[xGov][Beta] Testnet Feedback

post by Adri on Jun 20, 2025

The xGov beta version, a.k.a. the new xGov platform, will launch on testnet soon. Use this thread for technical and UI feedback and bug reports.

post by Xxiled on Jul 3, 2025

Hi, Wanted to drop my feedback for the UI/UX - This will be specific to the mobile view of the site. The UI/design feedback is personal preference and should of course be taken as that. Some of the UX feedback is based on personal experience and experience of building and then fixing UI on CompX.

UI:

Proposal Borders

Personally I’m not a fan of the borders. I appreciate that it’s there to give the proposals depth and make them look more interesting but I don’t feel it matches the design of the rest of the site of the algorand.co main site.

Filter button

I didn’t know what this was when I first pressed it - I thought it was to collapse the proposals view. I think a more standard looking funnel, or the word ‘filter’ would be easier to understand.

Footer size

I feel like the footer takes up far too much real estate, especially on mobile.

Discussion links

Think it would be helpful to have the external link icon on the view the discussion button as it’s not immediately obvious it opens in the forum.

Proposal in voting display

I like a lot of this however I would add that it’s not immediately clear what each icon, number or symbol means. Perhaps we could have some hover over / long press tooltips to guide users?

UX

Loading States

Don’t have a screenshot for this one but I observed when signing up as a proposer and as an xGov, on signing the transaction I was taken back to the signup screen - this was a little confusing and some user may feel that it didn’t work or go through. It did switch back to the profile in about 3-4 seconds with the updated state. This could definitely use a loading state to show the process is still being confirmed.

Again, on loading - initial loading of the app shows no loading state for proposals. A skeletal loader or some other indication would be good to inform users that there is data and it’s on its way. The caching on the site is really good though so after first load, that is never really seen again unless another browser is used.

Love what’s on the site, can’t wait to use it as a voter and proposer and hopefully a council member. Great work all.

post by aper_nft on Jul 3, 2025

Environment: Windows 10, Google Chrome. Voters and evaluators will need to read through multiple proposals, but the animation of the header when pressing the back button or returning to the top page feels unnecessarily long. While this may be intended to cover loading times, it results in poor UX.

The display of the xGov proposer status “Proposer” before KYC approval is unclear. I recommend displaying an announcement such as “KYC process in progress” in the area where the “Create Proposal” button would normally appear.

Currently, the Voting Address can be changed, but only one address can be set per account at any given time. With the current design, those operating nodes with multiple addresses need to create multiple accounts. Would it be possible to add a feature that allows a single account to hold multiple voting addresses?

Using the filter function results in no proposals being displayed.

Is it impossible to apply the filter function to multiple conditions within the same category? For example, displaying proposals that are both in the “Discussion” and “Voting” states.

Will NFD not be integrated?

The guidelines within “Get Started” are very clear and helpful. Because of this, during the initial phases, there will be demand to return to these guidelines if a user navigates away from them. Would it be possible to add a button next to “Docs” in the top header so that it can be accessed from any page?

Where will the xGov Council’s reviews of proposals be displayed? Or will they not be shown on the site, requiring the xGov Council to conduct reviews on forums related to the proposals instead?

post by aper_nft on Jul 4, 2025

It costs money to create an account to participate in xGov voting, but while the manual states it should be 50 ALGO, it appears that 100 ALGO is being spent on the testnet. Also, regarding the fact that voters have to pay a fee, is it really necessary for this to be as high as 50 ALGO? Could it not be reduced to a single-digit amount? As it currently stands, this requirement is likely to significantly reduce the number of people willing to become xGov voters.

post by splotchy1735 on Jul 4, 2025

Yes, I agree, there have to be some sort of button to return to get started manuals and agreements. When I passed this window, I realized that I wanted to check some info once again, but there is no way to do so.

post by Adri on Jul 7, 2025

Thanks @Xxiled @aper_nft and @splotchy1735 for your feedback. I’m relaying your comments to our engineering team at our weekly today.

