xGov 130-139: AlgoROSSA [WITHDRAWN]

id: 130-139
period: 3
title: AlgoROSSA
author: SilentRhetoric (@SilentRhetoric)
discussions-to: https://forum.algorand.org
company_name: N/A
category: Other
focus_area: Other
open_source: Yes
amount_requested: 10000 x 10 shards
status: Final


The Algorand Rapid Open Source Software Assistance (AlgoROSSA) program will rapidly assist open source software development for Algorand.


SilentRhetoric is passionate about building the Algorand open source code ecosystem.

Experience with Algorand

He has experience with Algorand dating to 2021, including creating ASA memecoins, making innumerable payment transactions with suggested params from objects, learning how to write the same auction demo smart contract in a growing list of languages, instigating argumentsdebates in Discord with whomever is around, and having lots of opinions about how the Algorand Foundation ought to do things.

Present Proposal

The funds awarded to AlgoROSSA will be used at SilentRhetoric’s sole discretion to assist the development of free, open-source software (FOSS) that create 2+2=5 outcomes for Algorand. This could include bounties and grants for code solutions, tooling, standards, examples, tutorials, and other contributions that lead to good outcomes for the Algorand community.

Benefits for the community

Funding this proposal will enable xGov grant funding to be appropriated through an additional channel. Currently, the xGov grant process runs quarterly and so it takes three months or more for any proposal to make it through the process and receive payment, and lots of people argue about it the entire time. AlgoROSSA will be faster, less bureaucratic, and much less democratic because I’ll decide the best time and way to direct the funds.

Additional information

The AlgoROSSA proposal has been submitted in ten shards of 10kA each rather than one large request of 100kA. Please vote for as many shards as you want to fund.

1 Like

I want to use this opportunity to address some questions that may arise from this proposal:

Q: Why are there ten AlgoROSSA proposals?
A: I have split project AlgoROSSA into ten shards rather than submitting it as one large request because it gives voters the ability to control how much funding they want to allocate to rapidly open source software assistance. As a single, larger request, AlgoROSSA may not pass at all, but as smaller shards there is the possibility that one or more shards reach the votes threshold to pass.

As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions that help prevent bad actors from submitting too many proposals.

Q: Isn’t this proposal rather vague?
A: The Algorand developer community’s needs evolve quickly over time, so it is hard to anticipate what might be the most important and urgent things that need to be built to help app developers when xGov Period 3 grants are paid. At the time of this writing, a couple of examples that I think need support are addressing SDK ssues and enhancements as well as some technical ARC standards being drafted capabilities like multisig and authentication.

As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions that require proposal authors to provide thorough documentation of what they want to achieve and how they are going to do it. The now-retired AlgoGrants program, for example, required extensive grant applications that included a solution approach, technical roadmap, statement of work, market assessment, competitor analysis, pro forma budget, and information about other sources of funding received.

Q: How will the community know what was achieved if this proposal passes?
A: I will operate AlgoROSSA primarily out of the Algorand Discord server, which essentially functions as the town square for developers building on Algorand.

As a general statement, I would support stricter rules about proposals including crisp and clear success criteria by which the community can verify that the proposed outcome was delivered and by what date. I also think that there is an opportunity to create effective processes and incentives for the community to independently validate that grants have been delivered without over-reliance on the Algorand Foundation.

Q: Your “Team” section is quite short and the “Experience with Algorand” section sounds like it is a joke. What’s that about?
A: Having received three xGov grants for other projects and publicly doxxed myself, I’m a fairly well-known quantity in this process.

As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions that help the community understand who they are dealing with or how a proposal author plans to staff (and maintain) the deliverable if they are not going to develop it themselves.

Q: Aren’t all of these small proposal shards likely to pass based on the way many xGov have been allocating some of their votes to every single proposal in past sessions?
A: I have no way to know how xGov Period 3’s experts are going to vote. That said, I would consider it a great result of AlgoROSSA was able to fund more–and rapid–open source software contributions that benefit the entire builder community.

As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions that ensure so-called “expert” governors are thoughtfully selecting the best proposals. There may be different voting mechanisms help with this, such as ranked choices or even honeypot options that catch voters who are not mindful of what they are voting for.

Q: I’m not a developer, so can you help me understand how this benefits the whole community?
A: In the process of writing virtually all software, developers rely on decades of work by other developers who made their code available for others to use for free (see https://xkcd.com/2347/). Algorand is still a relatively new technology, and so we still have lots of little tools and solutions that need to be developed so that the next person who wants to build an app can do it faster and more easily. AlgoROSSA will assist by funding some of these solutions… rapidly.

As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions for what types of proposals are eligible for community funding. In my view, grants should yield results that are globally relevant and create value in multiples, and one excellent way to achieve that is focus on open source software development rather than going to local events or liquidity for arbitrary tokens.

1 Like

What are the deliverables here?

1 Like

This is a troll proposal. Intention is to project the time taken for each cycle which the developers have to wait.

1 Like

Are you saying this proposal isn’t going to get to the voting phase?

1 Like

This will get to voting phase. But the copies of this may not.

1 Like

The deliverable is a fund that will reward OSS contributions that are urgently needed in the ecosystem. All funds will be passed through AlgoROSSA to developers, so this proposal itself is essentially a micro funding program.

There is nothing “troll” about wanting to get developers working on SDK issues, Algod API enhancements, and ARC reference implementations as quickly as possible, so I’m not sure why you would say such a thing. :thinking:

Also, there are ten unique shards to the proposal and they are not copies or duplicates.

1 Like

What’s the delivery date for the deliverable?

1 Like

AlgoROSSA will be operationalized within 2 weeks of receiving the funds from Algorand Foundation.

1 Like

What are the open source artifacts of the deliverable and their relevant licences? Is the deliverable fully open source or are there any closed source artifacts?

1 Like

Nothing closed-source would be eligible for support from AlgoROSSA. The exact licenses may depend on the repository, if one is making a Pull Request to an existing codebase. For example, go-algorand uses GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE while the JavaScript SDK uses MIT. If the code is a new/standalone repository, I would require MIT.

1 Like

Thanks, I’m asking about a different thing though. The deliverable here is the AlgoROSSA fund so I’m asking about the delivarable artifacts, not the OSS contributions that may get funded from the fund.

1 Like

What do you have in mind? Something like a quarterly report?

1 Like

Your proposal is marked as open source so I’m interested to know what are the open source components of your deliverable. Are there any at all?

1 Like

Let me clarify—everything that AlgoROSSA funds will be required to be open source, so I set the tag to “Yes.” The program itself will not directly create open source software deliverables but rather fund their creation indirectly.


This proposal has been withdrawn due to two changes of xGov rules updated on ARC-34 today. Proposals are no longer allowed to represent “Reserving funds to pay for ad-hoc open-source development” and “shall not be divided in small chunks.”

I have updated xGov-130 to a new proposal which can be found here: https://forum.algorand.org/t/xgov-130-community-code-contribution-contest-c4/11230

1 Like