GP8 Measures DRAFT for Community Feedback

A warm hello to the best community on the planet :))))

Governance Period 8 voting will open at the start of September, and we are seeking your feedback on the drafted measures before adding them to the ballot.

The overall governance rewards allocation for Governance Period 9 will be 40M Algo.

As introduced last month, we are posting the proposed measures in three threads to facilitate the discussion, as below:

Topic - xGov Pilot Algo Allocation

Measure 1 - Approval of xGov pilot program allocation top up mechanism
Measure 2 - xGov top up amount

Topic - NFT Rewards

Measure 3 - Repeat of NFT Rewards program with terms and conditions modification approval
Measure 4 - Increase the NFT Rewards Allocation

Topic - DeFi Rewards

Measure 5 - DeFi Rewards Q4 Allocation
Measure 6 - Consensus Rewards Pilot Program via Targeted DeFi rewards
Measure 7 - Allocation of DeFi rewards to Targeted DeFi Rewards specifically for the Consensus Rewards programs via DeFi protocols

Please add your feedback to each topic and share this post on your favorite social channels.

We will consider your feedback and add the measures to the governance portal a few days before the voting session opens on 1 September.

Looking forward to reading your posts!

Adri & Michele

Update 22 August
Two new measures were added to the DeFi Rewards topic about a DeFi consensus rewards pilot program via the Targeted DeFi rewards program.

Update 28 August
Thanks everyone for your comments on all topics. We are working to upload measures 1 to 4 to the governance portal. Your posts and comments highlighted the need for further discussion on the topic.


I always liked the governance program, but how many times more do we have to vote on the same exact topic? NFT and DeFi rewards are being voted on for the last what, 4 periods? Meanwhile everytime rewards from nodes are being asked and keep getting ignored.

I feel a little let down by the meaningfulness of the gov program.


Agree with @thezec, it’s time for node running incentives if we want to distinguish ourselves as a Top10 blockchain. Even with small incentives, ~1-5M ALGO we can boost the validators to a number higher than 99% of other chains. Come on ppl


node running incentives must be a prioroty


I agree. John Woods also mentioned it. I think we need rewards for node runners.


Algorand has some of the finest minds in the industry.

Let’s dedicate some resources into designing a fair and robust node incentive programme.

My 2c


Trav.algo :call_me_hand:


To make Algorand even more secure and decentralize than it currently is, we need more people to run nodes globally. And to speed up this process, having incentives would be a good idea in my opinion.

What is stopping the foundation from providing incentives to run nodes?

The more nodes the better and more safer for the blockchain no?


I truly think rewards for running a Node should be in the next Governance vote. Imo it’s just as important if not MORE important than the other proposals we’ve voted on so far. Network security must be a TOP priority!


The issue I have with Algorand as early adopter, it became too complicated! it used to be much simpler for anyone to understand, you hold Algo = you get incentives. Now you have normal Govs, xGovs, locking for different periods and etc. They tried to gamify too much.
Those lockup periods inhibit adoption by new users who just want to try it.
Why penalise ppl for dropping out of gov period, maybe someone just needed a small amount of Algo to buy an NFT, now user has incentive to sell entire holding, cause no longer eligible for rewards.
The loss of future incentives is penalty enough. There should be no other penalties or blockers.

The Key to adoption is Simplicity & Consistency

#1 Running a Node and participating in consensus should be incentivised on protocol level.
#2 Participation in DeFi should be incentivised.

Smart Marketing is going to bring adoption and more projects built on Algorand, not the other way around.


I was just thinking, say the Foundation incentivize people to run nodes.

What happens come 2030 when the foundation has no more Algos to distribute as incentives?

This could have a negative impact on the chain as many people will simply stop running nodes once the incentives run out…

How do you combat this problem?
Does Algorand make any revenue in any way or form?

Can it have a negative effect on the security of the chain if all of a sudden 40% of people who have been running nodes stop?


probably Network fees from transactions and DeFi


I would also like to see some form of incentives for node runners.


@Adri are we getting some Foundation feedback on this? Seems a bit pointless if it’s not a conversation

1 Like

@thezec, @macnet, @Zilla, @Trqv, @Rambutan, @mochanerd, @mrprofit, @Fritos2

What type of nodes would you like to incentivize?

There are different options there:

  1. We incentivize only relay node runners (relay nodes right now are archival nodes and dns records are in the bootstrap domain)
  2. We incentivize relay nodes and participation nodes … Q: How do we track who runs the nodes and how much should he recieve? My answer: Easy software to track availability and hourly payment system directly to the node runner’s algo account for past hour (similar system as the vote coin incentive staking program is)
  3. We incentivize node runners and making the account online… We do not need to make just the servers up and running, but we need also to make the algo stake more online… We can easily track the online availability of the accounts. Perhaps more marketing to one click solutions to make account online from the AF would be great:
  4. We incentivize not only consensus nodes and accounts, but also the public indexers. Indexer is really the software that Algorand depends on… Every project is using the indexer to query the algorand data and in my opinion algorand greatly depends on…

@Adri @JohnWoods … I can create for you open source nodes tracking system and reward airdrop system for free if you express interest in using it

1 Like

I think the easier option should be the choice here, and rewarding online accounts proportional to their stake seems like the easier thing to do. In this case it would only be for participation nodes I guess, but that could be a nice starting point, and we wouldnt need a lot of ALGO rewards in order to have a significant boost

I am afraid that if we will make only “Incentivize online stake” thing, in the future there will be no incentive to participate the servers runners… You can make your account online without running any software, but someone has to take the infrastructure costs… I would not call this incentivization of nodes :slight_smile:

Btw, why do you want to go easy way instead of more fair doable way?

Can we not just use the folks finance system and allocate 500k algo from governance rewards?

It seems they are already attempting to track and incentivise participation from what I assume is their own funds.

Minimum of 95% uptime in order to qualify.

Maybe vote each period to increase rewards as the number of nodes increases.

I think while incentives at the protocol level is in the R&D phase it seems like the obvious interim solution.


Do you have more info on folks incentivization of participation?

From what i heard on The next block they want to incentivize only the online stake, not the node running nor indexer services. Benedetto however did not shared any details.

I wonder also how their incentivization works… Do they incentivize each account equally or do they incentivize whales much more?

Do you have link to some more info?

Folks requires you to register a valid vote key and participation key along with some other information and I’m not sure how the rewards are split. I would expect if the foundation funded these incentives going forward it should be an equal split provided the certain rules are met.

It might be worth someone with tech experience takes a look to see if it’s a viable temporary solution going forward.

Do you have some link to take a look?