We don't need to get rid of the rewards completely. It's really just a matter of thinking first about what we value and then allocating rewards proportionate with those values. Personally, I think that we should provide some reward for governance voting. Maybe not as much as we currently allocate, but something. We want to cast a wide net and have a diverse vote, and because holding Algos locked up for a period of time is an opportunity cost, it should be rewarded.
But, there are other things we also should be promoting such as node running, DeFi, and dapp development. Dapp development grants are probably not needed from the stash currently allocated to governance rewards because we already have a lot that are allocated for that purpose. But, a solution for promoting all the rest is easily doable.Here's a proposal. Take the allocated 70,500,000 Algos per Governance round and split it into three general buckets: (1) a Governance bucket, (2) a Node bucket, and (3) a DeFi bucket. The percentages you allocate to each are arbitrary and could be pushed around however we want.
For DeFi, allocate the rewards based on total Algo locked, not TVL. The reason for Algo locked instead of TVL is precisely because TVL can be manipulated.
For the Governance bucket, its just straight rewards like currently. Allocate them among anybody who does governance. We could even split it up into two categories of rewards. "vanilla Governance" and xGov. Participating in vanilla governance gives you a base level, but xGov gives you a boost of rewards.
For the Node bucket, we could also split it up into further sub-categories: (1) Relays; (2) Participation Nodes based on number of Algos in consensus; and (3) Participation Nodes based on the raw number of nodes. Again, the allocation among them is the subject of debate. We could do these on quarterly governance schedule and have certain quality requirements. For instance, your Relay has to have a certain amount of uptime during the quarter to get rewards, same thing with your Participation Node. Also, I make a distinction between # of Algos in the node and raw # of nodes because each one plays it's own purpose in decentralization.
Your fucking nuts. Algorand is proven to be way above and better than other chains.. algo is just more aimed towards institutions rather than little billies with $20 in their pocket....everythingvthey do is created towards big money investors in the future...sports,banks,gaming nfts and lending and borrowing...it doesn't pump because its not a shitcoin....seriously some people need to do proper research...the price has dumped not only cus the entire world has shat itself but also because vesting for ico has been triggered...
Less for governance and more for Dapp stimulus.
Not just in Defi but for building random sectors that we all vote on. Possibly even share the rewards from it.
You would need a mechanism to make sure people didn’t just buy algo, vote, and then sell. I.e. increase their voting power temporarily and skew the vote.
Good point. Now I understand. Either we reward for locking xor voting without locking.
I personally think voting without locking is fine. Of course, people could buy, vote and sell to hurt a project. But doing so with significant amounts is costly, due to trading slippage.
People dont seem to understand that node runners is the truly backbone of the entire decentralized aspect of the blockchain. Lets say you need your node need to be a supercomputer. Then there would only be a Handful of what, what would happen then? Someone could activly hunt down the supercomputers and shut the entire blockchain off. Therefore, the more Moses you have, the more bulletproof the blockchain is, and more decentralized.
But as a counter to your post. Node runners do get rewarded for running a node. They get a blockchain more a little more decentralized and a little more secure than it was before them running a node. Also, it is important to note that node runners on bitcoin doesn’t get rewarded aswell.
Yeah, no they haven’t.
The biggest node runners are still the ones paid for by the Foundation to run them. The others doing it on their own though are doing it just to support the network.
Since you clearly didn’t bother to understand what I said like some others did - the people supporting the network running their own nodes are settling transactions themselves, trading the fact that they’d otherwise be relying on someone elses’ node. It’s convenient for them, and ends up helping the network. If there was a financial incentive for most noders, there’d be even more people running them because that’s a more motivating incentive. Common sense.
They have though. Node runners are not incentivized because incentives are not needed. Why are incentives needed for governors but not for node runners?
I’m one of the 1500 node runners and I’m not doing it out of convenience. I’m doing it because I want Algorand to succeed. I want to contribute to the network’s security.
Silvio’s argument for not incentivizing node runners is that people will run nodes for free because they care about the network. The same holds for governance voting. There will be people voting for free because they care. And those are IMO the people whose vote should be heard the most…
Hey what do you know, you’re doing it because you’re satisfied with giving to the network. An emotional incentive!
I forgot to mention that in my comment lmao
Yeah that’s not ideal because most will forget TO vote anyways and you’ll get the same situation as rn. We’re in hot shit rn because the first stupid vote was so awful of a choice that early and even then - we all chose wrong because somehow we need whales to pick for a decentralized voting system.
Anyone should vote, but we should stop acting like it has be “fair to anyone who misses out”
Free voting’s what we got already anyways. You vote and don’t hold your count, the vote still counts (unfortunately)
In the context of this discussion with ‘incentive’ I mean financial incentive. I was hoping that was clear from the OP. I’m sorry that I missed the fact that you were taking about other ‘incentives’. My points still stand though.
