Governance Discussions

Comments from Pescennius

Comment 1 (Apr 7, 2024)

I missed the call, but I like where this is going. I fully support the node running requirement and block proposed = vote seems like a good starting point to see how first few periods will go. Overall, I think it’s an improvement over the current voting power allocation, but I would, like many have …

Comment 2 (Apr 6, 2024)

A major concern that I have not seen being addressed is what if exchanges/pool-node-runners who aren’t the actual stakeholders and receive a large number of xGov votes do not vote for the best interest of network and real stakeholders? Or, what is the protection against the conflict of interest?

Comment 3 (Apr 6, 2024)

The pools run by defi protocols like folks finance will have a big advantage if you consider the number of blocks proposed as a criteria for number of votes.

Comment 4 (Dec 6, 2023)

Thank you for your support and the technical suggestion. The tool will be built as a single-page application to make it easy to host/pin/store anywhere. The community will be free to use the open-source code to create integrations with other apps, stripped-down functionality for lightweight decent…

Comment 5

This is the official discussion thread for xGov-86: Bonfire. Author: Brian Whippo ( @SilentRhetoric)
Category: Tools
Focus: DeFi
Open-Source: Yes
ALGO Requested: 10000
Abstract: Burn ASAs by throwing them into the Bonfire–a standard, permissionless, and verifiable way to take ASAs out of circulation.

Comment 6 (Jun 1, 2023)

Don’t forget that Foundation funds were raised by the Foundation, and the management of them is ultimately the responsibility of the Foundation. These funds have nothing to do with the Algos that you and I hold in our own wallets. If you want direct control over the direction of things, and the spe…

Comment 7 (Jun 1, 2023)

Transparency and predictability of monetary policy is one of the most important properties of a blockchain. Therefore changing monetary policy should be only considered as a last resort and I don’t think we’re even close to that yet. We still got great development teams and to me it also seems like …

Comment 8 (May 31, 2023)

While I understand the concern regarding current market position and the attractiveness of being among the top ten coins (ranked by Market Cap, which is widely used but still a questionable metric), I believe that focusing on token burning may not provide the sustainable solution we’re looking for.

Comment 9 (May 30, 2023)

You seem to think that if we burn x% of supply then the price will rise accordingly. This could happen in the short term (some kind of hype) but I don't think it will help in the mid to long term. Imagine what could be built with 100M ALGOs if we don't use this to attract new and exciting projects that could really leverage that funding.

Comment 10 (May 30, 2023)

Agree with @averagezen that burn is just a waste. It has become a common thing to make it seem like a token should be worth more after it but in my opinion, it’s just marketing and doesn’t achieve anything really.

Comment 11 (May 30, 2023)

A burn seems like a waste to me. Wouldn’t it be much better to allocate more funding instead to projects and programs that truly stand a chance at improving the overall attractiveness of Algorand and let demand do the rest?

Comment 12 (May 22, 2023)

We are not getting asked (1) which protocols (2) which amounts (3) which purpose and these are the points that matter. The Algorand Foundation is not supposed to act as a Central Bank to inject liquidity into their favorite projects for reasons they believe are important!

Comment 13 (Feb 24, 2023)

Update 24 Feb. Based on your feedback and discussions with the Governance Advisory Committee, we have decided to table the Project Relief Pool measure at this time. We are only one quarter away from xGovs being able to vote on community proposals and we want to allow xGovs the opportunity to consider this…..

Comment 14 (Feb 20, 2023)

I appreciate your feedback, @j.v.ii, but I disagree with you. We changed the measures quite a bit based on the community feedback during the last governance period. I take your point and agree that if we take measure 2 to the ballot, the process needs to be fully transparent.

Comment 15 (Feb 19, 2023)

This is an excellent point. I’ll bring it up with the team and GAC for discussion.

Comment 16 (Feb 17, 2023)

I don’t like the project relief pool idea, at least without transparency around which projects are struggling and need support. Why not spend the money on building a quadratic funding application where teams can apply for funding? That seems like it would leave us with a lasting benefit, instead of just handing out cash.

Comment 17 (Nov 15, 2022)

The rationale is pretty clear, even if the math isn’t. The current vanilla governance incentivizes people and entities who think they can keep the status quo by voting “No change” every quarter. This itself is a false dichotomy and an illusion of choice. The Foundation’s mission is clear. Until xGov can fully function, I’m not sure what we’re doing right now…

Comment 18 (Nov 15, 2022)

Before commenting on the proposed measures, I’d like to express what is perhaps an unpopular opinion. While it’s important for Algorand Governance to move toward greater decentralization over time, I don’t mind having "training wheels" for a while. We are a very young community in a space that is rapidly evolving.