Here is the Twitter post
Here is the folks dApp.You will need to connect your wallet and you can click consensus to see what information they require
i agree with everyone else in here. we need node incentives. we donât need more NFT incentives at this stage. people arenât buying NFTâs on a chain which has the vast majority of projects and holders at massive loss. NFTâs are popular when the chain is doing well. it isnât doing well right now.
itâs a bit discouraging to see that the community is being ignored.
1 Like
ok, i seeâŚ
you have to use the folks algo commitment so that you can put your escrow account to online state
i dont like this because not everyone can get hands on the rewardsâŚ
if Algorand foundation would put 500k Algos as âOnline participation rewardsâ to the folks, this would lead that only Folks customers get the rewards
I believe that everybody who put their account to online state should receive the rewards, not just folks customers
I am not sure this is the case as I have successfully registered participation keys for my own node which is not taking part in governance.
I guess I will find out at the end of gp8 when the rewards are distributed.
I do think itâs a good option for the foundation but I agree it should not be limited to folks users if that appears to be the case.
You mean in this form?
I see that you can do it only for the escrow address⌠do you see there some option to select the address?
I wonder how to âregisterâ already existing online account⌠The fields there are obivously only to make the kereg tx with your the escrow to register your escrow to your node.
It woould be much better to get information from the folks how they see it. Also on the folks git i have not seen any app related to incentivization of online stake.
1 defi platform shouldnât have 100% of the market. that isnât very decentralized⌠what if folks gets exploited? the entire chain becomes dependent on a single platform.
staking coins without defi should require you to run a node. it should be from algorand directly.
Thats not true⌠You can make your account online also in public nodes
For example: Swagger UI
Its possible to make account online on one click or using ledger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSJjmnzvvLY
And public node runners can register their nodes here, and people in AWallet can select them to make the accounts online: https://github.com/scholtz/AlgorandPublicData/blob/main/participation/mainnet-v1.0/public-participation-providers.json
Well I think if the foundation approve of such measures it would be up to the other DeFi platforms to develop such a system as folks have and communicate data effectively to ensure node runners arenât rewarded twice.
Thatâs the form yes and I assume it will use the address thatâs linked to the participation keys.
Not sure on the technicalities though so could be wrong.
Getting node incentives right is not straightforward. It requires robust monitoring of the right performance metrics.
Rewarding just making an account online can even endanger the network if the node with the participation keys of the account does not actually vote. Joe Polny gave some nice explanations about this and the caveats with different simple metrics at Twitter space with AlgoHQ. In the same space, it was also explained what Folks Finance is doing/plans on doing, which is rewarding just making the account online (only the escrows used for Governance) - disregarding the size of the stake.
This is a very naive approach and non-sustainable.
You can see this already now if you check the Folks Finance online accounts, there are some related accounts that are voting incorrectly, highly likely because they are all running on the same node that does not have the necessary specs to operate them all.
For relay nodes, the Foundation is already looking into improving monitoring of their performances (I canât find the source at the time but John Woods did mention it in at least one interview) as well as into peer-to-peer communication as an alternative to the need for relays, as per interview with Gary Malouf.
P.S. It would be fitting to move this discussion about how exactly to reward nodes to another topic to keep this one on track.
Unfortunately, again a disappointing, more or less meaningless set of measures.
Governance has yet to see a vote on a measure that would clearly define at least the very basics of both Governance and xGov programs - Algorand constitution if you will.
The unequal treatment of ALGO in Governance remains, e.g. ALGO in LPs do not need to be maintained above the initially committed limit while ALGO in regular and other DeFi Governance options must; or that the ALGO in certain LPs is not taken into account; or that only ALGO in certain protocols are allowed to participate in Governance even though the the registration and vote transactions cannot be issued by them. This just shows that the Governance program has not moved at all on the scale of decentralization since it began now almost two years ago.
Moreover, there has been a lack of progress on the transparency of the program. Multiple councils have been established that are influencing proposal of measures but neither the establishment of the councils nor its members have been confirmed by the Governors. The councilsâ discussions are not public, rules on who and how can become part of it are unknown, etc.
