Hi iGetAlgo, welcome to the thread and thanks for the questions. Let’s go through them one by one.
You say that the token is the main engine of the project since 2022 yet it has a TVL of $1000?
We’ve never described the token as “the main engine of the project”. The engine is the platform: the app, the custodial wallet system, the claim of rewards using cash receipts, the redeeming of advantages using the received rewards. The GRAMO token is the reward medium distributed through the platform. It’s a loyalty token with a Tinyman pool for liquidity, not a DeFi protocol. TVL is not a meaningful metric for a loyalty rewards token: that’s like measuring a coffee shop stamp card by its TVL. The relevant metrics are validated receipts (~954), unique customer wallets (159), and continuous operation since 2022, which we detailed in post #14.
I also noticed in your plans and responses that the original plans and visions have shifted and changed a lot over time. A lot of, “the original plan was this, but then this happened, so we did this instead.”
We’d call that adaptation, not inconsistency. We started with Pera Wallet onboarding: it failed, so we built custodial wallets and Gramo dashboard (app.gramo.io). We planned to scale CBD retail partners: JuicyFields poisoned the well, so we pivoted to open-sourcing. We built OCR receipt validation: generative AI made fake receipts trivial, so we reverted to manual verification. Every change was a response to a real-world problem encountered in production, which is exactly what happens when you actually ship and run a product for four years with real users. We’ve been transparent about every one of these pivots in this thread because we think the lessons learned are part of the value being contributed.
That much inconsistency and lack of value for a token you say plays a vital part in the project is a bit concerning.
The token price is a function of market conditions and liquidity, like most ASAs on Algorand right now. We’ve never pitched GRAMO as an investment or made price claims. The proposal is about open-sourcing the platform codebase, not about the market value of the token.
You also said there are 2,000 registered app users but your token activity isn’t showing that as “Active” users.
Correct, and we’ve been upfront about this throughout the thread. ~2,000 registered accounts, 20-50 regularly active users. Registration doesn’t equal frequent activity, that’s true for any platform. We never claimed 2,000 active users. The on-chain analysis in post #14 shows the real activity transparently.
Are you able to supply metrics of current activity and active users of your service for the past 90 days?
Honestly, the last 90 days have been very quiet, likely zero or near-zero reward txs from the distribution wallets, which you can verify yourself on-chain. This reflects a broader slowdown we’ve seen across the ecosystem in recent months, combined with the fact that the app was down for several weeks and our team member managing the infrastructure had surgery recently (mentioned in post #10). We’re not going to inflate numbers. The value of the platform to the ecosystem is in the codebase being open-sourced, which, as announced in post #17, is happening now during the discussion period. You’ll be able to inspect the code directly and judge its reusability for yourself.
Appreciate the scrutiny, that’s what the discussion phase is for 
