I like the idea of empowering leaders and innovators. The biggest reason for this is that these “leaders/innovators” are already on a path to success they don’t need to wait for direction from anyone. They don’t need to ask questions and they would be able to sharpen the foundation with the right questions. The community would know who to contact and be familiar with the contacts to voice there opinion. I think the xGovs and or NFT council need people that have time on their hands to handle these tasks, not just big names that are tied up with bigger things to do.
I like this idea. Main question here is what are proposed performance measures. Is it TVL? Number of txs with the project ASA, perhaps evaluated in USD? Is it number of discord users? Twitter users?
How do we prevent that some VC just feeds some project TVL and gets their rewards? Fake txs? How to we prevent fake users?
For simple start i think just performance measure in TVL might be good to compare projects.
That seems to have been the starting point metric in the past, and seems like a logical starting place, but I believe others could be added after vigorous debate from the community on a case by case basis depending on Vertical integration. Some criteria may not apply to all projects, and a round (or more) of community vetting and interest gauging should be enough to see if a particular project has enough merit to proceed with the application process. I wouldn’t underestimate the very vocal critics in our community xD
I am not liking the bailout idea considering it rewards failure. For instance I would rather have 50 strong projects rather than 100 projects with half of them bleeding soaking funds of the ecosystem and tossing them into a fire. Funds should be better used for new projects that have huge potential. Bailouts never work they really dont the end result is somebody else gets screwed which would be individuals holding Algorand coins as you dump token to depress the price to save dumpster fires who are dumping tokens for cash you cause inflation and thats why everything right now in the world is riddled with inflation and it starts with copious spending riddled with foolishness.
Inflation for doing nothing is just diluting holders… that’s why we got rid of the participation rewards
I think you don’t worry about the fake txns or VCs but rather add more criteria to balance out the authenticity. Definitely a good discussion on.
The new proposal makes sense. If a project achieves initial success they should “graduate” out of a relief fund
Fair points, especially regarding the implementation (or lack thereof) community feedback.
As a counter argument the the relief fund- I believe such a negligible amount of initial investment to the fund would pay dividends beyond simple market conditions. This is an entire ecosystem that is fundamentally based on both the success and failures of real world applications. ALGO still remains in the start-up phase and supporting other creators to build on the platform is of critical importance.
Update 24 Feb.
Based on your feedback and discussions with the Governance Advisory Committee, we have decided to table the Project Relief Pool measure at this time.
We are only one quarter away from xGovs being able to vote on community proposals and we want to allow xGovs the opportunity to consider those applications as part of the program.
GP6 measures are going live on the governance today, Friday 24 February by COB (EST) to allow a week for further feedback before opening the vote on 3 March.
Measure 1 - Boosting the DeFi allocation by 5MM ALGO from 15MM to 20MM ALGO.
[New] Measure 2 - Reallocate the 5MM boost to a Targeted DeFi rewards program allowing DeFi protocols to apply for the boost based on qualifying criteria. More details on the governance portal soon.
This new proposal is based on @GARDIAN’s idea and it might ignite the impact that @ROAM foresees with their liquidity provision idea, which I have noted down to discuss with my team to investigate feasibility.
In my opinion, I go back to the notion that blockchain in general feels like its Microsoft in search of Windows 95. Its just so early. There’s too many barriers to drive mass adoption, the technology is clunky, you need to remember a pass code, store it on a Ledger device (which is sort of proof that its a security if you’re not building or using the Applications). Folks read about horror stories every day losing their tokens in a hack or phishing attack. For developers, its a completely new technology. All these are barriers to adoption. So, what’s been adopted today are things that are easily grasped (example, NFT technology is basically used to buy Ape . . . or alligators . . . or long neck thing jpegs). There will be eventual real life use cases of NFT technology, just not happening until the industry problem solves for the barriers to mass adoption.
I think the Foundation should focus every last penny in their war chest on their core competency using technology to drive simplicity and mass adoption. This feels out of the scope of their core competency to invest in applications. I think they should look to early Microsoft or Apple as the best case studies and learn from it.
The opportunity cost seems too high. Could these resources be better spent supercharging future version of AlgoKit with a more robust development team? Better yet, I think the Foundation could use a more robust Sales platform. As a community, we tend to conflate marketing with advertising or sales, all of which are different skillsets. We often use “marketing” as an umbrella term for wanting people to know what is algorand. Marketing is only one piece of the puzzle.
