Wormhole’s Native Token Transfers (NTT) is an open framework that enables the seamless creation and transfer of multichain tokens between Algorand and other chains.
The proposal requests 300,000 ALGO in funding to partially cover:
The Folks Finance team is one of the earliest builders on Algorand, active since 2021. The team launched the first version of the Folks Finance lending protocol on mainnet in April 2022 and has since delivered multiple upgrades across lending, staking, and interoperability.
Folks Router https://folksrouter.io/, a DEX aggregator that allows users to trade tokens across multiple decentralised exchanges on Algorand, giving the best possible price for the trade. Folks Router is also integrated into loans management operations.
gALGO, Algorand’s leading liquid governance. gALGO leveraged governance, a one-click looping to increase the committed ALGO amount, using a combination of Flash Loan and Lending market
xALGO https://app.folks.finance/liquid-staking, Algorand’s primary liquid staking token. Ultrastake, a one-click looping to increase the staked ALGO amount, using a combination of Flash Loan and Lending market
Ultraswap https://app.folks.finance/ultraswap, a leveraged trading primitive built on top of the Folks Finance lending protocol. It uses a combination of lending, Flash Loan and Folks Router.
Folks Feed Oracle https://www.folksfeed.io/, is an oracle developed on the Algorand blockchain that provides real-world data to Web3 applications.
The Folks Smart Contract Library https://github.com/Folks-Finance/algorand-smart-contract-library is a curated, modular collection of audited, reusable smart contracts designed to accelerate development on the Algorand blockchain. The library allows you to focus on your business logic by abstracting away common patterns and security mechanisms.
@gid would you mind clarifying in the proposal if the work on the NTT contracts received any funding already from Algorand Foundation?
Related to that, could you clarify what is meant by “partially cover”? Are you planning to submit another request later for the rest of the uncovered work or is this just to state that you are subsidizing the delivered work?
Sorry for the delay in responding to your question @uhudo.
We received external support in a 3 party agreement but we can’t disclose the details as we are under NDA. The funding we did receive didn’t cover our costs and this proposal aims to help cover some of that gap.
What is meant by “partially cover” is that we subsidised the delivered work. However we may submit an additional proposal in the future for related projects such as Wormhole NTT tooling (scripts, SDKs, executor for message delivery, XPortal etc).
Could you at least elaborate explicitly if the 3rd party agreement you are referring to was with the Algorand Foundation (or any of its related entities)?
Regarding the “partially cover”, do I understand correctly that even with the combination of the 3rd party agreement and if this proposal passes, that would still not cover the smart contract scope of the work?
Could you at least elaborate explicitly if the 3rd party agreement you are referring to was with the Algorand Foundation (or any of its related entities)?
Sorry we aren’t able to elaborate as we are bound by the NDA. I suggest you engage with Algorand Foundation directly if you have any questions relating to them.
Regarding the “partially cover”, do I understand correctly that even with the combination of the 3rd party agreement and if this proposal passes, that would still not cover the smart contract scope of the work?
What I don’t like about this request for money is that during a Twitter Spaces on July 7th 2025, Benedetto said that NTT would be open sourced once it passed audit, and estimated that would be by Sept 2025. Now it’s many month later, was never made open source, and now asking for $$ instead. What happened to the good will?
Thanks @uhudo for your patience while we waited on approval on what we can disclose.
We can now confirm that Folks Finance received $150,000 in funding from the Algorand Foundation for the development. As noted earlier, the development work was significant such that we ended up self-funding some of the projects expenses.
Could you please provide some more context to the agreement?
E.g. what were the funds supposed to cover? E.g. just smart contracts or also related tooling or even some maintenance? Was it forseen that the funds will cover only part of the actual expenses or why were the end expenses larger than anticipated?
As you mentioned Folks may submit additional proposals in the future for related projects, it would be useful to have already now a breakdown of their approximate asks and the actual expenses - at least for those that are related to the agreement with the Algorand Foundation.
