Algorand future

How will algorand survive after 2030 if giving grants to them cost 2.5 billion till 2030 this is very much wastage of grants in the name of technology
Nodes can support either way even if they are offered 0.10% reward they would support. There is absolutely no sense to give early backers 25% of algo total supply.
This is not how blockchain should work but peer to peer network to help reach concensus .
Giving grants to early backers Is wastage of money and should be corrected Durning governance phase.


I totally agree… Does anybody want to create with me competitive algorand network which will have fair distribution of the coins?

PM me please.


Blockchain is very competitive space now. Having superior technology is not enough to stay in the game. We need to have a strong community and a portfolio of products. I’m not sure what’s the best strategy to incentivize builders and build communities, but I think there is no way without grants.


what about fair distribution of coins? some kind of much more transparent grant system should be also incentive… also opportunity to run the relay node in fair and competitive manner


how do you want to distribute coins?

1 Like
  1. Grants: AFAIK grants are distributed by “contracts” and by gitcoin. Some grant projects are listed in the developer site. Ethereum community had (or still has?) been voicing same problems - many grants without open list of grants (which project receives a grants and what they are suppose to do)? Maybe we can have a Quarterly review? This is what Cosmos is doing for example: ICF Q2–2020 Funding Recipients. Last week was spent finalizing service… | by Interchain Foundation | Medium – highlights and showing up the work.

  2. Relay node. I wanted to join the relay nodes group but was late in the party and the list was closed and now way to join the ecosystem of relay nodes (which was a bit disappointing).
    But it seams it’s changing now. At the end of the day, what matters is to see a good flow of the resources, not too high concentration (let’s face it - concentration will be always there, BTC and ETH are highly concentrated, most of the other coins are super concentrated) and open ecosystem.

We need to safely bootstrap the system - I think this is what Algorand did. How much relative concentration it created, I don’t know.


lets issue the same - 10 000 000 000 fair coins…

lets distribute 90% among ordinary people by the giveaway and staking mechanism… each person who signs up will receive same amount … eg 100 coins per day… it gives us 90000000 days per person… or if the community would be of size 50000 people, it would be enough for 1800 days (5 years (with 10% apy for example 4 years))

@scholtz, I have read your proposal for the technical realization of the governance, and I liked it… this way the community would do the decisions, for example grants approval, when the times come the fork from the algorand github, and most importantly i believe we should have some kind of constitution with rules on how things will work and can change…

have you implemented it?


Grants should totally be upto the community to decide and the algorand foundation is wasting grants in short term makes me nervous … in the end governance would not have power to issue grants…


Howdy :wave:,

I totally agree that the grants should be decided also by the community, because after all, the community should benefit first and the most from these!

Speaking of distro and other tokenomics aspects, imo Algo is highly centralized and controlled by a hand of people which are wasting and wasted already to many resources as we’ve seen until now!

Idk if governance will change anything, especially when a large concentration of tokens is in the hands of same people who have decision-making power today.

These grants paid for start-ups are just a waste, because without a defined user base, it’s very tough to achieve adoption and traction in the space!

1 Like

Such huge grants benefits the selected group of people who can inturn can become bad for the ecosystem.
If such grants are issued out of circulating supply the governance would not hold enough power to issue grants later on.
Issuing grants and decision making is the crucial part of governance else the governance would be powerless which makes selected people and early backers more powerful I’m sure this isn’t the future purpose of algorand.

1 Like

not yet… algorand foundation and other community members quite demotivated me in this matter, but it should be quite easy to make

i like the idea of the other algorand network, as it can be used later also in the mainnet… i will try to make support for it in awallet

btw, how do you want to prevent that one person have more than one account? I was thinking about the global identity certification authority which would generate for each person unique id, and would be bound to local governments electronic id cards (qualified signatures), but in europe it is better to cooperate with government with this and can take quite long time (months) to put in place… also each country will have probably different person unique identifier, and there should be some solution on people who have citizenship in two or more countries…


Governance can’t work according to how much algos someone holds because the early backers and selected relay nodes owners already have enough of algorand to do things according to how they like…
This form of governance is just like a communist party where you can’t do anything but listen and follow orders… if micali is a real genius he would have taught such problems … micali rushed to make algorand and patent it how he forgot to make a proper governance and because of his incompetence algorand would fail.

