Request for Feedback on xGov Reserve List improvement

Granted that we are in the experimental phase of the xGov framework, we would like to gather feedback from the Community about what could be improved, starting with the definition of the Reserve List. During Voting Session 2 the Reserve List, with a 60% Project Quorum, granted 700k+ Algo, a significant amount concerning the total. Passing through a Governance Vote for a parameter change (the Project Quorum) is not feasible due to the current long cycles involved, therefore we would like to use the Forum Pool tool, but with more time to vote and possibly an improved iterative mechanism. Here it is the proposal:

  • Start with a poll on 4 Quorum proposals: the initial 4 numbers could be something between 60% and 100%. 5 to 7 days to vote on them.
  • Start a new poll with only the 2 most voted percentages. 5 to 7 days to vote.

Hopefully, in this way we can have a good idea of the real sentiment on this mechanism, especially in the light of the first experimentation.

Another feedback we would like to receive is about the pool definition: who should be the voters allowed to vote? We would like to extend as much as possible the audience but at the same time prevent Sybil attack. The Poll can be restricted to these 2 categories:

Please give your feedback on this 2 inputs:

1. The initial 4 percentages to be used in the Reserve List Poll,
2. The pool of potential votes: basic or member

by writing here below. After we receive sufficient feedback, we are going to start the first Poll in a couple of days.


Please rename reserve list as it implies that projects on this list are bad. Lets call it that all projects are sorted by popularity (votes received/algos requested) . Lets call the 60% thing the popularity threshold.

The popularity threshold should be [Base popularity threshold] * [Unused or burned votes] * [Number of algos supplied] / [Number of algos requested]

Lets define “Base popularity threshold” = 85% and lets discuss this.

So in the period 1 the popularity threshold according to this formula should be 0.85 * 0.9 * 1.92M / 2.3M = 63,86 %

And this complies with the increased requests for grants (for example if amounts requested is 5x more than supplied) or if any case there is not enough of requests to fill in the grants it pushes the threshold higher.

Please do not rely on forum or discord voting. Please promote the main algorand usecase - immutability and persistant storage. If you want, we can help you with the vote coin project.


Zero percent should go to the reserve list. It should not exist. For many reasons including no one wanted it in the first place.

As far as voting. Using the basic and member metric that seems to be a good amount of people. Not sure if NFDs can be utilized in this manner as well to increase outside input.

If we want more users then the “Community Champion” that are paid need to step up. The community need to be apart of the “awareness program” and some still don’t even know this forum exist. Seems to not be pushed enough to garner results.

Anyone who receives any grants or funding from AF should automatically be held accountable for rallying behind the Algorand community to be involved. Very easy task.

Being active is a big problem for all DeFi & NFT recipients. It’s easy to take money without providing any effort of a project that people use.


0 - Stop with these nonsense pools please(round 1 pools were a joke, 20 ppl voting, biased pool options and wrongly interpreted results at the end) - entire forum userbase is liek 200 people and 20 of them are ones participating in xgov… this is beyond ridiculous. If you really wanna do pools, use twitter just as exploitable but atleast it reached wider audience…

But not to only complain: Instead of these pools i suggest you + adri + whoever else is officially appointed to assist with develompent of xgov picks the changes to reserve list and then owns it. I can support that and i’ll shut up even if i don’t like the outcome.

Now since i guess we are doing forum pools anyway smh, here is my feedback:

1.) Are you limited by 4 options? Please make all of the following and then take average (if reserve list succedds) - if you feel it is your responsibility to enforce reserve list then you can remove 100% option i guess…

  • 60
  • 70
  • 80
  • 90
  • 100(also means NO-reserve list)

2.) member, but again, thsi exercise in futility…

edit: i forgot, no second pool please . jsut take the average result of the pool results, giving each vote actually some value… or you again want to end up with two polar oposite pool options in second pool?


in silvio we trust :rocket:


If there is no reserve list, if there is 10x more proposals than funds distributed, the foundation can simply tell its distributing just 1/10th of the funds. Simple math. I dont get it why people do not understand this. Ask Silvio to explain this to you if you do not trust me.

1 Like

Just because there are proposals, does not mean they need to get money. This is normal when handouts are made available to people who cant make it on their own.

There will always be a line out the door with a reason they would like money. The funds not used should be rolled over to other programs or the next voting period. But handing money out just to make numbers look good is just as bad as people using AF funds to prop up their TVL of their created token.

Money does not have to be spent on things no one will use. Look at the market now, not everyone is using the tools we have already. This is exactly why the Reserve List is a terrible idea.


Sure, lets fund this round 50% of money, next round 20% of money, next round 10% of allocated money. (I assume we increase the popularity of grants and requested amounts). Like what is that number of allocated funds tell you. I am sorry, but i dont have willpower to argue with someone who can not do simple math.

1 Like

Bad proposals get no funding? Unheard of :rocket:

1 Like

No funds should go to someone on the reserve list. We need to think of long term sustainability of this program and the 700kA going to 60%+ proposals was the complete opposite of that.

From the start I was completely against this concept and the results of xGov 2 only hardened my stance.

What I do propose is what I feel is a nice middle ground between getting a majority of votes and not having to wait until the next cycle to resubmit:

If a project crosses a 66% threshold, they are placed on the reserve list. The list is ordered by the proposals closest to 100%.

If a passes proposal fails to accept the contract, or a milestone based grant is abandoned, those allocated funds go towards the highest on the reserve list.

If that proposal crosses the 100% threshold, they then pass.

This allows the program to remain more sustainable over time and stop people from farming proposals knowing they could need as little as 60%.


I understand what you are saying and trying to achieve. But right now there was not enough demand for the funds from xgov and if there is not enough demand, reserve list does not work as intended, so reserve list was literaly Ludo’s list. I can see why people are opposing it even more strongly now :slight_smile:

That being said, i plan to fully exploit xgov this period if no changes are made to prevent that.


I plan to fully exploit it too, because if we don’t, Ludo will.


Did you not grant farm the proposals? Will anything you build get adopted? This is not about simple math. Its about users using.

This is the problem we are already having. There are already tools and dapps out there for people to use and they are not using them. No need to keep flooding the market with dapps/tooling to collect dust. Please think as if this is your ecosystem as well not a place to take money from it.


if that happens we can change the rules again tho, its not forever. atm there isnt enough demand it seems


I hope all we build will get adopted. Thats the reason for building it.

And btw we get 25% prepayment and 75% on final delivery, so it is quite motivating to provide quality products that will be used.


If I make the decision, I’ll pick 100% (or no reserve list). Just sayin…


I vote for Adri to make the decision!


Adri already front running LoafPickle’s favorite AF employee for 2024


Im on board with no reserve list


Adri do you understand that with higher popularity of xGov grants program it will be much more difficult to get the grant, and we will be at the situation after the first voting session?

Here you have simple simulation:

The math is very simple for this. Can you please provide some arguments why you would want to have no reserves list?

1 Like