Transparency and clarity on overall community incentives

Dear Foundation:

As long standing Algorand community supporter, we are getting concerned with the upcoming Governance Measures, particularly Measure 1 which is concerning for several reasons:

  1. How could the Foundation arbitrarily decide to reduce Governance Rewards by 25M+/quarter, without explicitly explaining to the community where the funds are redirected to be used for? The increased incentive for other activities (DeFi, NFT etc) are tiny compared to the reduction of the standard governance rewards, we view this as a way for the Foundation to cut overall community incentive without good explanation.

  2. Even if the Foundation wants to incentivise other activities like DeFi or running nodes, why would the funds have to come from the funds/ALGO already committed/allocated to Governance Rewards? As far as we can tell, Foundation still have 1B+ Algo in its treasury, and why wouldn’t you allocate additional resource from your treasury for other initiatives? How are you planning to use the 1B+ Algo for then? Please remember: Foundation’s goal is to fully decentralize and disappear after 2030, but not to run a for-profit organization like venture funds. The lack of budget planning and communication to the community is extremely concerning.

  3. All this being said, if you really wanted to push this Measure out, you should at least include an option for the community to vote “status quo”. In our opinion, a “status quo” vote option should always be available, otherwise this gives the Foundation the super power to change any existing measurement as they see fit.

We are passionate about the Algorand technology and ecosystem, but we are extremely concerned about how some of these governance voting measurement are being proposed. The example of proposed Measure 1, if passes, will slash Algorand’s “staking yield” by almost half - making it the lowest yielding L1 token out there. Given the lack of liquidity and overall crypto market sentiment, we are extremely concerned this might trigger a sell-off on Algo.

We urge you to reconsider the proposal before it’s too late, and to provide further clarity on the Foundation’s plan for increasing (rather than decreasing) overall community incentives.

1 Like

Why the double post? This has been addressed in the thread on the proposals in question by me, and read by others so far. Give people a chance to go over it, it’s the weekend xD

Just because you replied (unconvincingly) to it doesn’t mean it’s been addressed. You might be working for the Foundation but you can’t shut people’s opinion of wanting to talk about their concerns, and it’s hardly to do if it’s weekend or not.

LMAO, definitely not being paid enough if I’m working for the foundation. My point is, there’s really no need to create a separate discussion for this when it’s part of a discussion we’re already having. Sorry you don’t feel heard, but I assure you that you are.

1 Like

Sure, i replied you in the other thread anyway. IMO, this is an important topic that worth its own thread, especially the decision for Foundation to remove the ability for community to vote “no” on any measure being proposed, regardless how vital it is in Foundation’s opinion.

1 Like