Since the majority approved the creation of a Reserve List in the previous Poll here, the final question is the Project Quorum to be adopted to create the Reserve List:
Project Quorum
- 60%
- 75%
- 90%
0
voters
90% for me. I’m against the reserve list in the first place as it introduces wiggle room for exploitation, but i can see value in proposals that almost made it. E.g. they presented good enough case to get to that %.
2 Likes
the problem is that tons of proposals leads to a ton of splitting of votes. since there’s no ranked choice system (meaning if one of my votes obviously doesnt get funded, it gets rolled into another one), there are always going to be tons of projects that dont get anywhere near 90%. i feel like the super majority of 60% or 75% are totally fair. 90% is likely going to end up not affecting any of them. it’s just like voting not to have it at all(which i assume is exactly what’s going on. all the ppl who voted not to have it at all are now voting for 90%)
Should be a system where, starting from the least funded one, all votes on the ones that failed would be spread across the other ones that person voted for.
e.g. if i voted 80% for a top voting proposal and 20% for the lowest, when the lowest is deemed to have failed, that 20% will go to the 80% proposal i voted for. if i voted for 3 different ones, then the lowest would split across the other two based on the percentage i voted for each, then if the second proposal also failed, then all my vote would go to the top one.
3 Likes
adding the 90% option means people who didnt want a projct quorum at all will vote that and i dont know if the reserve list will have any substantial effect if 90% wins
3 Likes
agree with you, the voters of the Poll #2 should have their voice also here in order to balance this.
1 Like
I’m against the reserve list. But if you must have it, then it has to be 90% at least.
I don’t understand the concept behind a reserve list in the first place… If a project fails to get 100% votes this period, can’t they propose again next period? - is this not allowed?
A serious project with a serious team looking to build genuine products will not use XGOV as their primary source to raise funds, mind you. A serious team and project will easily get funding from elsewhere given their business plan is sound.
What is the foundation’s incentives/purpose first and foremost? - you guys need/want to get rid of all the money every singe period right, like is this a must?
If you are forcing yourself to give all the money out, then it should be actually 100%, but if you want to tweak the term “democracy”, then it should be 90% at bare minimum.
Otherwise you just moving away from “democracy” to you know… something else.
1 Like
Remember that there used to be a grants program and there has been next-to-zero new grants funding flowing to the ecosystem since AlgoGrants closed in March 2022.
AF’s mission is to support the ecosystem, so having an xGov process that doesn’t actually reward grants would run counter to that mission. So yes, the goal is absolutely to get the pool flowing to builders. If that doesn’t happen, new projects will dry up.
This question here is just fine-tuning a mechanism that adds a degree of ranked-choice to the voting process.
2 Likes
I agree with you that the goal is to grow the Algo ecosystem no doubt and funding is certainly required for this to happen. If you take zero shots, you can never score.
However, only quality and serious projects should get funding or projects that pass via community votes - this is the purpose of XGOV I believe. Community votes for projects to pass or not pass. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.
I think their needs to be a limit to the amount of proposals available per period. And then this reserve list can make sense in a democratic manner.
So for example, assume each period you have no more than 10 proposals.
-
Assume 2 of them get’s on the reserve list (whatever threshold 60%, 75% or 90%)
-
These 2 proposals should now get priority and automatically get a place for the next period of proposals. That means the next period of proposals, only 8 new proposals are now allowed. Then they get voted on again. If they fail to pass then they fail. If they get on the reserve list again, they are now on the bottom of the reserve list pile and so on.
(Of course I am just stating the above suggestion vaguely - it clearly still has loopholes and needs to be fine tuned. But something along those lines might make sense… or might not, just sharing my thoughts).
If a democratic voting process/mechanism isn’t the cornerstone of this program, which is also fine, then anything the foundation does will make sense, and I am fully OK with that too. I have full faith in the foundation.
I fully trust the foundation and believe everything they do is in the best interest to grow the Algo ecosystem. In fact, I don’t mind them giving out funds to projects they see fit without consulting the community altogether.
I think the issue is that since there’s no roll up of lost votes, it might be difficult to get to higher percentages.
I think a super majority should be good enough.
1 Like
Please cut the crap.
