# Feedback requested on proposed Q3 2022 Governance Measures **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance Discussions\ **Created:** [August 12, 2022, 9:10am UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/feedback-requested-on-proposed-q3-2022-governance-measures/7587 "2022-08-12T09:10:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![krebsmenschen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@krebsmenschen](https://forum.algorand.co/u/krebsmenschen)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2022, 2:36pm UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/feedback-requested-on-proposed-q3-2022-governance-measures/7587/7 "2022-08-12T14:36:54Z")
Sorry for being the pessimist in the room, but I do not like any of the measures. 1. 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 lose everything as the LPs, this is the risk they wanted to take and should not be payed cutting the rewards of others. I guess, most of the normal Algo holders are no LPs, which means, the rewards of many will be decreased, while the ones of few would increase, which I think, will be contrair to a bigger adoption. Many Investors (me included) came into Algo, because the tech was just easy to use and worked out of the box, while given ‘staking’ rewards just by holding Algo. The move to gov rewards was understandable, but already reducing the initial pull towards this project. Now this easy minded people (me included lol), that just want to invest and hold, and maybe from time to time switch or buy an nft, will now be forced to go into DEFI, what they most likely do not wanted in the first place. Furthermore, with a rewards for LPs people will be edged into going a way more risky road, which can result in impermanent lost. Algorand should be neutral about all this! Therefore, I think, this is the wrong strategy overall, but ofc. the LPs will hype it up. 1. Letting LPs double dip is okay from my perspective, but I would rather see a solution build by DEFI and not by Algorand, as the DEFI-projects are not Algorand, just one use-case of the chain. I would rather see some new ‘real-world’ use cases being in the gov voting, instead of DEFI Gov again and again. The Solana TVL-spoof did show, that DEFI activity is not the best measurement of the well being of a chain (just one of many). While I think, both proposals are better then the previous, I still am not convinced to vote for any of them (which would, if the majority would think the same, result in the next voting proposal of how to give DEFI more gov rewards and everything else seems not important?). Lastly, if I understand it right (never was an LP), the problem of the current DEFI is, that the risk is high and the foundation wants to navigate this risk, by paying for people, to take this on … I dunno, this seems not the right way to do it (in my opinion). Better let DEFI figure out, how to reduce the risk itself, or give grants to fix the problem? English is not my first language, so I hope, that my thoughts were understandable. Cheers --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.algorand.co/t/feedback-requested-on-proposed-q3-2022-governance-measures/7587)._