As we announced last week , the Algorand Foundation intends to bring to a vote in Governance Period G3 (June 2022 voting session), a proposal to evolve governance away from the current focus on just rewarding passive Algo holders. Starting in G4 (the 3rd quarter of 2022), we intend to grant extra “g…

[image] anon: Just to make sure I understand it correctly, as a concrete example, you would argue e.g. that current ALGO holders might not want to decrease opt-in costs for an asset at a point where the price of ALGO is high, because new users would be forced to buy a larger ALGO stake in order …

My general issue with both proposals is that they seem to overly reward being rich. These proposals seem to be rewarding the richest with responsibility, instead the other way around. I’m all for a rewards model that compensates for the level of responsibility taken and fulfilled. To the degree tha…

iirc from the xGov proposal was that xGov cant vote on the finished proposal. so they could theoretically put forth something that they like and then pump it up so that it goes to a vote, but then they cant vote on it on governance.

I agree, and I think it’s paramount that the transition to community governance is done in the most careful and responsible way possible. In this fast-moving space, you cannot make the most informed decisions on a particular topic if your efforts are split elsewhere. Like you said, it’s evident that…

[image] tebok: Unfortunately I don’t have any better solution to suggest either. One possible solution is to lock the governed algo for some time (longer than the gov period to avoid cheating short-term, eg. if unlock happens exactly when the gov period finishes the whales could coordinate a …

One additional advantage of locking staked algos is that exchanges can’t vote, at least not with the majority of their coins unless they want to risk running out of algo and hurting their reputation. Which in turn also means regular stakers get more rewards

Thanks for the link to the blog post. I apologize for the late reply. What I had in mind is an actual research paper with math showing why this works just as well if not better. For instance, let me point out some logical conflicts I see from the option A. I will compare Algorand consensus and gover…

[image] thezec: Nor should a blockchain that wants to be decentralized makes its user having to trust a third party in order to participate - a point that Silvio makes every time he speaks publicly. I think this is a very important point!

[image] omniwarp: However, if option A is in fact a better citizen definition, since both the consensus and governance operate under a definition of a citizen, by implication it would mean we should use the “citizen definition” described in option A on the consensus level as well […] I actual…

[image] tebok: I actually disagree with this conclusion, and think that if consensus and governance currently operate under the same definition of a “citizen”, it is merely a coincidence rather than something that should always apply. I agree it may not strictly need to be the same, but it’s …

Evolving Algorand Governance

Governance Discussions

fabrice June 25, 2022, 1:52am 221

Your weight in the vote is your committed amount of Algos.
A wallet with 10 Algos count for 10 votes.
So having 2 wallets with 1 Algo is the same as having 1 wallet with 2 Algos.

Topic		Replies	Views
Feedback requested on proposed Q3 2022 Governance Measures Governance Discussions	205	13982	January 8, 2023
Governance Period 6 Draft Measures - Community Check In Governance Discussions community	65	5671	May 17, 2023
Counterproposal for Q3 2022 Governance Measures Governance Discussions	0	799	August 22, 2022
Lowering Goverance rewards to fund communtity voted projects Governance Discussions	7	608	May 17, 2024
Feedback request on proposed Q4 2022 governance measures Governance Discussions community	161	11931	June 6, 2023

Evolving Algorand Governance

Related topics