I appreciate your reply and concerns. The “false narrative” that I am referring to, was a reply to your first post in which you claim “xGov was a joke”. Oddly enough, you were correct at the time in that it has been perceived as a running gag by some in the community, but it would seem no longer. The Foundation appears to be making moves to empower the xGov implementation. Given the steps that they’ve taken to do so (somewhat forecast by Staci in her explanation to why the rollback of Aeneas, which you can read above), I can see movement being made on this front and others that you have mentioned here in your list of grievances.
It seems to me that you are vastly overestimating the power the Foundation has over some of these issues. But let’s tackle your issues one-by-one:
1. be more transparent on the budget
In which regard exactly? It would be nice I’ll agree if we didn’t have to question everytime a CEX goes down if the Foundation had any ties or funds at risk only to wait for a “Yeah so we did get hurt by this guys” or “We don’t invest in FTT”. I’m not sure how open the Foundation CAN be, but it would be nice for more transparency to be readily available on the website as to current holdings and dealings.
2.what is the KPI for the sponsorship and marketing leads, what did SailGP, Women Soccer and the $100M DRL sponsorship generate in terms of adoption
Interesting academic questions. Regardless of the answers it was probably too much. That being said, marketing usually is. Name a brand that has had 100% success rate at marketing. I can’t. I wouldn’t want such a brand to exist. Marketing should be hard, that means we’re becoming more discerning consumers. Should we continue to be doing these sorts of sponsorships? Probably not given the current climate. Good news though! I haven’t seen anything new like this announced in some time. Probably wise.
3.Aeneas was earmarked for $250M how much was spent and why did they roll it back, what is the reasoning for this?
As you’ll see above this post, Staci seems to be implying that Aeneas funds will be redirected to empower governance (very likely via xGov implementation) in order to have the community have access to more funds for proposed distribution initiatives. This is just a theory at this point, as again you’ll see above that we are awaiting answers. I hope that helps you shed some of your doom and gloom on the xGov and Aeneas points.
4. does the community get to vote on important issues such as Aeneas when they suddenly decided to do a 180
Again, it would seem yes, the community will get to vote. The rewards seem to be being rolled back precisely so that we can get a vote on how they are distributed.
5. How much was FIFA and what marketing will be done to gain traction, crypto.com is plastered all over FIFA and where is Algorand? how much did they spend to get FIFA and what are they doing now with this lead?
FIFA approached Algorand. So if I had to guess, I’d say very little was spent on closing the deal. This also probably answers as to why cyrpto.com is all over the place but no Algorand. We’re probably not paying as much, if anything, for our name to be on everything. If I’m wrong I’d love to here from the Foundation on this, but that’s my current understanding.
6. Google is now advertised by DRL every chance they get despite Algorand giving them $100M which is a whooping 3.5% of total max. supply! instead of rewarding users and adoptin they are just giving free money away and what has Algorand gotten in return? KPI pls.
I don’t see how Algorand Foundation could stop DRL from accepting other sponsors unless they signed a contract of some sort. I don’t know why they would do that. Even if these numbers are correct, I personally have seen only Algorand advertising associated with DRL. I don’t see the issue here, as much as marketing money seems wasteful when it is ineffective. The fact is that research has been done that suggested that blockchains should target sports audiences as a likely adopter. This is in line with the research at the time and probably seemed like a valid strategy when it was initiated. Things have obviously changed in the macro economy.
As for the false dichotomy of choices inherent in previous proposals, I would agree, however things seem to be changing on that front as well and the Foundation seems to be reading the room better and seeing the community is ready to take more actions than 1 binary vote each period can account for. Make no mistake though, there is a choice. Two periods ago the community bucked the Foundations’ preferred vote for Defi. Probably due to last minute changes made to the wording of the proposals, but this is clearly a display that there is a choice.
As for Helium and FTX/SOL, people are already reaching out to them on and have been. Should we be? In my, and some others’ opinion, absolutely not. There have been many reports of Helium miners (VoskCoin comes to mind) that have major problems with the direction Helium has been taking even before SOL got involved. As JTinvestsinyou points out, we already have a similar program in WAYRU on Algorand. Why would we want to bring competition to an early Algo adopter/developer for the sake of being second, strike that, third pick to prom?
Please feel free to offer any more insight into these issues if I’ve missed anything!