IMO, without a complete picture it is difficult to understand and assess the current ask amount, which is ca. 20% of funding already received by the Algorand Foundation.
There likely won’t be any additional proposals in the future. Since it’s undertermined and likely not to happen then let’s leave the conversation for that till if/when any new proposal arises.
With regards to our expenses, we had multiple engineers work on this project. The smart contract development work lasted 9 months from initial design till final audit.
Thank you for the clarificaiton. Based on it, I understand that the work considered in the proposal was already paid by the Algorand Foundation (either as a grant or paid work, not as an investment). IMO, it would be inappropriate if the xGov program funded the same work again. Moreover, IMO the already received funding of $150,000 seems relatively appropriate for the mentioned scope, considering in particular there was no public tender that would enable participation of other entities and the fact that Folks seems to have obtained all IP rights to the developed work.
It would be interesting to hear from other xGovs before an official vote if they see the situation differently.
Thanks @uhudo for the feedback but there are a few things to clarify.
The AF has full IP rights to the developed work. They preferred Folks Finance to host the repositories because they don’t have the engineering capacity to take on the maintenance work.
We also don’t feel it’s fair to penalise Folks Finance for your disagreement with how the Algorand Foundation granted the funding.
Lastly we feel like you are severly underestimating the effort it takes to build infrastructure and tooling which meet the security standards something a project like this requires. We are familiar with other companies which have bridging solutions and it’s standard for similar work to be quoted at more than 10x the cost. The fact that Folks Finance choose to subsidise the development cost to build a tool which can be utilised by the Algorand ecosytem makes the proposal suitable for xGov funding.
First of all, please note that I do not have the power to penalize Folks Finance or anyone else and am merely voicing my thoughts.
To elaborate on my comment regarding the appropriateness of the funding, I consider the delivered scope to be in the similar range as e.g. Reti Pooling - smart contracts with a similar number of SLOC, deployment scripts, UI, and daemon, for which the funding by the Algorand Foundation was in a similar range AFAIK.
Moreover, my comment relates to the fact that the work is an implementation of a standard, not a new full bridge.
I would be interested in hearing the details about the invested effort, the mentioned quotes for similar work, and why the initial deal was structured to cover only a part of the expenses in the first place.
I would be also curious to hear about opinion from others.
Overall, I am only concerned that if this proposal is approved, it would set a precedent for the xGov program to (double-)fund other similar proposals, i.e. for work already delivered to and paid by the Algorand Foundation.
Lastly, I would point out that if the Algorand Foundation has full IP rights to the developed work, the proposal might not meet the program’s terms and conditions under point 3.3. as another entity would have rights to the deliverables.
Thank you for the additional context, @uhudo and @gid. I’d like to share my personal perspective on this matter.
The core logic of this proposal seems to be that the development was funded through a mix of an Algorand Foundation grant and your own capital, and you are now asking the community to cover the self-funded portion. If that is the case, it is very difficult for us to move the conversation forward without understanding the overall cost structure. Even if you mention that similar work typically costs 10x more, it is highly unlikely that the Algorand Foundation only covered less than 10% of the total budget while Folks Finance subsidized over 90%.
Furthermore, even if we assume a hypothetical split—say, the Foundation covered 40% and the remaining 60% came from other sources—that 60% might not entirely be your own financial burden. Is it possible that funding from other ecosystems or partners, such as Ava Labs or Chainlink, was also involved? While I completely understand that NDAs may prevent you from disclosing specific granular details, you should still be able to provide a high-level breakdown of your actual out-of-pocket expenses. For instance, something like: 40% from the Algorand Foundation, 30% self-funded, and 30% from other sources.
Lastly, regarding the IP rights and the deliverables, I share the same concern as @uhudo that this proposal might not satisfy the program’s Terms and Conditions.
@gid please see the Council’s opinion on this proposal, which is pinned to the top of the thread.
