*This AI-generated summary covers xGov Council meetings, which are unofficial and independently organized by the council. It offers a transparent view of their work and initiatives of xGov council to enhance the xGov program. These notes are provided as-is, and it’s understood that some topics may not be fully clear without prior context.
xGov Council Meeting #11 – (February 4th 2026) 
Attendees: xGov Council members
Overview
The meeting focused on structural and operational challenges affecting the xGov program, with emphasis on governance process design, platform reliability, long-term funding sustainability, and clarity around xGov’s role within the broader Algorand ecosystem. Discussions were exploratory in nature, with no formal votes taken.
Key Topics Discussed
1. xGov Platform Stability and Operational Practices
The council discussed recurring issues related to the stability and operation of the xGov platform.
Key concerns included:
- Full platform downtime during updates or maintenance
- Lack of advance notice or visibility into availability
- Inability to submit proposals or participate during outages
Participants agreed that adopting standard operational practices—such as scheduled maintenance windows, system status indicators, and read-only modes—would materially improve usability and confidence in the governance process.
2. Decoupling Governance Phases
The tight coupling of governance phases was revisited as a structural concern.
The council broadly agreed that:
- The discussion phase does not need to be directly tied to voting cycles
- Off-chain discussion could proceed independently without blocking on-chain activity
- Coupling phases introduces unnecessary friction and operational risk
Decoupling was viewed as a foundational improvement that would enable iteration without repeatedly pausing governance.
3. Proposal Scheduling and Cadence
Different models for proposal batching and cadence were discussed.
Options included:
- Block-based scheduling
- Time-based scheduling on a monthly cadence
The prevailing view favored a monthly, time-based cadence, which was seen as more intuitive for participants and easier to coordinate, particularly if governance phases are decoupled.
4. Repository Ownership and Development Workflow
Participants discussed challenges related to maintaining and evolving xGov-related codebases.
Key issues included:
- Slow review and integration of community contributions
- Limited engineering capacity focused on xGov
- Dependence on a small number of maintainers
The council noted that many usability improvements are straightforward but stalled due to unclear ownership and prioritization. Forking repositories to prototype improvements was discussed as a possible interim path.
5. xGov Funding Structure and Sustainability
A significant portion of the meeting focused on the sustainability of xGov funding.
Concerns included:
- Limited visibility into remaining xGov runway
- Short-term commitments that hinder planning
- Risk of abrupt disruption if funding priorities change
As part of this discussion, a funding mechanism similar to the Chess partnership model was proposed. This would involve:
- Locking a defined amount of ALGO for a fixed period
- Directing node rewards into the xGov treasury
- Providing predictable, ongoing funding rather than ad hoc allocations
The council viewed this approach as a potential way to increase long-term stability and reduce dependency on discretionary decisions. With note being taken that node rewards have about 1 year lifespan
6. Open Source Requirements and Post-Approval Evaluation
Recent changes to xGov funding rules around open-source requirements were discussed.
Key points included:
- Open-sourcing deliverables may occur after approval rather than before
- council note will reflect the different approval flow where applicable
- Evaluation would emphasize delivered value over pre-approval code review
There was general agreement that this aligns better with supporting active builders while maintaining accountability via open-source requirement.
7. Ecosystem Priorities, Funding Transparency, and Structural Uncertainty
The council discussed broader ecosystem alignment, transparency, and structural uncertainty affecting xGov.
Participants expressed concern that:
- The boundaries between xGov funding, general ecosystem funding, and infrastructure or R&D initiatives remain unclear
- Funding flows and decision-making lack transparency, making it difficult for builders to understand priorities
- xGov’s position within the broader funding landscape is not well-defined
In addition, the council noted uncertainty around how the Algorand Foundation’s transition to a for-profit structure may impact xGov. Participants highlighted a lack of clarity on whether governance funding, priorities, or independence could change under this new structure, contributing to hesitation among builders and voters.
The group also observed that developer hours allocated to xGov within the Foundation appear insufficient in comparison to alleged importance of xGov for the ecosystem, with limited engineering attention contributing to ongoing maintenance and usability challenges.
The council emphasized that clearer communication around funding categories, as shown in transparency report, structural implications, and resourcing is essential for xGov to function as a credible and trusted governance mechanism.
Outcomes and Next Steps
No formal decisions were taken during the meeting. However, the council aligned on several themes:
- The xGov platform would benefit from clearer operational practices and modular design
- Governance processes should be simplified and decoupled where possible
- Long-term, predictable funding for xGov remains a critical unresolved issue
- A Chess-style funding mechanism warrants further exploration
- Greater transparency around future funding, resourcing, and structural changes is needed
- Clarity about xGov role in the for-profit structure is needed
These topics are expected to be revisited in future meetings with more concrete proposals and potential action items.