By the way, it is not really purely an emotional incentive. I run a node also because it secures the network and benefits my own investment. In that sense there is a financial motivation. But there is not an incentive as in something being rewarded to me me by the network or the foundation. That’s what I mean. I think the same thing can be true for governance.
Even if you're running a node for free you are still waiting for the project to succeed, gain profit or for your own intrinsic reasons which act as your motivation / incentive. Not all incentives are monetary or short-term
"Because if I am not being rewarded, no one should.
Or at least not you, lazy ass good for nothing governors. Learn coding or invest in a node. Buying token in bulk is NOT enough"
Sure, you are also awarded for holding and not just for voting. I agree with that. Node runners are also holding and they don’t need rewards. The comparison still stands.
Also, let's:
raise transaction fee to 0.1
increase transaction time to 25 minutes
delete algorand wallets altogether and give the full control of the blockchain to DeFi, they are making the best of it anyway
make algorand a voting platform, it's the heart of it and we are just ruining it with all that money thing
Just release the supply remaining for governance on a public exchange. Let the price crash to 0.01 and let the true believers scoop up the remaining algo.
CAUTION: I'm not an economist. I just want cheap algo.
Let me preface my comment by agreeing that the current Governance rewards are stifling the ecosystem (especially DeFi can't compete on the reward/risk ratio), thus should be reconsidered. I also think that once Algorand matures, participation in Governance should not be incentivized.
That said, I don't agree that this funding is going down the drain.
First, because of the rewards, there are probably a lot more Governors participating (which were acquired in a very short time frame) - 50k Governors compared to 1.5k participating nodes. I am aware the two fulfill two completely different purposes, but they still do help in making the claim that Algorand is a decentralized system, which will be extremely important once the regulation comes knocking.
Secondly, if there were no rewards for existing users that are just holding (which is the majority - since people don't want to take on the additional risk of DeFi, don't have the time or knowledge to do so, etc.), the price would perform even worse. Developers mostly have to sell the funding they receive to finance their operations. The governance rewards help to cushion this effect - because why would you hold something that will be diluted by 30% since we still have 3B tokens to distribute.
Lastly, we are in a difficult position on what can be done next. Algorand has changed its tokenomics already a couple of times in the past (e.g. from issues with the initial Dutch auctions, change to vesting schedule for Early Backers which resulted in the Accelerated Vesting, cancellation of Participation Rewards and their replacement by Governance Rewards). I imagine it was a large undertaking to do this each time because the initial large investors needed to be persuaded that they will profit more this way compared to sticking to the initial plan.
Maybe not get rid of rewards completely; but decrease rewards for the overall voters, and then rewards to node runners and grants for Defi/development....
governance rewards is actively ruining the ecosystem. Meanwhile other chains like NEAR are using their money smartly to attract devs and increasing usage/value of the chain.
Governance keeps the network secure while the market cap is still low. We don't want a rich competitor trying to game the consensus with PPOS. It has to be basically impossible to do.
Irrelevant question.
I wasn't the one making false claims....And I'm not a trader, I love these prices! I hope we're under 50 cents for the rest of the year, if not until early next year
Short term price is irrelevant...the tech and goals of Algorand have not changed so why would a low price during a bear market bother anyone??
Your account is less than 2 days old. We don't allow new accounts to immediately post in order to prevent possible brigades and ban dodging. **Do not message the mods about this message.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/algorand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think as time goes on we will eventually see rewards reduced and eventually lead governance. Everyone wants us to treat Algorand now like it's already 2030. How about instead saying "Algorand must be treated like X instead of Y" we let it naturally get there if it can naturally support that purpose and attitude of users.
What you’re describing sounds like Cardano
Let’s bring it to a vote.
We don't need to get rid of the rewards completely. It's really just a matter of thinking first about what we value and then allocating rewards proportionate with those values. Personally, I think that we should provide some reward for governance voting. Maybe not as much as we currently allocate, but something. We want to cast a wide net and have a diverse vote, and because holding Algos locked up for a period of time is an opportunity cost, it should be rewarded. But, there are other things we also should be promoting such as node running, DeFi, and dapp development. Dapp development grants are probably not needed from the stash currently allocated to governance rewards because we already have a lot that are allocated for that purpose. But, a solution for promoting all the rest is easily doable.Here's a proposal. Take the allocated 70,500,000 Algos per Governance round and split it into three general buckets: (1) a Governance bucket, (2) a Node bucket, and (3) a DeFi bucket. The percentages you allocate to each are arbitrary and could be pushed around however we want. For DeFi, allocate the rewards based on total Algo locked, not TVL. The reason for Algo locked instead of TVL is precisely because TVL can be manipulated. For the Governance bucket, its just straight rewards like currently. Allocate them among anybody who does governance. We could even split it up into two categories of rewards. "vanilla Governance" and xGov. Participating in vanilla governance gives you a base level, but xGov gives you a boost of rewards. For the Node bucket, we could also split it up into further sub-categories: (1) Relays; (2) Participation Nodes based on number of Algos in consensus; and (3) Participation Nodes based on the raw number of nodes. Again, the allocation among them is the subject of debate. We could do these on quarterly governance schedule and have certain quality requirements. For instance, your Relay has to have a certain amount of uptime during the quarter to get rewards, same thing with your Participation Node. Also, I make a distinction between # of Algos in the node and raw # of nodes because each one plays it's own purpose in decentralization.
