Governance Period 5 Proposals?

I was curious if there was a publicly available resource where we can see what proposals are being worked on before they “go live”. Last period there was an open discussion here in the forums but I wasn’t entirely clear on if that was an official channel for discussion or if it had origins elsewhere. If the former, it would be preferable to begin vetting proposals as early on in the process as possible.

If this is that post than I’d like to hear what issues the community most wants addressed in this new governance period. How have the changes implemented from period 4 affected you already if at all? Who are xGovs and what are they doing? Let’s get our ducks in order and come out of period 5 more united than ever Governors!

2 Likes

I sure would like an update on the xgovs. When will the xgovs go into effect?

2 Likes

xGov was a joke, we are lucky they implemented Gov #4 so quickly.

I appreciate your input, however this isn’t exactly a productive line of thinking. It makes sense to me that period #4 was implemented so quickly. It was a relatively easy thing to implement (albeit there seem to be some hiccups on end-to-end technicals) compared to designing what amounts to a special congressional council, to use U.S. governmental terms, that doesn’t disrupt the already established governance system but instead streamlines it.

I understand the naysayer perspective, however it’s a non-starter from a practical standpoint in terms of Governance. The community voted on this decision, whether that was whales, dolphins, or the little fish doesn’t matter. If we are to respect the system and use it to better the Algorand community, as is the Foundation’s charge to us as governors, then we must assume productive intentions in spite of radio silence, difficult though this may be. I had hoped, in bringing up this topic sooner rather than later, that we might get some sort of official response. I am still hoping.

Glad to see @Massimo and crew giving us a nice breakdown of the last vote here
Of particular note is this section:
image

@Massimo can we get some information on an xGov roadmap and whether the focus of Period 5 will be on that in addition to a vote on the range set for rewards? What is this about the “evolution of the engagement of the governors”?

Thanks @averagezen, discussion is starting now that the two just approved measures are up and running. Of course, many inputs came already from the community in the previous quarter. I do hope that in Period 5 questions we will be able to assume that xGovs are up and running as well. For sure, Period 5 is important and some decisions will influence the whole next year.

3 Likes

Thank you for the reply @Massimo! I’m aware of last period’s discussions here on this forum, unless you’re referring to another? Can you give any insight into what sort of direction any secondary (tertiary even?) votes the Foundation would like to take on this period beyond the setting up of rewards for 2023?

What sort of issues should the community be focused on discussing or any general areas where community-led proposals might start crowd-sourcing solutions?

this is exactly the laidback mentality thats been handed to the team, TPS upgrade took 3 years and from 1k to 6k (not the 46k TPS Silvio targeted 18 months ago), there was no CBDC despite throwing millions at it for years, the team can’t even get USDCa on Binance and other major exchanges (Mooch singlehandedly got USDCa on FTX in a few months). makes me wonder why the team can react so slowly, even on firing team members like Keli Callighan and Steve Kokinos it took years to find they actually did nothing but hinder the project.

Exactly this kind of encouragement even when the team has delivered very little given the resources they have on hand, that is making the team move slowly and have no accountability to the community.

I’d very much like to hear your ideas on what should change that we can propose. None of the things you have presented thus far even border on productive proposals or in the case of your first post about xGovs, has been quickly shown to be a false narrative. Please elaborate.

1 Like

Since no one has presented any propositions thus far, I propose the Foundation be charged with presenting to the community with votes designed to provide the community with a chance to express whether and/or how programs might be setup to promote the development of the following:

A) A “newly on-boarded, user friendly portal” for setting up an Algorand participation node compatible with all major OS.

B) Defi protocols who wish to receive Foundation grants that are intended for liquid governance to provide access to governance committed Algo to be used in consensus or an equivalent commitment that requires defi protocols to also serve as node runners.

C) A rewards system for node runners with track records of good on-chain behavior, scaling by node type, with options to increase/decrease quarterly rewards set yearly in the same manner as Governance rewards.

D) To allow the Algorand governance community a path for which to influence the xGov implementation process and selection of xGovs.

