it’s pure proof of stake it’s representative democracy. The assumption is a random individual would noit want to devalue their stake by making a bad vote. The crypto space, at least majority of it, is against inflation and hence the fixed supply. The inflationary effects have been felt in the last decade. If you don’t like it you can go somewhere else. In your inflationary proposal who determines these fixed amount releases? that’s an avenue of centralization. An approach i found somewhere else in another crypto projects was to charge a fee when your account remains unspent for long periods in a fixed supply system. If the concern is about hoarding this can be explored further
they would not want to devalue their stake by selling or acting corruptly. Plus, the runners are bound by a contract until 2024 so they cannot stop running to harm the network
See accelerated vesting here: https://algorand.foundation/news/vesting-acceleration-model
Yes, I am aware that this is the case today in the crypto space. But I’m also baffled by it since I have not heard any good arguments in favor of this direction. If such arguments exist, I would certainly love to hear them, as until I do I must assume there is no good reason for it even if that is the current state of crypto.
That is also why I’m raising my concerns about deflationary designs and advocating for inflationary ones - to help the crypto community to be more aware of the positives and negatives of both designs, so that they wouldn’t always just default to deflationary designs without thinking it through first and without understanding the consequences of such decisions. And more importantly, improving the economic aspects of the crypto space would help the rest of the world too, by bringing us all that much closer to a sustainable cryptocurrency that is usable as a global currency (and one that is adopted as such).
If there is a better place for me to “go” to achieve the above, please let me know. My one condition is that they too adopt Algorand’s Pure Proof of Stake, as I’m absolutely convinced that it is superior to all the alternatives, and I would be quite hesitant to advocate any technologically inferior solutions.
This question probably hasn’t been discussed enough, because if it had, it would not be any more centralized that the current Algorand model is. In fact, I would argue that it would lead to less centralization.
The current Algorand model of a fixed supply released over a 10 year period is not only centralized in a sense that it was decided by a handful of people, but if it is truly a fixed supply that all the future Algorand users have to live with, and the one-time decision made be these few individuals affect an ever growing number of users, then the relative centralization of that decision only increases over time.
My proposal of infinite supply with a schedule to release a fixed amount per time period could also be decided ahead of time, so it would not be any more centralized than the fixed supply model is. And while I certainly think that would better, I don’t think it’s quite optimal yet either, and we should choose a less centralized model that can better adapt to unforeseen future needs and conditions.
In inflationary design the governance mechanism for adjusting the money supply and the rate of inflation could not be based on “1 algo = 1 vote” type of approach, because even though it would already be less centralized than any predetermined rate of inflation, the optimal self-serving inflation rate for the algo-plutocrats would be zero or close to it, which is not the same as the optimal rate for the society or economy as a whole.
Instead, the governance should be more democratic and closer to “1 person = 1 vote”, which is as decentralized as you can get, and would allow the economy as a whole to decide what the optimal inflation rate is, so that it benefits not only those who own all of the crypto now, but would also include the future participants of the functioning crypto economy.
I believe your concern about centralization was about the specific governance mechanisms that would be needed if wanting to adjust the money supply and the rate of inflation in the future? My proposal above should demonstrate that it is not (or at least should not be) a centralized decision.
And in case you are concerned about the people’s ability to make educated decisions about such specific topics as inflation rates etc, I would once again point to the “wisdom of the crowds” principle that is proven to often lead to much better decisions compared to smaller decision making bodies. If that was not the case with such specialized knowledge as inflation, some form of delegated voting could also be used, so that the decision is still democratic, but the people would have the option of delegating their votes to experts who know more about economics and inflation. (Either way, I’m certainly convinced that the “1 person = 1 vote” would lead to superior decisions compared to “1 algo = 1 vote” governance, whether delegated voting is involved or not. And it would be less centralized.)
Unfortunately that would not work, as anyone could simply be moving funds between their own wallets to avoid such fees. And moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket is not economic activity.
To pre-emptively answer a question that may arise from the above proposal… Who are all the “persons” who should be allowed to vote in this “1 person = 1 vote” proposal? All algo holders? Or all the people of the world (even if they don’t have any stake or interest in algorand)?