No. Algorand is succeeding and will continue to do so.

1 Like

It cannot be successful unless it does the necessary things needed.

To the contrary, Algorand is already successful as a global and multi-billion-dollar blockchain. As a member of the Algorand community, my focus is on growing the Network. If you focus on complaining about the existing distribution, then you won’t be nearly as successful within the Network. However, if you focus on building and creating new value on Algorand more success will find you.

The grants program is not a waste and it creates incredible opportunity for innovators across the globe. Moreover, the grants program provides incentive to build and grow the Network over time, creating value which will last through the year 2030 and beyond. Think about Algorand as a bedrock, similar to Ethereum, which includes over 400,000 ERC-20 assets on its Network in addition to Ether. It is my hope that ASAs will soon realize value just as ERC-20 tokens, which will rapidly scale Algorand by adding liquidity and value to the Network.

1 Like

See at
Silvio’s original vision was to have Algorand as a REPLACEMENT for the wasteful BTC. (See: Interview: Cryptographer Silvio Micali on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Proof of Stake - Bitcoin Magazine: Bitcoin News, Articles, Charts, and Guides)

And where is Algorand on this chart after two years? We all know, where it is - you can see right of ADA, DOGE, LTC, as a miniscule rectangle.

Algorand is a success if you are in the “inner circle”. It is a failure, if you think about the transition from BTC and ETH era.

@bhaney44 writes about times 2030 and beyond. How does he know? No long range plan (roadmap) was given by Silvio for us… All we know about the future plans is the 46,000 tps till the end of this year.

As for the 400000 ERC-20 assets, you can see them on the diagram, too.


Long story short
Algorand is wasting billions which could be used for grants by community and not by algorand foundation … I don’t know what this useless governance has to offer to the community since it’s 1 algo 1 vote and the early backers would be able to control the system nicely I don’t think this governance is even MIT approved even Silvio wouldnt approve his own governance in such design model because he understands governance isn’t easy to design.
Anyways governance is just hopium which wouldn’t work for the people but against people.
To make this network successful you have to first cut the grants and let people get the right reward and let relay nodes into system by equal distribution of the algorand.
Also the governance model needs a serious change .

BTC didn’t have grants and have grown naturally by the early supporters and early backers who believed in the project, buy in early and got lot of tokens. There must be a big incentive for early adopters, otherwise there won’t be any adoption and nobody will shill the network. BTC has the first move advantage. Ethereum has the first mover advantage for decentralized, open smart contract platform. Other chains don’t have that privilage and need to fight for the early adopters. You need money and a good idea for that.

Algorand chosen a business way for creating the ecosystem. I don’t think it’s bad. Maybe not ideal as many of the decentralized visioners would think. At the end of the day we need to have both business and a solid system to have the blockchain to succeeded. Otherwise it will be yet another interesting thing without passing a critical adoption stage.

it is not nice to build dreams blindly
bitcoin is the first crypto
you think algorand will have adoption magically cuz it can process 2 seconds blocktime meanwhile keeping the network centralised by giving grants to few selected people … this blockchain surely have great tech but in terms of ethics and adoption it has failed
cuz you need smart contracts and for algorand everything is permissioned even if you want to make smartcontracts theres a queue for it to be added to mainnet…

Yes, Bitcoin was the first. While it was a magical thing at the beginning, now it is very wasteful of energy, i.e. has a huge CO2 footprint due to the proof-of-work operation. It is very slow, and the blochchain is not final, you must wait for several new blocks as a confirmation. Also, it became the playground of whales.

First part of your sentence is a truth about the technical superiority of Algorand, second part is a half truth. Remember that at the beginning 15000 BTC was paid for a pizza. Algorand is relatively cheap, “thanks” to the early backers and Relay Node Runners, and also due to he lack of massive demand for it. I wonder what plans they have at Algorand Inc. for this dilemma, e.g. the Economic Advisor of Algorand, Paul Milgrom, who got a Nobel Prize in 2020 for improvements to auction theory and inventions of new auction formats.

@Futurecurrency That sentence is blatantly false.There is not any queue to add your app or contract.