E) To further refine the criteria for LP governance commitment to reflect pairs that offer the most utility and liquidity to the Algorand ecosystem and to extend the LP governance rewards voted on previously in the last quarter.

A move on any or all of these, in my opinion, would be a step (or 5) in the right direction.

3 Likes

Dont’ everyone rush in with your ideas at once. Here’s one from twitter:

tldr
We are here to support you if you need some extra cash for marketing.

Hello governors.

The world cup is approaching and Algorand is supposed to be an official partner.
This event happens once every 4 years and there are probably more than 1 billion people watching the final.
But there hasn’t been any organic marketing by FIFA across social media like youtube and facebook. I don’t know how much crypto.com is paying them to show their logo everywhere, but it will be nice to see Algorand too.

I don’t want to speculate what’s going on behind the scenes between Algorand Inc. and FIFA, but in the business world money talks. Can the foundation step in and help secure a deal to advertise Algo?

If you guys need liquidity, why don’t you ask the community to vote on it and allocate a fraction of next governance rewards to FIFA advertising?
Obviously the foundation will have to prepay the bill because the next distribution is much later.

Curious to see if other governors are happy to share some of their rewards with Infantino (president of FIFA) to promote Algorand.

1 Like

I’m hesitant to start chopping governance rewards to re-allocate to a marketing campaign that should already be at its peak. Perhaps if this had been brought up a few votes ago?

1 Like

Can we get some details on this pronto please if we are to vote on it in the near future? This seems like something that’s going to need to be hashed out quite a bit…

What is a false narrative? that it hasn’t been implemented? it is false when they actually implement it just like the 46k TPS that Silvio promised last year.

If you are seriously asking what the Foundation can do better:-

  1. be more transparent on the budget
  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
  3. Aeneas was earmarked for $250M how much was spent and why did they roll it back, what is the reasoning for this?
  4. does the community get to vote on important issues such as Aeneas when they suddenly decided to do a 180
  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?
  6. Google is now advertised by DRL every chance they get despite Algorand giving them $100M which is a whopping 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.

how about starting with those? but good luck getting an answer from the Foundation because the community has rallied against any questions posed since the beginning which is why the Foundation has no pressure or incentive to actually let us choose which projects the Foudnation should dedicate more resources to and we are sitting here “discussing” about all this when tokenholders literally have no say and all the “governance proposals” are dictated by Algorand Foundation. its almost like giving you a choice between buying a Toyota or Nissan and saying they are the only 2 choices, how is this different from not having a choice at all?

oh and finally the team pitched to Helium before they decided on Solana and now that FTX/SOL have taken a hit should we actively reapproach them? there are so many wasted opportunities that has gone unanswered. the team has great ideas and sponsorships but sit back after initially throwing money at projects or discussing with them and if it doesn’t work out just move on. the whole menality of the Foundation needs to change in order to gain any hope of becoming a big player because every other L1 out there is fighting whilst Algorand business development team is just sitting back and letting the tech team work it all out.

1 Like

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!

https://www.algorand.foundation/news/community-governance-continuing-our-path-to-decentralization?utm_campaign=Governance%20P5&utm_content=160564702&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-1090346259892838400
Staci outlines upcoming roadmap for governance 2023 and introduces us to Adriana Belotti, our new governance community manager in charge of xGov implementation, and much more! It seems like many of our concerns here in this thread are up for debate including reallocation of Aeneas rewards, relay node decentralization/rewards, and a lowering of overall vanilla governance rewards in favor of a boost to Defi. Anxious to see what sorts of proposals on these measures we can hash out. Thank you Staci and thank you Adriana, I can’t wait to see what we can accomplish together in 2023!

@averagezen Adri has posted our proposed new measures here Feedback request on proposed Q4 2022 governance measures.

They are in line with everything we discussed during the previous months and they are continuing the path we took with the last votes, but we always want a healthy debate, so please have a look!

1 Like

Thank you @Massimo! Will check it out and spread the word.