If you have read my earlier post about Injecting Algo into Circulation via UBI, the answer actually becomes obvious. Since both the UBI and the “1 person = 1 vote” both require KYC, and implementing UBI would automatically make every KYC-verified person a stakeholder with an interest in Algorand’s success, the answer is that it should be the same group of people in both.
This of course assumes the UBI-method of distributing the currency would be adopted first, but why wouldn’t you? The only valid reason I have heard so far, is the objection to including any form of KYC in the design of the crypto economy.
But thinking of it, if there are two groups of Algorand advocates (from the technology point of view), where one is against KYC, and one is OK with it if it allows better designs from the economic and governance point of view, why not implement both as separate blockchains? Ensure that Algorand’s superior technology and Pure Proof of Stake will be the winner no matter what, while letting the users decide which version of Algorand they want to adopt as a real world currency?
you’re proposing a system that in the eyes of the crypto world has failed, crypto is trying a new way. Whether fixed supply or not the decision would be a centralized one. Just suppose algorand began as unfixed supply, your argument could be made for fixed supply also by saying the initial decision gets centralized over time more so with uncapped supply. Delegating to experts all this woo woo led to crypto. Pure proof of stake-you must have skin in the game kinda like poker.1 person one vote != skin in the game therefore more likely to disrupt the network if you can get enough to tilt the scale. With stake less likely because you won’t want to devalue your stake. Better to hoard and spend what you need than to devalue your currency through inflation and spend meaninglessly
okay even better. Plus, it seems the pocket network is what algorand would use for future relay infraustructure.@scholtz
I’m pretty sure my proposal has not been tried yet. At least not as a whole, and as far as I know, the individual components of the proposal have not been fully tried in the same context either.
Unless I’m missing what exactly it is in my proposal that you are referring to that you think has failed?
As far as inflationary currencies are concerned, they certainly haven’t failed, and I don’t think most people in the crypto world would even think that (or at least not most people can justify such a belief). The reasons why all countries (that I know of) have abandoned gold standard long ago are just as valid today as they were before.
Examples of hyperinflation do exist, but I don’t think that’s relevant to the question of whether a certain (small) level of inflation is better than a similar level of deflation, which has been my main argument.
I was saying that the initial decision is a centralized one. And that if the initial decision is also the final decision, as it mostly is with fixed supply models, then the centralization increases over time.
In unlimited supply models, however, there is no reason to limit the system to the initial decision only. In fact, I was arguing that it should not be limited to the initial decision, as it is quite impossible that regardless of what the initial decision was, it would forever remain as the best possible choice regardless of how the world and the economy changes over time. So obviously the future algo users (and future generations if we are lucky enough to be that successful) should not be forever bound by the initial decisions made by the “founders”.
Anyways, I’m not necessarily married to any specific mechanism for how all the future decisions would have to be made, but I am saying that such a mechanisms are needed. If there is a good enough process for the initial decision to be made, then there must be a good enough process for future decisions too for overriding those earlier decisions that turned out to be mistakes. Perhaps creating a hard fork of the existing protocol is the only way, but if so, I am not so sure the project will survive the competition…
You seem to be fine with the algorand foundation acting as the experts setting the monetary policy for everyone for the foreseeable future?
Now this is actually a very good argument, and worth discussing further.
If a good inflationary cryptocurrency was an option among the same fiat currencies and the same investment opportunities that already exist today, I’m not convinced it would lead to any increase in the meaningless spending that occurs today. If you can show me otherwise, I’d welcome the opportunity to learn.
I can see inflationary cryptocurrencies as new payment options that would, among other things, enable instantaneous international payments for services between international businesses and their clients. The buyer could exchange their other funds to crypto when they needed to make the payment, and the seller could use the crypto they received to pay their expenses, make investments, or perhaps buy regular stock from the stock market with any excess crypto they received. There would be no hoarding or meaningless spending, and the actual utility of such currency circulating through the economy is what would give it it’s value (per supply and demand). And being widely used as a currency and not an instrument for speculation, is what would lead to more stable valuation (even if inflating over time) as people gained intuitive feel for what 1 Algo actually means (whether it’s worth a can of soda, a Big Mac, or something else). If this line of reasoning is somehow fundamentally flawed, I would love to know why.
