I complain about the same thing I complain always about when it comes to AF: communication.
According to Benedetto CEO of FF it took them 3 whole months before the liquidity provision was approved and they apparently didn’t think about just communicating this and allow open discussions and being transparent about the how much and why this would be beneficial. It wouldn’t cost them anything to just say they got approached because of liquidity issues and they think because of the following reasons… they Instead keep it secret and make deals behind closed doors and announce it after they supplied liquidity and their liquidity is already stuck.
It’s about economics here and not about emotions: they are hurting the open market on Algorand and short term thinking of “more liquidity is better regardless on how this is achieved” will hurt us in the long term if we don’t discuss this today
Politics have taken people off track on the main topic of discussion. The purpose here is not to debate or complain about Algorand Foundation communication. The purpose here is not how to figure out the best strategy to deploy liquidity. The purpose here is to answer a very simple question that the measure is asking:
Should the Algorand Foundation continue to provide liquidity to DeFi protocols to enhance the operation of the DeFi ecosystem?
Understanding that liquidity is the lifeblood of DeFi, then the answer is a no-brainer YES.
The next step is to discuss and brainstorm ideas on how to deploy liquidity to maximize ROI and ecosystem growth.
For Prismatic, I was referring to the funding aspect, which I mentioned as well, not liquidity.
Yeah I guess you are right as well. I have used Humble and Algofi. Not bad at all. I guess I would go back to what @BunsanMuchi wrote as he summarized it quite nicely :
-Either create a clear path for projects to apply for liquidity boosts and the requirements they need to fulfill to get it…”
I guess it’s safe to say that there are some projects which bred alongside during the development of the Algorand Blockchain (i’m not certain but I would assume so). Like the creators of “Algorands Official Wallet”, which is now Pera Wallet, have also assisted in the creation of Tinyman etc. Hence, logically and automatically these inhouse bred projects over time would be given priority as they have a proven track record and something to show for. I have to say, they have done an excellent job in delivering.
We have to come to terms with this fact.
Not to say that Humble or Algofi etc don’t deliver, I myself use both of them dapps and they work pretty well in their own manner. I guess for new developers, I would agree with @BunsanMuchi and you as we definitely need to attract more devs into this ecosystem. But projects should not compare with other projects.
I think Pera will or should implement multisig soon. I personally fee the wallet works really well. Tinyman also works really well. Swapping tokens on Pera directly is amazing without needing to access Tinyman directly.
Regarding Algoexplorer shutting down - this is a huge surprise indeed. It’s pretty weird to be honest… I hope the foundation will come out and speak about it more and let us know what will replace it or why someone else like you can’t take over it so it continues to operate.
Algoexplorer - Very, very weird situation indeed. @Adri can you give the community some concrete reasons as to what is going on with Algoexplorer? What will replace it? This is terrible for the Algorand ecosystem.
Algoscan.app is not open source as well… Right? Even DappFlow was open source and current development probably done by the foundation (because they link it to algokit) is closed source… @JohnWoods May I suggest that it is the CTO decision to make all core infrastructure open source?
Assuming the Algorand Foundation can only provide liquidity in ALGO, people will continue to complain about liquidity, because that’s not the liquidity we need. We are severly lacking in liquidity for the most traded pairs in DeFi globally, e.g. BTC, ETH, USDC, USDT, etc. This means there’s little to no incentive for people and cross-chain arbitrage bots to bridge over to Algorand → no volume → no money to be made → no liquidity.
Can’t really answer this question without knowing the how. I’d say yes as long as the provision is based on merits and equal opportunity rather than your relationship with the Algorand Foundation.
I have the feeling that those who are complaining want to carry water in their own mill. AF explained that other projects may receive the liquidity provision and hopefully follow the criteria I mentioned:
Security (How many audits to date? Is the smart contract upgradable? Other security concerns?)
Does it add value to the ecosystem
I second your " the more liquidity the better"
I would tend to agree with many of the comments already voiced - that a “pilot” of such a large number of algo without a vote beforehand seems a bit disingenuous. I like the idea of the Foundation supporting the ecosystem, but perhaps those things need to be voted on earlier. Maybe there should be measures like this that are not part of the general vote every quarter but are are “special” votes for Govs only in between reg sessions - if needed.