KfW BEG funding stopped 261, 262, 263, 264, 461, 463, 464

So you are of the opinion that the

I was referring here to Joedreck, who wanted to interpret the clause as protection for builders. It definitely was not that, and – as stated on the last pages – I also think that with the whole construct, builders were set a nasty trap

legislator wanted to harm builders, or how should I understand your post with setting a trap? Since I myself work in a federal authority, I am accordingly cautious about believing the official explanations. I continue to assume that the clause was meant to secure "shady" financings. On the builder's side

As already said... to protect builders from themselves, a right of withdrawal would have been the appropriate method and not the mandatory termination of the contract. And it also says in the FQ that a right of withdrawal is not sufficient, otherwise there would be no incentive. And as explained yesterday... I believe that the problem does not lie in malice but simply in the fact that the mindset of the responsible authority does not correspond to the reality of most builders. That was then somehow attempted to be patched by the reservation and in doing so it was forgotten that the funding can be terminated unexpectedly

As already said... to protect builders from themselves, a right of withdrawal would have been the appropriate method and not the mandatory termination of the contract. And it also says in the FAQ that a right of withdrawal is not sufficient, otherwise there would be no incentive. And as explained yesterday... I believe that the problem does not lie in malice but simply in the fact that the mindset of the responsible authority does not match the reality of most builders. They then tried to patch this up somehow with the reservation and forgot that the subsidy can be unexpectedly terminated

Unfortunately, I believe that as well. But if I understood correctly, the problem now is that the grant variant no longer exists. With a grant, the contract would remain valid if applied for in time, right?

With subsidy, the contract would have been valid if applied for in time, right?

Yes, of course, then there would have been the confirmation and you have years to build. Despite the abolition of a subsidy, all already approved cases continue to run regularly. There are just no new ones anymore.

Unfortunately, I believe that too. But if I understood correctly, the problem here is that the grant version no longer exists. With the grant, the contract would have been valid if applied for in time, right?

For me, probably yes, but for sysrun80, probably not. He has the grant amount in his condition, we do not have that.

For me probably yes, for sysrun80 probably not. He has the subsidy amount in his condition, which is not the case for us.

I had the loan option; with specific numbers in the condition (150k loan with 25% subsidy).