This is the forum post for the xGov proposal for Pact. We have recently opensourced our farm contracts which allows Farms that payout real time, on variable durations, and can support all asas and multiple payouts.
As always we heavily thank you for your continued to support. These grants are the lifeblood with current state of the ecosystem and they go along way in helping us continuing to build. We are excited to introduce the CLMM to you all but that’s a post for another day
We are operating at a loss and funding/revenue for us is a critical priority, with the last vote failing to meet quroum it changes how we decide on the ask. Hopefully its not asking to generously
While I can relate to the struggle all to well, IMHO the xGov program is not meant for such situations and I think this would set a bad precedent for the program and the expectations for future proposals.
I will say also, it isn’t the only reason we have upped the ask. With it being forced OS for a longer (and more uncertain period now if it will even pass the second time), the program funding unknown and no clear direction from AF, as well as price fluctuation and looking at others consideration for their work all come together on our revaluation.
I’m not sure exactly on the precedent you are referring too or meant for such situations - do you mean xgovs mission isnt to help keeping products rolling through retroactive funding? I’ve got different messages from other parties around the latter.
As always appreciate your input. With it being already submitted is it even possible to change if we wanted?
Regardless, ill keep it in mind for future submissions - do we have any updates if there will be a top up in treasury funds? the program (not council) has been a bit silent on what the future plans are - or maybe im missing them.
Thank you sir! (by the way same user - shaman, multiple accounts I guess.)
Thanks for the questions! I appreciate an open discussion. Note that below are only my views. The views of other Council members might differ.
Regarding setting a precedent I meant framing/adjusting the ask according to circumstances that have nothing to do with the work or its traction (e.g. supporting a specific project or future funding uncertainty). I would like to see proposal be judged purely based on their merits.
Regarding xGov’s mission, I would word it a bit differently - to fuel innovation by open sourcing good projects based on which others can learn and build upon, while retroactively rewarding the developers for their contribution. What I see as a good project is a combination of work quality, complexity, documentation, testing, innovation, sustainable business model, and traction.
The retroactive aspect I see as a simple means to minimize the evaluation effort and risks for the ecosystem. This is why I dislike proposals trying to influence the vote and twist the program by making proactive claims. While I know very well there is a lack of funding opportunities for proactive development, I do not think the xGov program is the right framework for such. I think we could have other programs that would be more suited for these from an ecosystem risk perspective and effort (e.g. public tenders, VC, and/or debt funding options).
On the adjustment of the ask size, it is unfortunate that it cannot be adjusted on the smart contract level after a proposal is created. The proper way would be to delete the existing (giving up 100 ALGO creation fee) and creating a new one, which would also reset the discussion period. What I would suggest instead in your case if you would agree to the original ask, is to change the proposal text with an explanation that the ask is 150k ALGO and that you commit to return 50k ALGO to the xGov treasury after approval. I would feel fine trusting you that you would follow on the promise.
Thanks for the reply and commitment to the success of the program.
I know you guys are in discussion around approvals, so here is where I stand on this:
I can understand where you’re coming from. I’m not opposed to resetting the ask, as my goal is also to see the success of this program. However, with that said, I think changing it this period would put it at a disadvantage with voter quroums (if i understand it correctly). I would prefer to not change it, go through as is, and structure maybe some better guidelines for future proposals.
Regardless id be interested in what the council has to say and im flexible from there.