post by Adri on Jul 8, 2025

It will likely be 10 Algo as we launch on mainnet. And this is a one-time fee to create the xGov account. Once that is done, there is no cost to vote.

post by aper_nft on Jul 9, 2025

I’m relieved to hear that the cost will be significantly lower compared to the current testnet. Personally, I have no issue with 10 ALGO, but the lower, the better. Governance works best when as many people as possible can participate. It’s understandable that some may choose not to take part due to the time required to read and review proposals. However, I hope the cost doesn’t become an additional reason for someone to decide against becoming a governor. Of course, I understand that certain fees, such as gas costs, are necessary—but it’s best to avoid charging more than what’s truly needed.

post by aper_nft on Jul 30, 2025

In the case of this xGov grant, the funding is provided retrospectively for development—in other words, the grant is paid for a completed service. However, given the wording of Article 7, Paragraph 1 in the contract for xGov proposers, doesn’t this effectively make it impossible to use the received grant funds? (Since the applicant has already advanced and paid for the development costs.)

The decision to pay the grant is made with respect to Article 7, Paragraph 1, but the actual usage is not specified. Wouldn’t it be better to structure it this way? At the very least, I think it would be advisable to consider changing how it is written.

7.  You acknowledge and agree that payment of the Funding is subject to your compliance to the following:
1)  the Funding shall only be used for purposes of (i) promoting the adoption of Algorand Network; and (ii) enhancing and improving user experience, security, scaling (including efficiencies), decentralization, privacy and fungibility in the creation on, distribution on, and other use of Algorand Network (the “Purposes”). Except for the Purposes, you may not use the Funding for any other purposes without our prior written consent; and

post by splotchy1735 on Jul 30, 2025

As I understand these grants are for project development. So, they may be used only for that purpose. For example you’ve created a great project on the Algorand that helps people, then you can apply to this funding system and get money for future development.

post by aper_nft on Jul 30, 2025

Thank you for your response. I understand what you’re trying to say. However, let’s say there is a completed service A and a future or currently ongoing service B. If the grant is meant for future use, then it becomes funding for service B, doesn’t it?

If the grant is supposed to support service A, then it should be paid for the expenses already incurred in developing service A. Those expenses can be clarified by presenting a financial statement for service A. (It’s up to the applicant whether to provide such a statement, but I believe it’s necessary to show some rationale for the requested grant amount. If it’s for personnel costs, that’s acceptable too—but whether it’s approved or not should be up to the community.)

Also, in most cases, the expenses have already been fronted by the project. Therefore, the grant money is normally meant to reimburse those costs and goes back into the project’s pocket. Since the grant is based on actual expenditures and not a budget forecast, if there is any dissatisfaction with the calculation, it can simply be discussed.

post by Adri on Jul 30, 2025

Hi @aper_nft, great question. That clause is out of place in the context of only accepting retroactive grants.

Paragraph 3.1 declares the UI is part of the process:

"To submit an xGov grant proposal, you must follow the application process available on the xGov platform. (…)"

As we launch the platform, only retroactive grants will be available in the UI. That may change to include RFPs (Request For Proposals) to build specific tools for the ecosystem, and the T&Cs have been designed with that in mind. When that happens, the UI will be modified to include the new grant type.

post by splotchy1735 on Jul 30, 2025

Yeah, I see. As I understand, if we consider that we can spend money only on service development, then there are 2 scenarios:

1. service is ready, but it can be better and there is a potential for future development
2. service is ready and there is no potential for development or team doesn't want to continue the project.

In my opinion, this grant system is only for the 1st option, otherwise there is no reasons for Algorand Foundation to fund this project. It might sound bad, but I guess it’s business.

So, for the 1st option this should work good. As I understand, you can request any amount (in range of 10k-500k Algo) for the project, so you can cover the expenses on the project just in terms of money amount, not the money which you can food or anything (though I think this system can be easily abused in this way).

I just want to say that this funding is only for project development, but they can’t give grants just to cover expenses, there is no sense for that, because they need development and person who develops the project will spend the money (that meant to cover expenses) on future project development.