Thanks, @GARDIAN, for starting this discussion.
We need to allow time for the other DeFi protocols to chime in on this suggestion, as well as understand what is needed technically to implement such a measure.
With about 2 weeks until we open this quarter’s voting session, I highly doubt this will make it onto the ballot. Unless there’s overwhelming community support for it, of course.
Question for the community: Should this type of incentive program be voted by xGovs and funded by xGov grants?
This is an excellent point. I’ll bring it up with the team and GAC for discussion.
Thank you, @fifth.race, for mentioning this. This issue had just recently been added to my research list. I want to have xGov implemented before we look into changing gen gov timelines. I think we’ll need about 6 months (or 2 gov periods) to properly think through how we can best shorten times.
Always keen to hear ideas on the topic.
I appreciate your feedback, @j.v.ii, but I disagree with you. We changed the measures quite a bit based on the community feedback during the last governance period.
I take your point and agree that if we take measure 2 to the ballot, the process needs to be fully transparent. I’ll work on fleshing it out a bit more this week, ahead of adding it to the gov portal.
One pool to be shared across all verticals. We have four verticals: DeFi, gaming, impact, and web3 (which catches everything else).
Staci talked about it later last year: Algorand Community Governance: Continuing our Path to Decentralization | Algorand Foundation News
Does it have many users? I haven’t tried AWallet tbh. Is it custodial or non-custodial?
I think we need metrics that can be applied to most projects, but especially we should consider projects with good potential that are struggling because attracting new users during a bear market is a much harder task.
Perhaps, projects that have received an initial AF grant, but no VC funding could apply.
Should we have a max amount based on FTE needs?
Should projects demonstrate their customer acquisition strategies?
Should the assistance be financial, or should we provide “credits” to be used for things like PR and audits, for example?
There are other ways we can allocate support, rather than giving $.
Happy to hear everyone’s thoughts and suggestions on this.
So, VC intros would be a better alternative to this?
I <3 this idea and will share it with the team. We’d need to discuss it further and perhaps put it to vote at the next GP.
I’d love to hear more thoughts on this from you @oysterpack and the community at large.
What would a project achievement rewards pool look like in practice?
Should govs approve the total funding and xGovs make decisions on project performance?
In reply to should Measure 2 be an xGov proposal, absolutely. I think this is the sort of thing we are trying to design xGov to do. As it stands though, with so few metrics and details yet to be agreed upon (especially since this measure would be used across different verticals and applied to projects that may not be easily comparable) I can’t support any hastily assembled bail-outs.
Oysterpack’s proposal would be more appropriate, IMO, though even this I would want to be fully vetted through the xGov process. Incentivizing success and the race to success seems a much better approach than throwing a project a lifeline with the chance that (with the limited budget available) it won’t matter and then those resources are gone.
Its non custodial. Your keys your crypto. There is no backend, only algorand nodes and public github data repo (of the nodes, so that person can select). Everything open source since the begining.
Keys of generated or imported accounts never leave the computer.
We use for example rekeying of multisig accounts in the aramid project.
You are giving out some funds with project relief pool, so you should know probably better who you want to target.
To this category falls the vote coin as well the Aramid from my portfolio, and both projects needs the funding.
But as I said, I believe it would be much better to be in touch with VCs than to rely on the grant scheme.
Hi,
I do not know how much there is a room for changes at this point, but if you can take a look at my proposal Algorand Foundation’s allocation of liquidity into liquidity pools.
This proposal will tick many of the boxes discussed over here. It will increase TVL in the ecosystem. it will help to boost liquidity in the ecosystem. It will be efficient way to allocate Algorand Foundation’s funds without losing them or giving them away. These funds will be rather loaned to DeFi platforms, and AF is able to reallocate these funds later if needed. So I really can’t see any significant downsides in my proposal.
Also it includes new Eur stablecoin, which will diversify stablecoins to other currencies away from US centric view. But we can ignore that Eur stablecoin if it is a show stopper.
I don’t feel safe delegating my Algos out of my Wallet. There should be some kind of insurance in case there is a hack, even if it means less rewards.
We want to target projects that need support and have published criteria for community comments because we want to take the community feedback into account.
