Replies - Activity - Futurecurrency - Algorand

Algorand Future Discussions

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.

  1. 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, 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 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 about. Such nonsense.

(no matter if Early Backer or not) with transfers that will work as an economic incentive but of different (smaller) order of magnitude than the pre-inception program aimed at Early Backers. Again read this 10 times because there are many people on the crypto space who are like you.

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...

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

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

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

For sure it’s all good. The 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, and storing any data should be prohibited on the blockchains related to passport etc. But it should be only codes related to face ID, encrypted and not storage…

Concerns about Governance

  1. dApps are not building on Algorand currently.
  2. The partnership with bad, low-quality cryptos are growing rather than solid ones.
  3. No grants after 2030.
  4. Selected relay nodes not enough to decentralise it for the world.
  5. Wallet seems to be more focused on assets.
  6. Nothing new just…

The concerns are that 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.

I don’t think transaction fees are enough after 2030. As I said, we don’t know the future, assuming the price stays at $2 or $3 USD.

It is important. The network magically won’t be in decentralized state after 2030; we don’t know the future so it’s always best to prepare for future, and plans have to be futuristic not just till 2030.

Grants are necessary to build things; if Algorand has bugs etc., after 2030 do you expect the community to spend their own money on this… nah, don’t live that dream. Look at Litecoin; they had a hard time getting funds for building Mimblewimble… It’s crucial to save things for 2030.

It is reasonable to question where they gave such huge grants and how much they want to spend on marketing etc., and how will Algorand sustain without grants in the future?

Community Feedback

Such huge grants benefit a select 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 a 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 which makes me nervous… In the end, governance would not have the power to issue grants…

I guess we have to form a group so in the governance phase such things don’t happen… it’s possible they could also face a lawsuit which happened to Ripple earlier… and in all this mess only investors who buy are losing in the end.

If there is no plan then this blockchain wouldn’t survive much.