Feedback request on proposed Q4 2022 governance measures

This seems like hyperbole. The decisions we’ve been faced with in the past were a choice of “Do what the Foundation wants” or “Waste another 3 months and do nothing while we look like a joke balking at the Foundation who’s job it is to give us things to vote on to help us empower our blockchain.” I would rather argue the specifics of a proposal until proposals are in the hands of the community, than do nothing at all. The stated path to decentralization lies within the xGov implementation, which will need funding. This is not a case of “Should we do this?” it is a case of “We must do this to fulfill the vote in which previous governors voted for xGov.” Did anyone believe xGov would be able to do its job without redirecting funding? Where would the power come from to implement anything upvoted?

1 Like

Look, I already complained in the previous discussion of the feedback request about the current state of governance.

But the solution to it was not to make it WORSE, but to give more and meaningful options and not take the no option away and literally let decide about Yes in different colors.

Tell me, what is the point of this governance right now?

You have no choice, they are just telling you, what they’re going to do, that’s all.

This is not hyperbole, this is factual correct. And look, I’m not even against the proposal, but why should I read into it, and discern it, if I cannot choose at all?

The community vote should be a discussion, with many different views and opinions, but such a discussion is only useful and not a waste of time, if it can change something. This is not the case right now.

I would even argue, that this is not even a vote and would not live through scrutiny of any court.

If a businessman is asking you if you want to buy a car, and you can choose between paying 4000$ and a banana or 4000$ and an Apple, you had no choice in the first place.

I get it, maybe the foundation has problems, if people downvote their proposals - well, too bad, that is part of being DECENTRALIZED - what they claim to aim for (but diminish compared to the bad, but at least better proposal system as before).

Do multiple Proposal, do community driven proposals and a deep voting system, with more options or just a yes and no option, but with for example Algo amounts to include how much you support what. Or whatever, literally every other system would be better, than that, as this is not voting at all.

Look, part of having the community to choose, is that the community may choose against stuff you want. THIS is being decentralized and if the foundation does not want that (as it seems right now), than they are lying when claiming they want to.

I cannot wrap my mind around, who thought this was a good idea and hope, they will add a C) option, to just say no - not even though, I can say not, but I and everyone else has the option to do so, and hence, has a vote in a governance system.

But well, everyone has different views, and if you like the way, this is handled, I will not convince you otherwise, as the logic is clear, and I cant argue personal opinions.

2 Likes

Most of these measures are exactly what the community has been asking for, if not in specifics in intent. Maybe you think these are coming out of nowhere, but they very much aren’t. The Foundation proposed the xGov system. xGov is being implemented. Governance is changing and your opinions are not facts.

2 Likes

Ah, you did not get my point at all.

I did not argue against the proposals - I argue, that voting without having a NO-Vote is meaningless.

Also you do not give the full picture. Even if your second statement may be right about xGov, the NFT-proposal is completely new.

Also your point of they asked the community about it, and the community did want this, than why having a blog named “feedback request on proposed q4 2022 governance measures” - as if you were right, this feedback would have been already given.

NO, the community did not wish for this in this form and DEFINITELY did not wish to lose a NO-vote. Maybe some of the community did, but I do not, and I am part of the community. And I already read many more comments, disappointed in the absent of a NO-Option and also disagreements about the proposals.

So you argument, that the community already decided that they want this, is also wrong. You could only argue, that some part of the community did want that, but not anything more.

Also, to discern the opinion of the community, you have a vote … with a Yes and a No option, so you can be sure, that the community wants it.

There is no point of removing the NO-Option, if you do not fear, that IT WILL BE used.

I have not read something this weak in a long time.

But have to got, cheers :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think we should save our time and effort. It’s not worth it to “discuss” obvious theatrics.

1 Like

Yeah, I got a little heated up - will go to sleep now, nothing to change anymore anyway :slight_smile:

If you’ll read above, I proposed a counter proposal to the NFT measure. This thread is to finalize these proposals to be presented. The community has asked for most of these things previously, so this appears to be a follow-up on that. I have read and considered yours and everyone else’s reply. Some seem to be more productive than others in terms of tone. The continued argument of “There is no ‘No’ vote” is, in my opinion, a way some might forestall the measures that need to be acted on in SOME way, not necessarily the ways presented here as they stand NOW. I am not the community, you are not the community. We both have seen opinions expressed over the validity of a “No action” vote. I have nothing more to say on the matter.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback! I believe it’s not a stretch to call all DeFi schemes, other than a very limited set of use cases such as DEX, different versions of the same ponzi scheme. It all goes to zero in the limit. We need real products that people enjoy using without the expectation of salary, yield, etc. If you need to pay your users for them to use your product – you have a terrible product.