If you don’t want to provide more input, that is fine, I wanted to make sure you had the opportunity 
This isn’t part of this quarter’s measures discussion, but I’m adding it to the committee’s discussion list for Q2. Thank you.
Thank you for the response, @Adri.
My view (and I think the view of a lot in the community) is that when it came to maybe the most critical issue in Gov 5 - offering no change to rewards - this option was voiced loudly and the foundation refused to put it up for a vote. The most important decision was baked ahead of time. So, i think it’s fair to say that the Foundation did make smaller changes based on community input, but when it came to a foundational / structural issue, they did not. Btw, I voted for the higher allotment for defi and I’m all for it. I just think it’s disingenuous to market Algo as best in class decentralization, but also pick and choose when to seek feedback on a major issue like that. Especially when it seems like xGov has been delayed and delayed with no clear roadmap on when it will actually be implemented.
Regarding 2, I think what’s more important than transparency is to offer the community the option to wholesale reject the premise of a bailout for startups. If they’re talented and well run, they’ll find a way.
Thanks Adri for the putting up the proposal for discussion. Just to add to the conversation.
Measure #1 is a straight YES for me (and probably a lot of defi devs and users).
It makes a lot of senses to gradually reduce the vanilla governance reward. At present, it is simply too high and a huge obstable for growing TVL in defi eco-systems. It doesn’t really make senses for someone to put their ALGO passively in a ledger or hot wallet at minimum risk while receiving a relatively high governance reward.
Measure #2 is good overall. However, the devil is always in the details (i.e. how we are going to implement this).
The Foundation should be transparent about the exact decision making process, which projects are selected for this relief tool, and how the fund is used to improve their project life cycle. This cannot be a free-lunch, lack of responsibility and accountability. Otherwise, we’ll get into internal favorability or corruption sooner rather than later.
My suggestion for Measure #2: The Foundation will create a portal for projects to submit all required documents. And let the governors debate and vote for projects that should receive the relief fund. The Foundation can give their recommendation, but should not be the only sole decision maker (as there’s no significant difference between the Foundation and a commitee).
Thank you.
Thanks for the opportunity
I understand it the way that you might support my projects from this pool, so i should not influence the community with my ideas. I would be very happy if get any type of post grant funding to speed up the further development either from any of the VCs or the AF.
But lets discuss for example these 2 projects which are on algorand mainnet for very long time.
AlgoDex . I think they do not meet your criteria as they have received some VC funding. They have showned that they can deliver the DEX to algorand mainnet, but i believe they ran out of funding and i do not see any major activity from them… I would expect to move their smart contracts from logic sig to boxes and abi compliant way, perhaps asa to asa dex, but i have feeling they dont have money for development and possible audits…
They are trying to incentivize their liquidity by giving out their token to market makers, which i dont know does not work. They probably lack the marketing from the foundation.
Yieldly … I understand that the foundation wanted to incentivize staking with GHH3, but i dont see any development from the yieldly side… Perhaps something is going on, but i have not noticed anything significant. Perhaps they are out of money for developers as well…
I agree on the prematurity. The idea and concept is great but with some much growth that still needs to happen everywhere, I just don’t see giving out money to projects who need assistance to service important. If these funds were used to help business grow different story but if your in trouble now you will be in trouble later.
Personally, I would love to see an xGov proposal for grant funding for your project!
You make some fine examples here. There are a few projects in the ecosystem, that in my very bias opinion, probably deserve to fail for various reasons.
How would you feel about supporting an alternative measure such as the one @oysterpack proposed, incentivizing ecosystem leaders and innovators? I’m torn on this because I do believe we all rise up together, and in the early stages (from some outside perspectives) it can be seen that our weakest links define us as a blockchain. At the same time, we have finite resources to work with and a finite timeline.
I’ll address this question not at you directly Ludo (though you’re welcome to answer as well xD). If we don’t have a project in mind that already fits some measurable criteria for “urgent funding”, as outlined in Measure 2, then why would we expect to have this decision implemented any faster than the xGov system which is designed to fairly mete out exactly such grant funding?
ok, thank you very much