Feedback request on proposed Q4 2022 governance measures

Beyond the specifics of the three proposed measures, I believe it’s important to note in a broader sense that these proposals mark a tonal shift in governance measures. Up until this point, every governance measure has included an option of keeping the status quo. None of these measures do so. In each instance, the proposed measure provides an illusion of choice by calling on the governors to vote for the specifics of a decision the Foundation has already made.

Measure 1: The Foundation has decided to reduce governance rewards. What should the split be between traditional and DeFi governance participation?

Measure 2: The Foundation has decided to implement Community Grants using the xGov platform. What should the funding allocation be?

Measure 3: The Foundation has decided to establish a Creator fund to purchase NFTs and create an art collection. What should the funding allocation be?

To be clear, the Foundation has the authority to make any of these decisions, and will continue to hold the decision making power for the ecosystem until xGov is fully implemented. However, the measures for Q4 2022 as written mark a considerable step away from decentralization by presenting the illusion of choice for governors to vote on while the core decision has already been made. Governance measures should be to decide if the Foundation will pursue a course of action. If there are no such decisions to be made during this governance period, the Foundation should present no measures for voting. To that end, my feedback on the proposed Q4 2022 governance measures are as follows:

  1. As the decision has been made to reduce governance rewards, Measure 1 should include an option to provide no additional rewards to DeFi governance, or the measure should be withdrawn.
  2. Measure 2 should include an option to not implement a Community Grants program, or the measure should be withdrawn.
  3. Measure 3 should include an option to not implement a Creator fund for establishing an NFT art collection, or the measure should be withdrawn.

How will the lowering of total rewards for the next two periods impact future rewards? Currently the rewards pool is supposed to be fully distributed by 2030 if that should not change without a vote.

I strongly disagree with the “illusion of choice” way that governance is being used here.

Measure 3 is really “do you want to put your coat on inside or outside?”

It’s not offering any meaningful choice to governors and it’s embarrassing for the foundation to pretend this proposal has been endorsed by governance.

Either give us a real choice or don’t ask!


Great measures!!

I agree with the foundations vote on all three.

The more we can give to the community in any way possible the better. (Defi, Community Grants, and NFT ecosystem) hits that nail on the head!

I am excited to see how the NFT collection plays out. It is an excellent show of good will / support to the NFT community that has been heads down building! <3


This sentiment is important.

It is plain that the options under each measure do not provide governors much agency, and the general direction will be the same regardless of the outcomes of the votes.

The community will see this, and I suspect there will be substantial backlash, regardless of the merits of the measures.

The community is generally smart and motivated to help Algorand thrive. If the path the Foundation charted with these measures is best, then the Foundation should make its case and lead the community willingly in that direction.

My suggestion is therefore for the Foundation to provide a “no” or “status quo” option for each measure.


Full transparency and clarity are required regarding the reduction in Governance rewards. We nend to keep everyone on the same page. The Algorand Foundation needs to respond to this before this escalates throughout the community.

DeFi participation should carry more weight for Governance rewards. Thus, I would inverse the amounts:

A. 30MM Algos to General Governance and 60MM to DeFi
B. 20MM Algos to General Governance and 70MM to DeFi


This proposal depends on the xGov platform, which doesn’t exist. More clarity is needed. Is this simply voting on the amount of ALGO to allocate toward future xGov community grants?

The entire xGov platform and this proposal deserve to be formally presented to the community and discussed in live Q&A sessions.


This measure should be withdrawn. It is not appropriate for the Algorand Foundation to acquire NFTs for its art collection using ALGO community funds. If the Algorand Foundation wants to support the NFT community by acquiring NFTs for its art collection, then it can use its own funds. There are legal implications here, and such actions will create legal liabilities and risks for the Algorand Foundation.

Please consult your lawyers before submitting proposals.