Also, @trekianov what these series of threads are? Who gives you eligibility to create these polls and talk about some “Governors” who have decided upon something?
1 Like
That i can agree with and confirm that this is the VC sentiment we gathered.
Also Algorand Ventures will only invest if youget ANOTHER lead investor, e.g. near impossible to get funding if you are in algo atm.
However i still think that serious project with good plan will not have problems passing the xgov voting. Reserve list (lets say on 60%) makes it so, that you ask for 1mil algos, you get 600k algos approved and magically you actually get 1mil algos - this just feels stupid…
1 Like
Please cut the crap.
You obviously approached the wrong investors.
May I add, what are you building? How many people you have in your team? Your team consists of experts in what field? You’ve given months of blood, sweat and tears for what exactly?
Please relax and elaborate?
You are probably right, the VC sentiment might be low. It is a bear market after all.
Based on my experience, there are 2 types of investors:
-
Investors you have no idea about. These investors are only there to give you money and expect to make a return and profit before anything else. If you target these type of investors, you will probably need to approach 200 - 300 investors to even get 1 to invest in your idea. On top of that, your idea better be damn good.
-
Investors you have relationships with already ie good friends from college, from school, friends from childhood, friends of your fathers and mothers, family friends etc. who also happen to be rich. - These type of investors will invest in your projects easier. It will be easier to convince them, because they believe in YOU, they know YOU, they trust YOU, not the actual project. Yes the project matters, but more than anything, they are investing in YOU directly.
Ultimately however you look at it, getting funding is no easy task. Luck, the people you know, relationships you’ve made throughout your life, the network you’ve built, the trust you’ve built, your track record, and of course your project idea all plays a part. They all need to align - which is not easy.
For sure, not saying it’s impossible - but #1 option, which i think ipaleka was aiming at, is currently a no go if one would target Algorand native/only (myalgo, SEC, low mcap/oversold, low liquidity, low UAW etc…). the only new investor i heard of recently in algorand space was/is DWF, so probably it’s on AF to bring in new institutional money if they want devs to actually build here instead on solana for an example. Tech is great, but if there is no new money and new users it doens’t really make sense to build here(unless you bring your own money/vcs and convince them that algo is the right choice) But yes, i’m sure there are some i’m not aware - it’s not my particular role in teh team to keep tabs on that specific topic, so i could be shortsighted.
What i can say is, we had an oppurtunity going through raising money 2 years or so back, when situation was a lot better than is rn, and yes it was hard and makes you wanna rethink your choices. It still required us to establish relationships (pitching to same VCs on multiple occasions as well as going through accelerator and having a MVP) but it worked, we got oversubscribed even. In thsi market rn - it’s a different ball game as far as i am aware and this is based on our VCs.
TLDR: it is important this xgov program works to actualyl funds some projects, perhaps some that are not the best monetizable ideas, but are good for ecosystem(these ideas imo will pass without a hitch) - think asalytics, directoryalgo, nftexplorer etc… 
1 Like
Couldn’t agree more! - certainly projects that are not really monetizable are surely required. Fully agree - xgov would be perfect for such ideas amongst others as well.
Definitely important to keep the fire and momentum going!
Algorand really has one, if not, the best tech - I really hope overtime people/investors all realize this.
That uppercase text is counterpart to your bold text and it’s a quote. And a link text.
1 Like
oh ok… I didn’t realize it was a link until you mentioned it.
Yes I’ve read that post about PACT team winding down. It’s a sad situation no doubt.
If you were to ask me, we don’t need so many AMMs. It just fragments liquidity even more within the ecosystem. Tinyman had first mover advantage for AMMs on the Alogrand blockchain and they have a sound team with a solid track record and built a solid product. (Hippo labs built Tinyman and they also built Algorands Official Wallet which rebranded to Pera).
I think If Pact was the only AMM available and needed funding to stay afloat, they would have got an investment instantly without a blink.
Ending on a positive note, I don’t think Pact even shut down in the end. It looked like it was taken over by other “investors” or “team” if I am not mistaken.
You’re describing a dying blockchain with your comment.
The blockchain movement has not even started. Or if it has, we only 5% in…
Bitcoin movement is very different to blockchain movement. BTC started long time ago.