, where synergies could be exploited (Bottup, FixMyCity, Eudemocracia…)).

We could also benefit from the advice and strategic guidance that other network’s members could give us, as well as specific support in areas where we do not have much expertise (legal…).


Define your company, program, service or product in 1-2 short sentences

KYOPOL: The vision, the commitment and the technical competence to design Civic Software with a real transformative potential

Identify what is innovative about your solution in 1-2 short sentences

Finally, the Internet is promoting, from below, new forms of democracy in which the citizen is the protagonist

Two models or two halves of one?

I tend to think that civic participation can be either top-down, when an institution asks for the help of citizens; or bottom-up, when citizens seize the initiatize to speak up (or act up). CKyosei is a bottom-up organization, but Kyopol itself can be both.

Major design question: are the requirements for a bottom-up and a top-down tool for civic engagement the same? Is engagement symmetrical? Instinctively I would say “no”, but that may be wrong.

Two halves of a half

Hi Alberto,

Actually, at Ckyosei we advocate to mix three different conceptions for civic engagement: top-down, bottom-up, and one we invented (partly, as a joke), called: “from-the-middle-and-around”. :slight_smile:

Both the “top-down” and the “bottom-up” perspectives are too simple conceptualizations… that are not able to comprehend the nuances of such a complex phenomenom as civic engagement.

The most important, on practical terms: using any of those approaches, it is difficult to “bake” engagement venues that are at the same time sustainable, powerful and deep.

That’s why they both need to be combined.

And to be combined with many other approaches. It’s not just a question of considering the perspectives of the administration/decision-makers on one side, and the citizens on the other. You have to consider the perspectives of all possibly involved actors, to stablish the requirements.

For example: the perspectives of the media (local/alternative/civic media) with regards to civic engagement are different from the participants or the promoters. The same can be said for the “facilitators” of the processes. And actually, by definition… it is completely wrong to speak of a “bottom-up”, because always there are a lot of “bottom-ups”, different citizens and citizens groups with competing interests and views, that will have different desires with regard to any participatory decission.

So… we think that we need to move further from the dualism expressed in the “top-down”/“bottom-up” opposition, and go in the direction of a “kaleidoscopic governance”, with multiple actors and stakeholders involved.

Having said that, and comming back to your question: once you leave behind the dualist distintion between top/down… and start designing requirements from a “governance perspective” many of the requirements and tools needed to support participation… start to converge. It is not much a question on “WHO” is doing the things, but of “WHAT” they aim to achieve: actually, the utility that they want to extract from the participatory process.

For example: a municipality could be intereested in performing a “deliverative poll”, or some kind of sociologically advance poll of the citizens of a neighborhood, to orient their policy making process. But… this can also be useful for an NGO: to ask in the same way to citizens to orient their actions and their demands to the executive. And it can be useful for a political party. Or to a social movement that is organising “popular assemblies” in the neighbourhoods.

So… yes. When you move from actors to intentions… you discover that very different actors can share some intentions. And thus… they can benefit from similar tools.



PS: We are planning to release soon in PeP-NET blog a conceptual tool we have created: the matrix of civic implication. This matrix helps to conceive Civic Engagement as something that grows much richer and powerful when it goes beyond the top-down/bottom-up mentality.

Two halves of a half

Really fascinating, Pedro! I like the fact that you descripbed your project as being ‘simple and intuitive’. Moving from a producer to co-producer’s role requires that new avenues be explored.

I am delighted to see that intuition needs to occupy a proeminent place in a strategy for operational change. This ties in fact what many leadership experts recommend (to rely on intuition, or leadership of the soul). Gaining an increased awareness of our own and others’ needs opens possibilities to make a profound change in the way politics are lead and conducted.

Not only does it require to re-organize the way to work and collaborate together, but in order to get there, government managers and government officials must also change the way they see their role and tasks.

chage change change political change

Dear Lyne,

I agree with what you say.

Precisely today I was reading some reflection from Catherine Howe, from Public-i, reflecting on “how we transition large organisations within the public sector towards a more networked state”. It’s very aligned with what you were commenting.

Another interesting reference, much older and with the focus out of Internet and more in the third world, but anyway inspiring, is the following text:

Fisher, J. (1998). Non-Governments. NGOs and the Political Development of the Third World. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

Le’t keep moving toward positive change.

Kind regards, Pedro

Long live the middle!

I think this is completely and I love the concept of “middle-out”. I think the space in the middle - in between citizens and public services - is the most important space for positive creation, for democratic involvement, and for building institutions. There are plenty of community organisations, there are plenty of public services, there is insufficient connexion between them.

Now that you mention it…

Hi Anthony, I had forgotten this discussion thread.

But now that you mention it…I want to add here that last week, reading a feminist book (“A critic of the thought of love”, or something like that) I came across a pair of terms that made me think “Eureka!”. Some concepts that could be useful for you for the “We live here” project.

In my previous comment I already critizised the notion of “top-down” and “bottom-up”. I feel they do not describe very well the “reality” of participation, as they say something about who is the leading organiser of an exercise (or the one paying the bills :slight_smile: ), but not much about its nature.

I think the notion of “top-down” vs. “bottom-up” could be complemented with the notions of “inside out” vs. “outside in”, which somehow suggest the intrinsic logic that characterize a participatory process or initiative. The first case: “inside-out” would refer to the usual PR (Public Relationships) Participatory exercises, where those who have power, the ones “inside”, are “going out” for a while to interact a little with the rest, hear a bit, say a lot, pretend to care, get legitimation, influence… but then come back in, where the logic of power and decision making hasn’t changed. And then… the decissions are taken, in most cases, the ones that were already planned.

