Algorand Future

They have to because that’s what governance is for… if governance cannot decide the best then what’s the point of governance… what matters is awareness about the current tokenomics educating algo users because most users who buy Algorand don’t have deep insight about algorand distribution.

Ecosystem Support

1.25B tokens are being allocated for extended ecosystem support and will be locked in a smart contract. These tokens would be periodically unlocked over a period no faster than 10 years, and with no more than 200M unlocked in any given year.

I consider this very crucial because...

Even right now when you have to unlock your Algorand wallet you are using your fingerprint, so it’s not that bad to use an optional method as authentication such as fingerprint or face scanner.

What are you talking about? You have no way to prove that the 2 billion Algorand has been distributed already. You are talking senselessly about anything. You are not able to prove your wrong assumptions.

2 billion has been distributed so that’s coming out of nowhere but your poor assumptions… you have no idea what you are talking. Such nonsense.

The vesting of the Early Backer and Node Runner Rewards allocated before inception has been accelerated following the EIP, and the Foundation is already designing and testing a different program that will reward new or existing Relay Nodes (no matter if Early Backer or not) with transfers that will work as an economic incentive but of a different (smaller) order of magnitude than the pre-inception program aimed at Early Backers.

You believe right you believing with your assumptions I don’t think you are watching their YouTube videos … Micali and team discussed and the community would decide how to proceed with the current tokenomics.

Wrong … It was clearly said by the Algorand Foundation that the community would decide the tokenomics during the governance phase.

Silvio Micali had said in his recent video the governance would have power to change and decide what to do further.

For sure it’s all good. Question arises: a voter is an individual and not a bot. Making a national ID is still not a perfect way to define a vote. Storing any data should be prohibited on blockchains related to passport etc. But it should be only codes related face ID encrypted and not storage.

Just pointing out how a proper governance should be: a solution for the crypto governance by Moez King. In the crypto space, there is no model of governance which can define the right way to do the governance, because if you assume to make a digital asset voting (1 asset 1 vote) the issue we face in this...

If the governance system really gives power, the only thing that needs to be changed is tokenomics. The best is to add a proposal on governance stage and fixing this tokenomics because I understand the team cannot be 100% right all the time; that’s why they even said the governance would decide.

Splitting the voting weight depends on if there are more than 1 governor and you decide to vote 3 governors from 1 vote. And talking about the authenticity of making the system check real identity like passport etc. that is utterly nonsense. Theoretically, a system cannot check that because there are many factors involved.

I have a suggestion for the relay nodes: could there be rewards monthly or yearly handled by the community to judge and grant rewards? To support relay nodes based on their best uptime they get rewards accordingly, and community governance can give that from their threshold which there are some curr...

I totally agree: why some groups have over a billion which the community can decide and not the Algorand Foundation? I hope governance can change this tokenomics.

I really think something urgent needs to be done about the 2030 plans. When governance kicks in, 2030 tokenomics have to change and current distribution needs to go on supporting plans ahead of 2030. I think the best solution is giving rewards for the relay nodes in terms of best node performance.

Aren’t we making a system that nobody can control and nobody is in charge of it? But on Algorand, we have several loopholes: the early backers, relay node operators...

Nobody understands how to make smart contracts – there are dApps as good as none right now. They seem to be focusing on Algorand assets rather than smart contracts.

If you check Flow, Solana, etc., it’s just another cryptocurrency, ALGORAND. If it was real, we wouldn’t be on their track and with rank 47. If you need adoption, you need to handle criticism and not just try to cover up failures.

Everything is useless unless something is up and running. Their marketing campaign looks bluff; nothing is being done just promises and high TPS with centralized relay nodes and no adoption...

It is reasonable to question where they gave such huge grants and how much they are wanting to spend on marketing etc. and how will Algorand sustain without grants in future as there is nothing in bucket after 2030, so Algorand needs to tell people how they plan to handle things… criticism is good.

Governance can’t work according to how much Algorand someone holds because the early backers and selected relay nodes owners already have enough Algorand to do things according to how they like… This form of governance is just like a communist party where you can’t do anything but listen and follow.

As I read, the governance would decide the future outcome of the remaining Algorand on how it should be utilized. And the community is waiting for the governance model to start.

Such huge grants benefit the selected group of people who can, in turn, become bad for the ecosystem. If such grants are issued out of circulating supply, the governance would not hold enough power to issue grants later on. Issuing grants and decision-making is the crucial part of governance else...

Grants should totally be up to the community to decide, and the Algorand foundation is wasting grants in the short term makes me nervous. In the end, governance would not have the power to issue grants...

Due to no clearance on how Algorand is distributing to early backers and relay node runners, the investors' funds don’t seem to be safe due to the huge amount held by few people called early backers…

Currently, relay node costs 200 to 300 euros to run, and why does the foundation pay a huge amount to relay nodes which is not needed?

If Algorand does become a few hundred terabytes in the short run, how much would a compact certificate compress such a huge database of?

What Algorand promised was it would solve the blockchain trilemma, but it’s still stuck and it still has some trade-off in exchange for speed and security. Relay nodes are still centralized by Algorand, and anything that requires permission on decentralized ledger isn’t decentralized.