It feels like the Algorand community (either Inc or the Foundation) lacks a killer sales unit. When you look how TikTok or Google corporate is organized, they have robust enterprise sales teams segmented by industry: a team dedicated to Biotech, Auto, Real Estate etc… Each team member is given a list of strategic accounts with a big entertainment budget to have lunch, dinner, ski trips whatever. Their whole goal is to embed themselves into the middle and upper management of those enterprises to understand future RFPs / deal opportunities. Build trust and relationships. They have dedicated Originations team cold calling thousands of potential customers a week building relationships. They know anything and everything about their key industry accounts and emerging deals in the industry. There’s a second round value they get out of this through gathering proprietary data on the industry. People want to work with them because they know what their competitors and others are doing. In my opinion, this is Algorand’s biggest weakness and at this stage in Algorand’s growth where money should be spent first. I lose faith when I see Algo leadership retroactively Tweeting at Helium after they select Solana as their new Tier 1 (albeit a dumb decision on their part, but my point is that it seemed like they found out about the move after the fact). Same with cold Tweeting at Elon Musk etc.
This should be done by an dedicated Sales platform (its not marketing) within the organization, poaching Applications off other Tier 1s or sourcing new adoption from traditional corporates. This takes a lot of resources both in terms of head count, and a hefty entertainment budget.
I guess my argument is that I’m trying to point out weaknesses within the Algorand platform right now, and I’d rather see scarce resources dedicated toward building out long-lasting value rather than preserving the size of the pie that we have in place today. Before we bail anyone out we should ask if there’s anyone doing what they do right now on a different chain. If we truly have the best technology in the industry (and I believe we do) then the Foundation and Inc should be on offense hunting rather than playing defense which feels like the relief fund.
Execution just breaks down with Algo. We made a big deal about EVM compatibility over a year ago. The Foundation made huge investments in that tech. I imagine the leadership team saw this as the primary basis for our low adoption to date guessing by the size of the rewards we gave to solve it. But I question how robust (or how talented?) the team is out there trying to actually sell this stuff to the EVM users right now.
Just my long winded two cents.
Well done! I support this 100% Thank you for all your hard work Adri and Rylie!!!
In my opinion, I go back to the notion that blockchain in general feels like its Microsoft in search of Windows 95.
I disagree with this analogy. I personally see it much more like mobile computing in 2005 in terms of tech maturity. The core pieces of the tech are there but the applications haven’t gotten there. The iPhone was 2007 but I don’t think the tech was truly mass ready until the iPhone 4 (and the OG Samsung Galaxy) in 2009/2010. Adoption data somewhat supports this. I draw this analogy because its the closest one I can see to my experience anecdotally. The pace of new tech and innovations feels really similar to me to back in 2005-2011 phase of mobile devices when it was largely hobbyist driving the scene (particularly in Android). It took some time for killer apps (Instagram, Maps, Candy Crush, etc) to saturate the market.
I agree with you here, but I’m of the opinion that real adoption comes when people are using applications they don’t even know are powered by blockchains. I don’t really expect We’re starting to see the first glimmers of that with things like HesabPay. If you look at screenshots of the app, its not obvious that there is any blockchain interaction at all. I’m really excited about the potential of back office banking applications that every day users will never directly interface with like Italy’s “Fideiussioni Digitali”. These kinds of projects have opportunities for large volume but everyday people don’t have to adopt anything.
Similarly a lot of these use cases may not involve everyday users. Dust Identity, a supply chain NFT startup, partnered with Algorand and they have a legit NFT usecase that could scale without everyday users ever touching it. Yet, there are use cases tfor end users that are already starting to grow. Silvio has mentioned TravelX by name and they are already selling NFT plane tickets in Argentina. Again a use case where someone could feasibly use it with minimal understanding or interest in blockchain technology.
I think the Foundation should focus every last penny in their war chest on their core competency using technology to drive simplicity and mass adoption.
In so much as you mean attracting retail investors and everyday users, I disagree. I prefer the focus on developers, enterprise applications, and government use cases. I think these are all areas that will pay off in the long run better than going directly to the masses.
I don’t think that is fair. Sure Algorand wasn’t picked for Starbucks but a lot of exciting partnerships and projects have been announced over the last year building on Algorand, particularly government projects (ex. Nigeria, India & Gates Foundatino, etc. Is there any reason to believe that Inc doesn’t have a sales unit structured that way given that most tech startups do?
Before we bail anyone out we should ask if there’s anyone doing what they do right now on a different chain. If we truly have the best technology in the industry (and I believe we do) then the Foundation and Inc should be on offense hunting rather than playing defense which feels like the relief fund.