There are hundreds of millions playing online games every day, that should be our prime target audience, because blockchain, Algorand, has a lot to offer to that ecosystem.

You clearly don’t understand the value of liquidity that defi provides to the Algorand blockchain. This should seem self-evident given the recent news in the crypto world. Everything is a ponzi scheme when taken out of context. I’m happy to encourage Algorand gaming, but gamers hate blockchain. Defi is a much safer bet.

I honestly feel like we should remove measure 3 from the vote and instead add an extra 500k towards the xGov fund proposal options. At the very least, there should be an option for 0 in addition to the 300k or 600k so that the community can really vote on if they want a fund like this to even exist… Maybe I’m not really seeing the benefit, but in it’s current form I’m not seeing major benefits. Aside from that, I support AFs decisions regarding measure 1 & 2.

2 Likes

Ways in which blockchain technology/Algorand can benefit the museum world:

  1. Collections management–storing and categorizing the metadata of collected Algorand NFTs (file type, mint data, artist, all owners, etc) will establish a system that promotes the artistic growth of Algorand, but this system would be attractive to real-world museums as well. Collections data and provenance work in museums is difficult to manage and communicate amongst museums. A blockchain database (can pull from existing databases) with physical and digital metadata of a vast array of art/objects/NFTs would be monumental. There would be a trusted database of metadata, loans, movements, and activities in the art/museum industry. Possibly, Algorand NFTs with utility that are owned in this “Algorand Museum” can be used to reward those that contribute to this metadata… (this last point is very thrown out there and would need to be carefully constructed. May not be feasible).
  2. NFT Ticketing—Partnerships with museums can result in unique tickets that are given to museum customers. While many may not have the means to directly own their NFT ticket (no wallet address to send it to), the Pera wallet can be used on smartphones to be sent this NFT. It will be dated and can even list the current exhibition. Perhaps museums incorporate QR codes to scan (many do) to gain more information on pieces, but also so visitors can have their “NFT Ticket” updated with pieces that they like. This is all available for reflection on your NFT—a recap of your visit. Unique NFT art can be displayed on each ticket.
  3. Insurance NFTs focused on art—Day by Day is in development and their insurance NFTs allow for future asset protection against water damage, fire damage, vehicle impact, and theft. While not yet fully up and running, the potential is there. The “Algorand Museum” can mint some combinations of NFTs that protect art and essentially lobby these to the art world (only one NFT can be minted per combination. Example: Only 1 NFT will ever protect “Art” from “Theft” “Fire” and “Water” for “1 Year”) . Each policy user will pay 20% of their premium to the “Algorand Museum” (NFT owner). This can be used to fund more advancements in digital art display, acquisition, and information management.
1 Like

AlgoFi and other DeFi protocol that have helped the ecosystem just had their Aeneas Rewards discontinued. How will the allocating 70MM to DeFi benefit these projects?

Will the allocation be voted by the Govenors or is it something that the Foundation will allocate like it has done in the past? The Governors should finally get a chance to participate in allocating resources to projects that deem beneficial to the community as a whole.

Hi, I’m new here to the forum but not to Algorand. Regarding your third point, I’d like to point out that there are built-in incentives to produce YouTube content (e.g. ad revenue), and that the Foundation already has staff and resources allocated to direct outreach and marketing. Whereas if the Foundation purchases art from creators in the Algorand ecosystem, there are no external incentives, and there is direct benefit for both the community and the Foundation. This to me seems very resonant with the promise of Algorand’s technology itself: to enable greater peer-to-peer interaction.

But I also agree with @averagezen that an NFT creator community dependent on the Foundation would not be good. I think that just means that this idea has a limited shelf-life and should not become a long-term thing.

Much respect to all, happy to be a part of Algorand!

2 Likes

Would maybe something like a competition make more sense? Like a design competition for a new Algorand mascot? (not saying it actually has to be this). Submissions have to be an NFT and xGov could narrow down choices and vote on a winner with some kind of prize in Algo. That encourages people dipping into NFTs without just throwing money around.

