Main Content

I dug up this comment from a community member, and I think it’s worth a look @Nokuaru GP8 Measures DRAFT for Community Feedback - #40 by Nokuaru
For this quarter, as I stated above I support the 500k node runners measure.

I actually like your idea. Algo lying in Governance is still too many.

I vote in favor of 500k allocated to node runners. Waiting for this to become protocol-level.

I assume AF can’t provide liquidity in other assets because means selling ALGO. Liquidity in other assets will be brought by the incentive program.

I have the feeling that those who are complaining want to carry water in their own mill. AF explained that other projects may receive the liquidity provision and hopefully follow the criteria I mentioned:

• Security (How many audits to date? Is the smart contract upgradable? Other security concerns?)

Ecosystem support is critical, but the project must demonstrate that it deserves the liquidity by meeting specific requirements:

• Security (How many audits to date? Is the smart contract upgradable? Other security concerns?)
• Does it add value to the ecosystem?

Totally agree with you. AF should provide a larger percentage of liquidity to solid projects and a smaller percentage to emerging protocols. The only two key parameters to consider are:

• Security
• Value to the ecosystem

Thank you for pointing that out. A protocol with smart contract upgradable should not even be considered, big red flag to me.