Hi I have several suggestions:
-
Open discussion with community on weekly basis…
-
Supporting developers who have proofed that they built something useful
-
Making sure that algorand is decentralized and not centralized with weak point of the algorand foundation or early backers
-
Making the governance useful
AD1. Discussion is really everything. Even though i have already many contacts to the foundation or inc, i dont see them really doing anything usefull… The discussion must not be only one sided but if there is good ideay they should adopt it. First event that I liked and I felt i did get listened was when John came to the Knigts of algorand event and there was discussion on what to do… I have also good feeling with Johanna and she can point to right persons, however i still miss the end result
AD2. I have built first open source algorand wallet, won several hackathons such has Swiss blockchain hackathon, Encode hackathon, AlgoHackJam, DAO Hack, Bitcoin bankathon, … and created the products which are on mainnet such as Aramid ETH2Algo bridge, VoteCoin, AWallet, Algorand payment gateway, Algorand directory, Open algorand node directory, i provide the docker images for kubernetes to run the algod nodes, indexer nodes, and KMD nodes, working on diatomix, and my long term vision is the real estate market GlobDREM … I have suggested several standards which the foundation did not addopt yet for example ARC-0014 or ARC-0017 with demo and implementations … Even authentication with graphql database with websocket feeds…
However from my approx 10 tries to get the grant i was successfull only with one and the budget was also cut in half… One would say that you must have successfully delivered the product with grant to get another grant, but my recent request to create open source algorand explorer was denied as well. For the record my successfull grant was to make the encrypted voting possible in the vote coin specs and its fully operational in the open source app.
I believe there is corruption within the foundation on who gets the grants. I think the foundation should make all applications open so that they have public oversight. Also it might help with other people to get ideas on what should be built and if they can built it faster or better they might just get inspired thus the projects built on algorand would be better. Not communicating the reason why the grant was declined or what can be better to get the grant approved is terrible decision.
I do understand that the foundation got flooded by grant requests, but stopping completely this is not good decision in my opinion.
AD3. I do not trust any decision of the algorand governance because i believe that there is a person or small group of persons who hold more than 2 billion algos and they communicate with each other. They can affect any decision in the governance as it is now. I dont know what should happen so that someone persuades me otherwise, but clarity on who are the early backers is not strong side of the algorand. Also i do not think they should try to sell the tokens asap because i dont want the algo price to go below $0.1 …
The absolute centralization point of algorand is the DNS records on who is the relay node runner. The system of rewarding of node runners must be different in order to make it decentralized. For the record i am one of the node runners… not the one who receive $10000 per node but way less. Even with limited resources i am able to run the nodes in HA mode. If there would be a budget on whoever runs the node gets the share from this eg hourly rewards according to the performance of his node, we could consider this as a competition between node runners and the cost efficient solutions will have long term sustainable income. The same should apply for KMD nodes, and indexer nodes. I believe we really need to split the archival function of the node with the relay function of the node.
Another point of centralization is KMD nodes. Until now noone ever wondered why general person cannot make his account public. I have made kmd open spec, and implemented that anyone can make the account online within his selection of public KMD nodes (again without any incentives from the foundation). I believe that people should get rewarded if they protect the network as well as the public KMD nodes should get rewarded. Something like mining. Can be motivation of anyone to hold algo in his own account and easily marketized. Who was protecting the network until now? Is it really decenteralized?
AD 4. Governance right now is terrible. 1 or 2 decisions per quarter? You should really think on how to run a DAO when you have blockchain here. What about to hold the DAO decision on every git pull request to the algorand codebase? What about decision on which grants should get approved? What about combining 1 person = 1 vote with 1 token = 1 vote ? What about the security of the vote? For example if those early backers with billions of algos see the results in 14 day voting sesion window just a day and they do not agree to it, they might just overrule the vote… Why not to implement encryption with voting so that the results are visible only after the voting session ends? There is already standard for all of this and foundation has zero communication with zero support to improve this.
For the record the Algorand is my choice #1 mainly for the tech… However i still see there might be improvements done
@Massimo @fabrice @ian … please bring the discussions about my proposals to the foundation