All - Activity - krebsmenschen - Algorand

Feedback request on proposed Q4 2022 governance measures

No reason to argue with him, somehow, he cannot understand the simple importance of having a NO-vote in a voting proposal, which does not change, by saying “But The Proposal Is Important, Hence, We Removed The No-Option”. As if this would be assuring at all.

Yeah, the more I have thought about it, the worse it became, not only as a general way of doing votes, but also the issue 3 seems kinda fishy. If I wanted to launder some money, I would go the same road. Just create some NFT and buy from yourself, or the people, you want to bribe, classic in art a…

Ah, you did not get my point at all. I did not argue against the proposals - I argue, that voting without having a NO-Vote is meaningless. Also you do not give the full picture. Even if your second statement may be right about xGov, the NFT-proposal is completely new.

Look, I already complained in the previous discussion of the feedback request about the current state of governance. But the solution to it was not to make it WORSE, but to give more and meaningful options and not take the no option away and literally let decide about Yes in different colors.

No, do not do governance, if you cannot let people decide … this is just a farce in itself. It is insulting on a personal level, if you get to chose, between two lesser of evil and afterwards they can stand upright and explain, that the “community had decided”, while no decision were made by us.

Thank you, yes, this vote is a farce, the decision is already made and the community can just tweak some of the parameters. But in the end, this tweaking doesn’t matter. It’s like parents having the children “a little say in the matter”, when they let them decide, who sits where in the car, but hav…

Honestly, am I the only one, feeling, like the decisions were already made, and this governance is kind of a farce right now. In the first periods, you always had a choice to “keep it as it is”, but now, the decision IS ALREADY MADE, you can only vote on how much. But the question should be, should…

Oh, I understand that development takes time (as I myself am working on source code daily). I also do understand the problem at hand (in part thanks to your clarifications). Though Im still not convinced on a) as a solution. b) seems fine for me, even without DEFI having problems, as I think, havin…

Well, thanks again for clearing stuff up. I have nothing against having the LPs be part of the gov with their Algo (hence submission b). For the other one, with extra rewards, I dont know. I understand, that there seems to be a problem with the DEFI protocols/platforms, but that would be the job of…

But wouldnt they not get 3.5% APR on top of the LP rewards - hence a net + of 3.5% rewards for the risk that should be already profitable without the gov rewards? Second - if they only hold 50% Algo, they should get only the APR for the Algo, I dont see a problem with that. The question is, is 3.5…

I still do not understand the need to cut the gov rewards to help DEFI. Let DEFI double dip (get gov rewards AND their LP rewards). Then it would be more rewarding to be a LP and gov, then only one of those. More govs will reduce the rewards naturally, just because LP will now get a share too.

Some made the following point I do not agree with: “Gov and holding Algo should not be rewarded but be a voluntary action” Buying and Holding Algo (or any Crypto) is like buying shares with use-cases (in some cases even no use-cases at all). Its investing into an ecosystem you can use with your i…

I agree with every made point. Focus on more dapps with interesting (maybe even unique) use-cases enhanced by crypto should be the priority. Every chain now has defi. If Alogrands defi will give better returns, it will most likely not (or only % chaser, that will leave the ecosystem as soon, as th…

Well, I was mostly talking about transaction fees and payments of working participants of the algorand ecosystem like node providers or x-govs and decentralization in the decision making over time. I did understand that the funds in discussion was the fund, that was used, to pump up the fee-pool until…

Well, I myself am neither a big fan nor a big critic of the rewards for governance - BUT if people invest time into something (for example the x-Gov) it absolutely does make sense to pay them something. Also I would pay the node provider from the community, for the work. Its not the only way of ha…

While I see the current form of gov not useful (I already complained within a long comment in this thread), I disagree on no rewards for being in gov. If there would be more things to vote on and maybe a leveled rewards system for people within x-gov and normal voters or stuff like this, I can see,…

Sorry for being the pessimist in the room, but I do not like any of the measures. The LP would get already the rewards of being a LP AND of the gov. They are already double dipping, why also cut the rewards from the others? LPs take more risk and they get rewarded with 2 kinds of rewards. If they …