All for Measure 1 and 2,

but Measure 3 straight up sounds like MONEY LAUNDERING scheme and Foundation should stay away as far as possible for the potential of audit by the SEC. NFT is already a dying business, and the liquidity has been long shrinking before the bear started. (Get with the game already! Do you not see the rampant scams happening and the market’s sentiment towards this whole gimmick atm?). Otherwise, the allocation needs to be way more structured and detailed out. Is it just a low-quality pfp that an algorithm/AI spits out? Utility NFT? Physical transfer artwork? If I was a regulator, I’d immediately start to question the entire Foundation’s practices looking at Measure 3, it’s just asking for it imo. BIG NO. Foundation should be creating the tools and dev-friendly environment for the network to self-grow and sustain itself, not directly inject seeding rounds into highly arbitrarily valued assets like NFTs. Who will decide? Voting w bots?

8 Likes

“Continuing deliberately on our path toward decentralization”
Yet, then you follow by making 3 decisions and giving us the illusion of choice. I’m sorry, but this is not what decentralization looks like. As was the case in previous governance periods, there should always be an option of no change.

2 Likes

Before commenting on the proposed measures, I’d like to express what is perhaps an unpopular opinion. While it’s important for Algorand Governance to move toward greater decentralization over time, I don’t mind having “training wheels” for a while. We are a very young community in a space that is rapidly evolving. Direct democracy is a wonderful ideal, but it has rarely been achieved and ironically even has its own trilemma: participation, deliberation and equity. We’re doing the deliberation part now, and that’s a start.

A slow moving boat is less likely to crash, so I say we take our time implementing governance.

Re: Measure 1
I very much enjoyed the ‘free money’ and security that came with the initial governance rewards, but I think rewarding those who participate in DeFi and provide liquidity is a good move strategically. It contributes to the quality of the user experience in the Algorand ecosystem. This measure appears to be aimed at fine-tuning the rewards for these participants. I wouldn’t mind trying it out for the next two quarters.

Re: Measure 2
I like this idea. I suppose the xGovs would do some vetting of their own, but I would hope that Community Grants would only be allocated to projects with credible/qualified teams. And I would also hope that the funds wouldn’t need to be granted within a certain time frame. xGovs should have the ability to reserve or roll over funds until compelling projects emerge.

Re: Measure 3
I’m not a big NFT guy but I think if the Foundation can acquire some beautiful art at reasonable valuations, and simultaneously support the creator community on Algorand, I’m all for it.

3 Likes

AlgoFi supports the keyreg transactions. Where you run your participation node is up to you. So you can participate via a vault and keep your existing node on 2023.

That said, participation nodes should get a gov boost of their own.

2 Likes

Ok, this is going to be long, but worth it! Here is my opinion on all three measures.

Measure 1 - Allocating 90MM Algo to governance rewards for the next two Governance Periods.

  • This is most definitely just giving us the illusion of choice, you’ve already decided to cut governance rewards, and you’ve already decided to increase the amount that goes to DeFi, so this is just a completely inconsequential vote. It won’t change anything. I’m not against reducing governance rewards, in fact, I’m for reducing them, but this is a pointless proposal.

Measure 2 - Allocating Algo for Community Grants via community proposals and xGov process

  • Again, this is just the illusion of choice. Pretty much a pointless proposal. With that being said, it’s a great idea, but again a pointless vote.

Measure 3 - Allocating Algos to direct purchase NFTs from Algorand’s creator community

This is also a pointless vote. You’re basically using 1/3 of the entire voting measures for an entire quarter on whether to spend 300k or 600k algo on NFTs, which is like $100,000 or $200,000 decision in a pool of $23m (70m algo) for this quarter. Another useless measure. With all due respect, the Foundation has not shown great competence in understanding the community and really has no one at the foundation that seems to really be a part of the Algorand NFT community. This isn’t just my opinion, many that I’ve spoken to would agree. Does the Foundation really want to be in a spot where they have to pick and choose which projects to invest in and then hear the community bitch at you for not buying the right ones? It’s a lose-lose in my opinion.