If there is no plan than this blockchain wouldnt survive much
To the contrary, there are several strong and dynamic plans to grow the Network going forward. Check out the Grow Algorand Repository on GitHub (LINK). Moreover, Algorand is the strongest blockchain network and run by some of the world’s most hard working and talented people. We all choose to be here and to contribute to Algorand for a reason, we’re building something great. The Algorand Network is an open, decentralized, and borderless blockchain with millions of participants world-wide.
To the contrary, you cannot call algorand the strongest netowork…
- Your million users statement can be proven easily false with this link … there is only 45k 1k algo accounts… This does not even mean that there is 45k people owning 1k USD worth accounts becase those millioners can split their accounts to million pieces…
- Also your self statement that it is being run by the world’s most hard working and talented people… I have noticed what Ludovit Scholtz has written to discord… As far as I understand he did not received a penny from you even thou he tried to have several projects with algo… the covid testing app, the regulated exchange, the eur asa, payment gateway without financial middleman, created directory service and so on… he has pushed you to make the algo wallet open source, and all he got in return was discouraging from being the part of the community… he really created the first usable open source algo wallet, and you guys pushed him away…
- algorand is very centralized and the distribution of coins seems to be very non transparent… eg the distribution of 1067M algos per six months to closed group (relay node runners) vs 2M per few years for gitcoin program seems very unfair… do I understand it correctly that you have given to early backers 1B algos between Sep2020-Mar2021 ?
As a result of acceleration, we distributed an additional 1.003Bn Algo in accelerated vesting during the reporting period, for a total supply of 1.067Bn Algos due to vesting in this period.
1 Like
So, I can say Algorand is the strongest Network. I did before and I’ll say it again, Algorand is the strongest Network. Moreover, as I mentioned there are millions of active accounts, which hold a variety of assets, Algo being one of them. The fact that less than that hold over 1,000.00 Algo does not discourage my point.
I have not pushed anyone away, in fact I liked several of @scholtz’s messages. I think he provides constructive discourse in the community. Further, the distribution of coins is transparent. For example, the GitCoin Grants program meticulously illuminates distribution and provides opportunity to earn directly.
i am happy that you downgraded your statement from 1 million participants to 1 million accounts… which in reality will be something like 50k participants in my opinion… Also for your side, i do not account the users at the exchanges who did not sent algos to their private accounts…
that is quite different story when you take a look on the algo economy if you say 1 million participants vs 50k participants…
I am sorry, but you did not convience me that it is transparent… As I mentioned above… Closed group has received 1 067 000 000 alsos for six months, while there is 2 000 000 algos allocated to gitcoin program i think for two year period… how is that transparent? if you make something like 1 promile of the distribution transparent you believe that the full distribution of coins is transparent??? Think man
1 Like
First, I did not downgrade my statement. Presently, there are 12,918,203 active Algorand accounts. Second, the process by which Algo are allocated is open and transparent on the public ledger. Perhaps more importantly, the process by which Algo’s may be earned is also transparent through the Algorand Development Awards Program. There is no other blockchain offering this level of opportunity, which is just one reason why Algorand is the strongest Network. Finally, please don’t apologize as I am here to help. Feel free to let me know if there is anything you need with which I can assist.
Best,
Brian
I totally agree with ur points… a data center could be made by algorand that could perhaps last forever… absolutely no point in actually giving away so much algorand just to support relay nodes…
1 Like
@bhaney44 Parole, parole, parole… (words, words, words…)
3 Likes
He knows very well whats happening am selling all my algorand cant help it… no smart contracts and they seem more focussed on algo assets… cant handle the blockchain size issue and spending billions for node operators and early backers… and governance sounds joke in between all this mess.
maybe you failed to read your own post but yes relays got that because of accelerated vesting. do your hw, do you know why there’s acc vesting?
you’re joke. farewell!
1 Like
can you please enlighten me why someone should get 1 billion usd worth of algos with accelerated vesting while other people must buy one algo per usd? Do you personally consider it fair?
1 Like