Incentivizing node runners for Product Consensus & Clawbacks within Grant Contracts?

Forgive my ignorance on the current structure of node governance - do the node runners who are dedicating the node for a specific product’s platform ops, not just participating in the general consensus, get paid for doing so? Any sort of incentives by the Foundation/Inc themselves? Where the vested validators sign a smart contract which locks the funding and releases in periods by the signed agreement to make sure they get compensated by fulfilling and complete their duties to the end. How about a clawback feature within the grants Foundation pulls out of treasury to make sure there is realized returns to the ecosystem, as its purpose?

Are there any technical roadblocks Algorand running into to prevent this from happening?

Grant contracts are already milestone based performance contracts. So, if your project receives a grant, it means you have the opportunity to earn income. If you don’t hit the specifications of your milestone, you don’t get paid. So, there is no need for a clawback because the Foundation only has to pay you if they agree you hit the terms of your milestone.

Good to know the grants are already contracted out in that format, but also confused how then we have all these poor performing with little to no organic liquidity, some even just bailing out of excuses without practically realizing anything in the ecosystem? Seems like the qualification or milestone criteria itself is poorly measured that is not functioning properly as intended; as it was also evident in the defi governance qualification criteria, before it got major pushback to reform.

1 Like

I think it depends on the specific case. Low liquidity is not always a bad thing. If you have solutions to propose, that may be helpful. It’s definitely a hard problem, how to effectively allocate assets to incentivize long term project growth and development.