Despite having now a dedicated role of Governance Program Manager at the Foundation, it is unclear who is really in charge of the program and accountable for it, what is the programâs road map and the communityâs role in it, etc.
A clear example of the lack of accountability and decentralization of the program is the implementation of the xGov program.
The Governors approved measure 2 of Governance period 5, where it was stated:
If this Measure is approved, Algos would be made available for projects proposed by the whole community, upvoted by the xGovs and approved by General Governors.
The current xGov program does not follow this decision as it lets xGovs approve the founds instead of simply upvoting them. Approval of this change has not been put up to the Governance vote.
Governance being as vaguely structured and run as it is, it is driving the community away, which can be seen already by the number of comments on these current measures compared to past engagement levels.
The perceived lack of seriousness of the programs can also be seen by the fact that in the two years of the program, not one large stake holder, Algorand Inc. as the protocol developer, or a business developing on Algorand showed any serious engagement in the program (unless it was to further their own agenda through shallow comments to get a higher split of the ârewardsâ).
To end this comment, I would appeal to the official authors of these measures to lead by example towards higher transparency and accountability, and at least issue a measure asking the community if you personally have their support to lead the program further. If you are not allowed to put such a measure up to the vote by the ones higher in the hierarchy, this would be already very telling.
3 Likes
Hi Adri, I commented on the nft rewards post but apparently you didnât see it as I didnât see my measure included here. @Adri this needs to be addressed or an announcement should be made that all US companies will receive no assistance through governance. Since US companies canât receive rewards through governance, can we also not receive rewards through Xgov? 
1 Like
Yes, that is true for this round as per current ARC-34 - Disclaimer jurisdictions and exclusions.
To be eligible to apply for a grant, projects must abide by the Disclaimers (in particular the âExcluded Jurisdictionsâ section) and be willing to enter into a binding contract with the Algorand Foundation (template link coming soon). Additionally, applications promoting gambling, adult content, drug use, and violence of any kind are not permitted.
As with the other rewards programs, we are looking for ways to solve this issue.
Maybe someone should tell the US entities that already submitted Xgov proposals and have enough votes for them to pass⌠@LoafPickle
Itâs in the ARC and we expect people to read it. It has also been discussed on discord a few times.
But as I said, Iâm trying to find a solution before we need the first contract signed.
To be fair, the disclaimer is not the easiest to understand.
Previous grant programs have paid out in USDC, and the ecosystem funding report even denominated the grants data in terms of USD. It is beyond reasonable to assume that future programs could work similarly.
Just providing a disclaimer about issues with Algo as a token completely ignores the fact that Algorand Foundation has previously and could again take simple operational steps to work around jurisdiction-specific regulatory issues with the Algo and provide grant payments in other ways.
Grant payment in stablecoins should be an official option. This is a must-deliver for Algorand Foundation.
1 Like
Vote in support of measures 6 + 7 to have ALGO allocated to consensus rewards for the first time!
Unpopular opinion, but why instead of trying to come up with a way to incentivize node runners we make mandatory to run a node for Regular/Standard Governance participation? I call it Node Govs. So instead of standard gov and DeFi gov we now have Node Govs and DeFi Govs. DeFi stays the same, participating through LPs and DeFi platforms. Node Govs participate as Standard Govs but now, you have to run a node to be eligible. Rewards are allocated depending on the amount of nodes running at the beginning/end of each period. If number of nodes is running low, more governance rewards are allocated to Node Govs instead of DeFi Govs.
Reasoning is that standard governance (not counting LPs) does nothing for the chain, TVL, security, etc.
You cannot run a node? No problem, provide LP or sign to governance through a DeFi platform and you are good to go.
You are a whale, Binance, Coinbase participating in gov and eating small fishes rewards without doing anything? Great, now you have to run a node or participate through DeFi, so now you are helping secure the chain
I havenât thought a lot about it so I dunno if this makes sense. But making mandatory running nodes for standard gov makes sense to me.
7 Likes