All - Activity - awesomecrypto - Algorand

What is the best estimate of Algorand community size?

There are various sources of data that can be used with statistical approaches and some reasonable assumptions to get to some acceptable estimates. That would be the start over time the approach and data can be polished and improved. Example data point:

HI @Adri

Thanks for the response. The new metrics page is great. However, we have had the addresses-holdings information in algoexplorer and chaintrail.io (addresses section). The information is useful but nowhere close to the actual number. The addresses doesn’t tell us about the number of individuals who hold Algo.

What is the best estimate of number of individuals who hold Algo? 100k, 1M, 10M?

We have some related metrics but (AFAIK) nothing specific for the actual community size. For example different metrics are extracted from the on-chain data, active addresses, addresses with certain sizes of Algo, governance participation etc.

Then, what is the burn rate? Why is it so high?

They just sold 100M Algo. At this rate AT may not even get to 2025. And does anyone realize that all this money should come from the community? There is a real negative impact (relative to other chains) that it has on the price action, momentum, market perception.

The Algorand foundation still holds 1,866,751,736 Algo

Which is a large and substantial amount. For the sake of increasing the credibility of Algorand network and respecting all participants in the Algorand ecosystem in particular Algo holders, it is time to move from an Algo releasing process that seems unsustainable.

Thanks John.

What I suggested does not require changing participation node requirements or any other major change that risks current plans. What I’m suggesting is basically what you wrote: Optional “fastpath” Relays can be privately operated as a paid service.

A major concern that I have not seen being addressed

Is what if exchanges/pool-node-runners who aren’t the actual stakeholders and receive a large number of xGov votes do not vote for the best interest of network and real stakeholders? Or, what is the protection against the conflict of interest?

The core issue is that with the current setup relay nodes have to be selected by the foundation.

Yes, that’s the default list but practically that’s the list. The incentives are also manually allocated to them. This continues to be a major sustainability and decentralization issue for the network.

We need some clarification/update from Algorand technologies on why they are selling so aggressively.

They are killing the momentum and price action at the time that Algorand has the chance to shine and move much higher in the market cap list.

I’d like to encourage interaction from other users.

What should be done to ensure the stability and growth of Algorand as we continue to evolve the structure? This includes ensuring diverse geographical node representation and incentivizing real stakeholders to run nodes.