I can hear you on that
Again I don’t really agree. I think this is a matter of time horizon but I’m quite happy with where things are given the general macro market. I get the feeling from your post that you want things to happen faster. But moving faster and blitzing the market also introduces its own execution risks. I’m curious why you think the current pace is inadequate to create a long term viable network? are you worried about competitors (who you acknowledge have worse tech) having a first mover advantage or is there something else?
Andrew (Shaman) here from Humble DeFi. I wanted to chime in around the two measures having such a large interest in both. I will try to stay as unbiased as possible.
Measure 1 - DeFi Rewards
Looking at what DeFi Rewards have done to TVL on Algorand, the addition of total rewards to this pool makes sense. Governance as it currently stands provides little benefit to the overall ecosystem and prior to the the new rewards structure including things like LPs, it only created a competitive yield against sources like LPs and discouraged TVL growth. Where to draw the line can be tricky, however I think the increase in rewards would be favorable to those who are contributing to TVL and building up these dApps.
Measure 2 - Project Relief Pool
I know this is the more controversial measure (and as noted on Feb 24th - will not be put to vote now). I’ve been going back and forth on my thoughts here. Traditionally, I have not been the largest proponent of bailouts in my career and think doing so you have to be very diligent on determining where one may be applicable. The blockchain industry, especially Algorand, is still very new however, with a majority of the base infrastructure still in the process of developing. This core infra. is extremely important in setting the foundation for success of the chain and in all honesty - are still seeking ways to be sustainable with the current lack of adoption on Algorand (Most projects I’ve spoken to run a deficit). Do we just let these projects fail as Algorands DeFi growth has just begun? Speaking from Humble and quite a few projects (more than people may think) I’ve been able to discuss with - cash positions, resources, and runway have started to become a much larger worry. While I think any sort of relief pool needs to have a well thought out criteria that is fair and balanced, I do think a measure like this could help a lot of struggling dApps that are holding on by a thread in the current market. I also agree that xGov could provide an appropriate route to distribute these types of things in the future, however I worry that the timing/implementation of xGovs is further out and still in its infancy stage and would not be accessible for quite sometime, in which some of these projects might not make it to see there launch. Providing additional Aeneas style rewards while appreciated, I don’t think will have as large impact this quarter on growing users or TVL. Thus, I will throw my hat in for reconsidering this proposal as a one-time measure that would (potentially) continue with the onset of xGovs.
i would prefer only wrapped tokens + stablecoins to be whitelisted. thats why especially the following assets are missing imo:
xSOL, goUSD, pBTC, xUSD
and i would have liked volume to play a role too. projects like vestige, defly, alammex, alandia, NFT parketplaces all wont see any of those ALGOs while being so important for the ecosystem
The focus should be on incentivizing quality liquidity with underlying real-world value. The assets would need to be whitelisted. Besides ALGO. I would focus on major cryptocurrencies (BTC, ETH), stablecoins, RWA (real-estate, carbon credits, precious metals, stocks, bonds, commodities, etc). AgroToken is a good example.
Quantitative performance metrics should include:
- TVL for whitelisted assets
- transaction volume
- transaction dollar volume
- active accounts
Teams would need to go through a registration process to qualify.
Proper due diligence would be required:
- criminal, financial, and educational background checks
- financial audits
- work experience
- team technical skills and capabilities
There needs to be a legally binding framework in place to weed out bad actors.
Only 50 replies compared to the 200+ replies in past governance measure feedback posts. Interest is on the decline as governance is becoming increasingly repetitive and meaningless with the Algorand Foundation pushing decisions down our throats.
Hey everyone, the governance portal is now updated and the vote session will soon open. Here are the links for the full measures, as well as the terms for Measure 2.
The main improvements to the initial draft are related to:
- TVL criteria
- White-listing criteria
This is my second time involved in this process and I am learning as much from the team as I am from all of you. So thank you for all your comments.
This UI is not good. The options are A or B, then you have to select Yes or No.
Thanks for flagging that @funk. I’m checking whether we can make changes to the measure description now that the vote has opened.
Duly noted to triple-check for the next GP.
I have filled in the form to add Vote Coin to the list of DeFi tokens.
Vote Coin DAO wants the vote coin token to be borrowable asset in algorand landing protocols.
At the moment we bring Algorand 0.01% LP fee AMM pools between Algo,USDC and GoBTC which can be shown in the number of trades done for example using deflex protocol or arbitragers. We try to help algorand DeFi for long time.
We do not meet the project TVL, but we are at the same level as Planets token which is in the list.