Summary with an idea for Improvement
All three of these votes are rather pointless. Instead of making all of these pointless, inconsequential votes…what if we abandon the idea of 70M Algos go to Governance every quarter, and instead of having these 3 pointless votes…why not just vote on a budget for each period? View the 70M Algo as the quarterly Algorand budget to operate the ecosystem. For instance…proposals could look like this.

NEW MEASURE: How would you like to allocate the 70M Algo budgeted for this quarter?

Option A
Governance- 35% (24.5m ALGO)
DeFi- 25% (17.5m ALGO)
Building Grants- 25% (17.5m ALGO)
Ecosystem Grants- 15% (10.5m ALGO)

Option B
Governance- 50% (35m ALGO)
DeFi- 25% (17.5m ALGO)
Building Grants- 15% (10.5m ALGO)
Ecosystem Grants- 10% (7m ALGO)

Option C
Governance- 70% (49m ALGO)
DeFi- 15% (10.5m ALGO)
Building Grants- 10% (7m ALGO)
Ecosystem Grants- 5% (3.5m ALGO)

Option D
Governance- 80% (56m ALGO)
DeFi- 15% (10.5m ALGO)
Building Grants- 3% (2.1m ALGO)
Ecosystem Grants- 2% (1.4m ALGO)

Why?
Governance payouts are really just inflation, it’s a good way to keep people engaged and staking funds for 3 months at a time, but it’s not really the best use of funds for an economy to just lock them up in general. But we can allocate these funds in better ways. We have 70m Algo to do things with each quarter…we can make investments into tooling and things that will help long term. DeFi pool, no explanation needed here, its better use of funds than Governance payouts but were already doing this, so I wont go into it.

The two new pieces would be Building Grants and Ecosystem Grants which is where xGov’s and the community really has a chance to start decentralizing.

Building grants- would create a grant pool where xGov’s could propose grants to certain projects. There would be a vetting process for this but examples would be “Chris Swenor requesting 250k Algo to create open source DAO tooling for the community to use”, the grant proposal would include timelines and specific requirements for delivery that must be met, and when grants are awarded, the Algo allocated for those grants are not released all at once but in steps so long as the milestones provided by the project have been met. This prevents people under-delivering.

Ecosystem Grants- These would be to prop up services that just really aren’t financially sustainable but provide a great service. It could be used to do things like subsidize nftexplorer. It’s really hard to monetize nftexplorer, but everyone in Algorand loves it? What better way to use the community treasury than to come to an agreement to pay quarterly expenses to keep it running?

TLDR- Lets use the 70M Algo for something useful instead of just creating inflation for governors.

9 Likes

The tone of these measures come across as not well thought through / sloppy, which can easily be interpreted as hiding information at a high risk moment for the industry.

MEASURE 1: why does the answer have to be binary and not a spectrum? For example, why can’t you simply provide a sliding scale and allow the community to set the rewards at their most desirable amount, then weight individual settings based on their governance stake? Seems silly to provide two options.

Nevertheless, I don’t know how anyone can fairly vote without an honest, straightforward explanation on the basis for the change in the first place. On one hand, I get the natural tendency to suggest there should be no Status Quo option, but if there’s a genuine, reasonable argument to be made to cut rewards for six months that improves the long term viability of the chain, then the Foundation should have no problem articulating that logic and win over the community. Yet, the Foundation hasn’t provided a detailed explanation to date. This comes across as disingenuous. Is this to fill a short term financial budget gap (which honestly is understandable given the current macro environment)? Are you planning to allocate the rewards savings to node runners? Are you simply trying to optimize / test governance participation at a lower rewards rate, potentially freeing up long-term capital in the future for other focus areas? No one knows whether this is a Measure based on short term decision making or to boost the long term competitiveness and that’s a problem. The lack of transparency will lead folks to conclude it’s a short term headwind, or dip completely.

Just be honest: spell out the thought process for the cuts rather than some terse, heavy handed decision packaged as “decentralized governance”. Everyone on here is investing in a frickin blockchain, the riskiest type of startups out there with 10 year roadmaps. No one’s expecting Google level performance immediately (be that financial or product). But what drives a structural loss of confidence is when trust erodes because there’s no honest communication in Foundation decision making.

It would be absolutely insane for any public company to slash their dividend in half without providing an explanation, then in the next breadth ask shareholders whether or not they want the 50% or 60% option in the name of collaborative community decision making lol.

3 Likes