The @AFWalletWatcher account has generated 152K impressions and 1.3K “Likes” on X since inception on May 10th 2025 (5 months since deployment).
The program behind the AFWalletWatcher account monitors 57 wallets officially labeled and owned by the foundation and tweets when any on-chain transactions are executed that involve them, including:
5 Treasury Addresses
30 Ecosystem Support Addresses
2 Market Operations Addresses **
2 Miscellaneous Addresses
6 Unlabeled Foundation Wallets
The program is also capable of compiling a summary of the foundation’s Algorand holdings.
The @AFWalletWatcher has brought attention to internal movements of Algorand funds across accounts that has triggered dialogues I feel are quite important. Although we are provided transparency reports per quarter I, and some others, feel there is more room for disclosure of expenditures, overhead and general spending habits.
The account keeps the community informed of large internal movements, and sometimes catches interesting new partnerships, like the initial Midas Treasury Bill Token opt-in.
The inherent value is in its actual execution, consistency, maintenance and contributions to the ecosystem; the logic behind the @AFWalletWatcher is in no way especially complex for a well-seasoned developer.
Would you mind adding some documentation to the repo? E.g. what the project does and how to run it.
Part of xGov proposal requirements is that there is approrpiate documentation available.
“The inherent value is in its actual execution, consistency, maintenance and contributions to the ecosystem; the logic behind the @AFWalletWatcher is in no way especially complex for a well-seasoned developer.
I did see that, I just don’t agree with the evaluation of the value. Please don’t take it personally - I know you’re a more talented developer than these python scripts exemplify.
It’s easy to only leave positive feedback on the proposals you like, but that’s not very helpful for xGovs looking for guidance.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with voicing your honest opinion.
You are correct that this proposal should hold no leverage via relationships or past works, it should be valued on its own, with 0 bias, by not only community sentiment but also its complexity.
On this point I agree with you that it is not especially complex. I could argue that it requires my attention from time to time but that would not change the base code’s conciseness.
I appreciate your feedback, and those of anyone else who has taken the time to analyze and vote on the proposal!