“Outside-in” refers to the case where you make the frontiers “porous”, to allow those outside to get access to the political structures. We are thus speaking of real processes of “political development” -understood as “an interactive, public decision-making and learning process, within and between government and civil society, based on power creation and dispersion” [1], a process that usually only happens when an important share of the elites realises that it is in their own interest to progressively incorporate into decision-making some previously excluded groups, as a way to create the new forms of ‘shared power’ deemed necessary to cope with societal challenges.

This is a view of civic engagement that is really oriented toward inclusiveness. You are bringing in those that are out. Not necessarily they are to stay there, or take the decisions… but since you are inviting them, and they are able to see the way it looks “inside”… it is not that easy just to do ‘whatever’, once the participatory process is considered finished.

Well, I am just thinking out loud. :slight_smile: But somehow… what characterizes “Edge-Ryders” is precisely that it has an “Outside-ín” approach. The EU is inviting outsiders, edgeryders… to come in and eat with them. Let’s hope the project ends as a big success and it triggers some “political development” in the EU… because it is much needed!

You mentioned, Anthony, the term “middle-out”. Somehow… again making a joke like that “from-the-middle-and-around”, we could think of “Inside & outside to the middle” :-).

So… I think I wrote already too much. Let’s talk about this tomorrow!! :slight_smile:

[1] Fisher, J. (1998). Non-Governments. NGOs and the Political Development of the Third World. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

Do you personally compromise for Kyopol?

Dear Pedro,

Committing to making such a change in the way govts and citizens communicate must take some time. I see you have been interested in civic engagement for some time now. On an individual level, do you feel you have to give up something or make sacrifices to be able to achieve your goal? I’m asking this particularly because your project seems to operate with minimal costs and a small team of people, and still seems capable to perform outreach and network building…  how do you personally manage all this?

About sacrifices, or aren’t they?

Dear Noemi, thanks for your message,

I had to give up things and make sacrifices, for sure, at several levels.

On the profesional level:

In 2006 I decided to quit my job as a Team Lead at Hewlett-Packard Germany. It was a very nice job, quite well paid, with flexible working-times, 42 yearly days off (really!), and quite good boss, colleagues and subordinates.

Short afterwards I wrote a presentation reflecting about all this (to ask for some grants to fund the initial works of the association). It can be interesting for you, as it is very related with the notion of “Edgeryding”. It was titled At the service of a dream, or the ‘a little bit further’ path, and starts with the last phone call I had with my boss…

– […] You know, Pedro? It’s not going to be easy for the team to manage the next release without you. Even so, I understand your choice and I am happy that you are taking a decision that is going to be good for you on the personal side. What you are doing is quite courageous.

– Courageous, Francesco? But… I actually feel that I couldn’t do anything else! Everything seems to fit now so clearly… that I couldn’t help but follow this way. I have to chase my dream.

– But that’s not the usual way, Pedro. All of us have dreams, but for most people their dreams just remain… dreams; something you dream of doing, not something you actually do. Even if we all, even myself, sometimes wish we did different things from what we do, most times you just continue with your life and keep doing… what you do. […]

and continues in spanish, here.

Since then… I’ve been living on my savings, and I only “worked” in positions that helped me to move further with the Asociation’s projects: for an NGO in Guatemala, as tutor in “e-Participation” courses, some little paid research work at the Uni…

I hope soon I’ll be able to find a way to be paid for doing “what I want to do”. Actually, my savings are more or less at the level they were when I left HP, and that means that I was able to “survive” all this years. But if I want to really create Kyopol, a more stable and sustainable situation needs to be reached.

On the academical level

After spending a year in Brazil researching on public participation and social movements, I realised that the academic area treating  “Civic Engagement” and "Participation"was quite underdeveloped: it was quite disconected from reality, and was not able to explain the realities that I had been observing.

The situation on the “e-Participation” field was even worse, since most of the leading scholars had an “e-Government” background and perspective, and what they were producing was, in many cases, nonsense (see our article here, that reflects on the development of e-Participation in Europe).

I decided that I wanted my PhD to be not just “scientifically relevant”, but also “socially useful”. Not just writing a standard “Thesis”, but a “meaningful”, application oriented work. I realized that taking such an approach would mean… that it would take much more time to achieve it. And that’s why, it is now, seven years latter, that I’m finally finishing it.

On the personal level

On the personal level… well, I cannot really speak of sacrifices. All this years I’ve been just “living”, investing on the projects of the association, doing what I felt that mattered. Maybe there are many thing that I haven’t done, because of being commited to this project, but there are many other things that I did instead. Living abroad, working in extremely poor and violent part of the world, has allowed me to meet real heroes. They are the ones who really work for the well-being of their societies, and risk their lifes because of it. And sadly, sometimes they even lose life.

This live experience are very inspiring, and help to set priorities.

So… no, I wouldn’t speak of personal sacrifices. In the last years I’ve devoted myself to work on what I wanted to work. I didn’t have so much success as I desired, and most of the time I wasn’t able to be paid for it… but I consider myself a privileged.

I hope I answered your questions. Sorry for the long answer!!


Great stuff!

Pedro, this is absolutely great. No need to apologize, this is great insight into the life and times of an Edgeryder as he decides to take the leap!

It’s a very, very rich analysis. For me one of the takeaway points is this:

All this years I've been just "living", investing on the projects of the association, doing what I felt that mattered. Maybe there are many thing that I haven't done, because of being commited to this project, but there are many other things that I did instead. Living abroad, working in extremely poor and violent part of the world, has allowed me to meet real heroes. They are the ones who really work for the well-being of their societies, and risk their lifes because of it. And sadly, sometimes they even lose life.
But I need to re-read this and go back to other points. For now, thanks!

Happy to hear that!

Alberto, I’m happy to hear it is useful for you.

We stay in touch.