Response and Proposal to Measure 3:

First and foremost, there should be an option included to allocate nothing. With that said, this may be a unique opportunity. Adhering with the mission of “We envisage that the purchase, sales and/or donations of specific works will be determined by a community-led curatorial board, and that purchase, listing, and sales procedures would be developed by the community”, this is my proposal: We can come together as a community and create something never done before. A community-led force that buys, sells, and manages art in an Algorand virtual collection/museum. Digital art has been something museums across the world have been investing heavily in. Digitalizing art has one of its biggest pros in accessibility, which is why many museums have digital galleries. The museum world would benefit greatly from blockchain technology, and this may be a good step into that niche. I can do more writeups about blockchain technology in the museum world, but I feel as though I’m losing focus.

The community can highlight interest with certain NFTs and community action can possibly be voted on (up for discussion). There can be funds allocated to digital gallery creation, metadata creation, community engagement, etc. Also, NFTs with utility can be a huge bonus to this Measure 3. There are NFTs from projects utilizing Algorand that have utility. CHIPs has faucet NFTs (and they are more than a casino–you can stake and earn without betting a dime) among other rakeback NFTs. This is Algorand’s first casino and it is doing quite well. Also, Day By Day launched and is developing the first insurance platform and asset management system utilizing Algorand. You will be able to mint NFT insurance policies (you already can) and own that policy. Anyone using that policy will pay you 20% of premiums. We can mint art protection NFTs and promote museums and art enthusiasts to opt in and insure their physical art. This can bridge between the museum/personal collections, insurance, and blockchain world–all while supporting Algorand projects. There are also environmental NFT projects that make real world differences like Crypto Trees. I’m sure there are many others, but these come to mind for me. Any income from utility NFTs can be voted on–distribute back to projects, spend on acquiring more art/NFTs, among many (probably better) option.

I think this measure has a lot of potential, and I think there needs to be a deeper discussion and a more refined mission in the wording of it. This has the potential to create a community that values art/NFTs, the displaying of it, bridging blockchain and museum world, helping aspiring creators, aiding museums, etc.

1 Like

Amazing proposals :nerd_face:
I am so glad to see our XGOV program to start that early !!

1 Like

Again regarding measure 3:

Did you the foundation talk to any creator on Algorand before adding this proposal, if yes it would love to know who it was because all I talked to seem to not agree that this would help them really. And if you did not then why not? You could literally just ask them before and have a good and thought out proposal that would really help them since they would have helped writing it. The Algorand foundation has to start interacting with the community more

Regarding Measure 2: It’s still very unclear what the scope of the projects that can be upvoted by xGovs are going to be. 2M Algos at current prices comes out to $560k and could either fund many small things, or few big things. Can you elaborate on this?


So while most major economies are increasing base rates, we are voting between two options that seriously cut base rates? This doesn’t seem like it will intuitively attract capital into the economy, but maybe spurts lending activity? I don’t get it. And community funds to buy NFTs? Two options on the amount? How about yes/no first

1 Like

High level, I’m fine with Measure 1, option A, and Measure 2, Option B. There has been plenty of discussion in previous quarters about the need to rebalance rewards and get xGov off the ground. I will say though the Foundation needs to get this going as it feels like we’ve been waiting for awhile now on this.

My issues start with Measure 3. There is no real reason at this point to believe that purchasing NFT’s adds value to the ecosystem. I understand the desire to support projects, but this seems like something individuals can do instead if they consider an NFT to be of value to them. I just don’t really understand the point of a “Foundation art collection”. There are other issues such as ownership that also are not very well discussed here. Overall, this seems like something that is using Algos in an inefficient manner, and I don’t support it. Which brings me to my bigger issue.