While it is probably not what you were hoping for, I sincerely appreciate your interaction with the Council and do hope Folks will continue to contribute to the Algorand ecosystem, even with other initiatives and/or proposals that are more aligned with the xGov program.
Hi @uhudo I think it was misunderstood when I said earlier the “AF has full IP rights to the developed work”.
We spoke with the Algorand Foundation and they confirmed the following “the contract does not grant us [Algorand Foundation] any ownership over the IP created in this contract.” If inquired by the xGov council then they will confirm this information.
We would kindly asked you to re-evaluate your finding that the proposal is not in compliance with the T&Cs.
@gid thank you for further engaging with the Council.
Note that the following is just my personal opinion on the situation.
If it were confirmed that Folks does have the IP rights and that it meets the xGov program T&Cs, I personally would still not support the proposal based on the current available information because I still think the received compensation is relatively appropriate for the mentioned scope (as elaborated previously), now even more so as the (debatably) discounted funding would be (additionally) explained by the fact that Folks maintained the IP.
However, I am open to change my opinion by hearing more details about the invested effort, the mentioned quotes for similar work, and the details of the initial deal (e.g. why it was structured to cover only a part of the expected expenses), as already previously stated.
All in all, my main concern remains that if the proposal is approved, it would set a precedent for the xGov program to (double-)fund work already (debatably appropriately) paid by the Algorand Foundation through other means.
Please also note that based on Council’s internal discussions of the proposal, I think the Council members’ personal majority non-support for the proposal was unrelated to it not meeting T&Cs. However, I cannot speak on their behalf.
Regarding the request for reevaluating the compliance with the program’s T&Cs, I would suggest to provide the Council members with the contract in question (if required under an NDA) to directly clarify the situation.
@uhudo we respect your opinion but it’s clear to us that the council have already made up their minds. The agreement with the Algorand Foundation was structured to cover only a part of the expected expenses because we were also building the contracts for the FOLKS token. We thought it would be mutually beneficial to open up the infrastructure to the Algorand Ecosytem.
We believe we’ve provided enough information for the community to decide on the proposal. We would like to have the community vote but the xGov council is preventing us from proceeding.
Regarding the programs T&Cs, the council was willing to make assumptions about the contract and rule that the proposal is not in compliance. But now when we provide futher details which contradict the assumption made, then now you need to see our contract with the Algorand Foundation. If you have doubts then the Algorand Foundation have indicated that they will confirm what we stated.
Furthermore if you read the xGov policy in its context then you can understand the intent is be to prevent applicants from proposing work that they do not control or that is encumbered by third-party rights. Therefore the statement provided by the Algorand Foundation should be sufficient.
@gid I do not speak for nor can comment on the other Council members. I am expressing only my opinions. You can ask them individually.
Please also note that the xGov Council is not preventing you from proceeding to open the vote to the community. The Council formally reviews compliance with the T&Cs only after a proposal has been approved by the community. However, to help the projects in deciding on how to proceed, the Council tries to provide an informal opinion on T&C compliance before the proposal is moved to the voting stage. In case you proceed with the vote, IMO it would be fair for Folks to abstain from the vote.
Regarding the T&Cs compliance, there is ambiguity due to the two conflicting statements, i.e. your initial one and now the planned statement by Algorand Foundation. The clearest and most transparent way to clarify this is IMO by checking the contract. I think it is possible to find a good way how that could be done, e.g. showing the contract only to the Council (not publicly) and/or with an NDA and/or a redacted version.
The past 3 weeks we have been trying to receive approval from the Algorand Foundation to share the contract with the xGov Council under NDA. It doesn’t look likely that this will be granted
We realise you said the formal compliance check happens “only after a proposal has been approved by the community” however this is something which we would prefer can be sorted out now. It’s already been 2 months of back and forth, we don’t want to do the vote only for the xGov Council to reject the proposal at then end.
As a side note, Folks Finace xALGO will abstain from the vote.