All - Activity - pescennius - Algorand
Governance Discussions
Apr 8, 2024
They will need to create multiple nodes (with more than 30k Algo to keep the incentive) and then vote manually on the website for each node.
Both of those things can be scripted. If I feel comfortable writing the code, an exchange or liquid staking provider will do it if the incentive is there.
Apr 6, 2024
You say you want to empower "value creators" but all three suggestions listed are functions of stake, not value creation, so they don’t really achieve your stated objective.
Given the complaints already, why not make it quadratic? This is already really common in web3 public goods funding and not…
Apr 4, 2024
On a more philosophical level I agree that xGov voting power shouldn’t 1:1 correlate with ALGO holdings. IMO, it's important that developers, projects, and other actual users of the chain have a louder voice than passive investors. However, I do think that requiring node operation is also a good step…
Dec 6, 2023
@SilentRhetoric, I voted for this and I’m glad to see it get funded. Free-tier site hosting for a website for the foreseeable future. (Eventually, it would probably make sense to integrate this with ChainUI so that the interface would always be available.)
If it is just going to be a single page…
May 31, 2023
I agree with pretty much everything you said here. But I would add that burning Algos is more akin to a share buyback, which is pretty much a dividend without tax liability. We are already giving out a dividend via Governance, so burning is just a way to do largely the same thing with more favorable…
Feb 24, 2023
In my opinion, I go back to the notion that blockchain in general feels like it's Microsoft in search of Windows 95.
I disagree with this analogy. I personally see it much more like mobile computing in 2005 in terms of tech maturity. The core pieces of the tech are there but the applications haven't…
Feb 17, 2023
@Adri thanks for the write up. I’m generally satisfied with the direction of these two measures. I do have some thoughts on the details of measure 2.
Given that some projects are VC backed, it seems a bit strange to give them financial support in the form of a grant. Projects should be required to…
Nov 29, 2022
Hey @Adri thanks for the thoughtful response.
First Measure
I agree with the rationale and appreciate you guys listening to concerns about governance cannibalizing demand for DeFi. I personally will vote to aggressively reduce governance rewards. However, not having a true ‘No’ option is still going…
Nov 17, 2022
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I understand what you are saying but I don’t think that should be what governance funds are used for. Governance funds come by inflating the circulating supply of ALGO. In the long run, they should come from transaction fees from the network. The goal should be to use…
Nov 16, 2022
I think (and wrote earlier) that we need to further breakdown NFTs. Because some NFT projects have heavy developer involvement like NFD or Dust Identity. There is also a whole range of gaming NFTs. I see 4 high level categories:
- Utility NFTs - domains, tickets, etc
- Gaming NFTs - skins, collectibles,…
Nov 16, 2022
Requiring the wallet to be running a node could be a way to at least force people to create some value for the network if they are going to try to use multiple wallets to game QV.
Nov 15, 2022
Would maybe something like a competition make more sense? Like a design competition for a new Algorand mascot? (Not saying it actually has to be this). Submissions have to be an NFT and xGov could narrow down choices and vote on a winner with some kind of prize in Algo. That encourages people dipping…
Nov 15, 2022
Hey jumping in late here but hopefully people are still looking at this, will post to reddit as well. Measure 1 Generally alright with it. I like @lobo's suggestion of splitting up liquid governance and LPs for accounting. I can hear people’s concerns about the lack of a status quo option undermining…