Why on all three of these measures is there no option to reject the proposal? This is literally treating the community like children, and giving an illusion of choice. I read Stacy’s post last week and had high hopes the Foundation had learned from the past quarters and was ready to engage with the community thoughtfully to work together towards a better Algo future.
Instead, I now find yet again we’re being pushed towards what the Foundation wants, with the vote seeming to be little more than a formality. It also gives an impression that the Foundation doesn’t believe it could adequately defend its position to the community and garner the voting result it desires. Even though I agree with your first two measures the lack of status quo as a voting option is disturbing to me. I would highly recommend considering adding this as an option C to all measures. Failing to do so will do damage to the Foundation’s reputation, as well as Algorand as a whole. It completely causes me to question why you are even bothering with governance if you are going to engage with proposals in such a manner.


Actually, the more I think about this initiative, the more I see faults. Foundation should not be picking favorites and should be a neutral arbitrator.

Help the NFT Ecosystem by building tools and providing analytics. A high tide raises all boats.


Hey jumping in late here but hopefully people are still looking at this, will post to reddit as well.

Measure 1
Generally alright with it. I like @lobo 's suggestion of spliting up liquid governance and LPs for accounting. I can hear people’s concerns about the lack of a status quo option undermining governance. I still think the bigger issue with regular governance is exchanges who aren’t incentivized to necessarily vote in the interest of the chain.

Measure 2:
No real thoughts other than super excited to see this get off the ground

Measure 3:

I’m inclined to vote against this proposal because I don’t think it creates meaningful value for the chain. Art NFTs are simply not a proven sustainable use case and I fear subsidizing an ecosystem may not create anything that will last once the subsidies are gone. Happy to be proven wrong, but I haven’t seen any “Art NFT” projects that generate sustainable transaction volume on chain. The things the foundation invests in should be in the goal of creating sustainable transaction volume that will replace the preallocated funds we use now. If we have to do something with NFTs, why not gaming NFTs or NFDs which at least have applications.

Still, I’d rather see something more focused on decentralization. If the foundation is going to buy NFTs, I’d rather it be somewhat random (pick NFTs at random from marketplaces or FIFA) and they are gifted to participation node wallets. That would throw a bone to the NFT side but start putting some focus on participation nodes which many people have pointed out. I run a node, I won’t shut it down without rewards. However, giving NFTs for running them might be the right kind of community building to incentivize it without going too far. How about a free NFD for anyone who runs a participation node this year? or maybe the foundation buys a really good NFD like “algo.algo” and lets one node runner set the parameters for it per month via random selection.


Honestly, am I the only one, feeling, like the decisions were already made, and this governance is kind of a farce right now.

In the first periods, you always had a choice to “keep it as it is”, but now, the decision IS ALREADY MADE, you can only vote on how much. But the question should be, should it change, and if yes, how?

I AM NOT HAPPY with this direction of governance proposals - not that I agree or disagree with any made proposal above - it’s just, the system itself feels like a scam for me.

How about give more than 2 options, including a keep it as it is?

  1. The rationale is pretty clear, even if the math isn’t. The current vanilla governance incentivizes people and entities who think they can keep the status quo by voting “No change” every quarter. This itself, is a false dichotomy and an illusion of choice. The Foundation’s mission is clear. Until xGov system is fully laid out for us to examine, we have to assume that it is the fix for this current problem, and it is clearly being worked on to address funding issues and reallocation of Aeneas sunsetted funds.
  2. This transparency report from March 2022?

Thank you, yes, this vote is a farce, the decision is already made and the community can just tweak some of the parameters. But in the end, this tweaking doesn’t matter.

It’s like parents having the children “a little say in the matter”, when they let them decide, who sits where in the car, but have no say in the direction of where it is driving.

First time, I’m really unhappy with the direction Algorand is going …


No, do not do governance, if you cannot let people decide … this is just a farce in itself. It is insulting on a personal level, if you get to chose, between two lesser of evil and afterwards they can stand upright and explain, that the “community had decided”, while no decision were made by us.

This is the opposite of decentralization and feels even more insulting, as its stated in the post, that Algorand is trying to continue its path to be more DECENTRALIZED, while in the same blog, take away a huge part of decentralization, it ALREADY HAD in the last votes

1 Like