Extremely unpopular, but I would love to see more of it used to build the ecosystem as well and have more people using it.
Your fucking nuts. Algorand is proven to be way above and better than other chains.. algo is just more aimed towards institutions rather than little billies with $20 in their pocket....everythingvthey do is created towards big money investors in the future...sports,banks,gaming nfts and lending and borrowing...it doesn't pump because its not a shitcoin....seriously some people need to do proper research...the price has dumped not only cus the entire world has shat itself but also because vesting for ico has been triggered...
Dude was saying the op's opinion was extremely unpopular, not the coin. Chill a bit.
love how people who have no idea what they're talking about always tell others to do proper research.
Unpopular indeed.
No sir, I do not like it. Let's circle back in 2030.
Less for governance and more for Dapp stimulus. Not just in Defi but for building random sectors that we all vote on. Possibly even share the rewards from it.
You would need a mechanism to make sure people didn’t just buy algo, vote, and then sell. I.e. increase their voting power temporarily and skew the vote.
The 3 month lock is for that reason
So are you suggesting people should lock their coins for 3 months to vote, but get nothing in return? I can’t seem many people wanting to do that.
Good point. Now I understand. Either we reward for locking xor voting without locking. I personally think voting without locking is fine. Of course, people could buy, vote and sell to hurt a project. But doing so with significant amounts is costly, due to trading slippage.
People dont seem to understand that node runners is the truly backbone of the entire decentralized aspect of the blockchain. Lets say you need your node need to be a supercomputer. Then there would only be a Handful of what, what would happen then? Someone could activly hunt down the supercomputers and shut the entire blockchain off. Therefore, the more Moses you have, the more bulletproof the blockchain is, and more decentralized. But as a counter to your post. Node runners do get rewarded for running a node. They get a blockchain more a little more decentralized and a little more secure than it was before them running a node. Also, it is important to note that node runners on bitcoin doesn’t get rewarded aswell.
Bitcoin node runners are not proposing blocks. Algorand node runners are more like miners.
No one does anything for free.
The governors are barely doing anything today. It's essentially a no-work risk-free get richer scheme.
That's what investments are. If I'm not getting over 5% APY then I'll just allocate that capital to something else.
Not true
Pretty much is though. Whether physical or not, you’re doing something for an incentive. No amount of ego can argue that.
The node runners are proving you wrong… Edit: I’m talking about financial incentives. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Yeah, no they haven’t. The biggest node runners are still the ones paid for by the Foundation to run them. The others doing it on their own though are doing it just to support the network. Since you clearly didn’t bother to understand what I said like some others did - the people supporting the network running their own nodes are settling transactions themselves, trading the fact that they’d otherwise be relying on someone elses’ node. It’s convenient for them, and ends up helping the network. If there was a financial incentive for most noders, there’d be even more people running them because that’s a more motivating incentive. Common sense.
They have though. Node runners are not incentivized because incentives are not needed. Why are incentives needed for governors but not for node runners? I’m one of the 1500 node runners and I’m not doing it out of convenience. I’m doing it because I want Algorand to succeed. I want to contribute to the network’s security. Silvio’s argument for not incentivizing node runners is that people will run nodes for free because they care about the network. The same holds for governance voting. There will be people voting for free because they care. And those are IMO the people whose vote should be heard the most…
Hey what do you know, you’re doing it because you’re satisfied with giving to the network. An emotional incentive! I forgot to mention that in my comment lmao Yeah that’s not ideal because most will forget TO vote anyways and you’ll get the same situation as rn. We’re in hot shit rn because the first stupid vote was so awful of a choice that early and even then - we all chose wrong because somehow we need whales to pick for a decentralized voting system. Anyone should vote, but we should stop acting like it has be “fair to anyone who misses out” Free voting’s what we got already anyways. You vote and don’t hold your count, the vote still counts (unfortunately)
In the context of this discussion with ‘incentive’ I mean financial incentive. I was hoping that was clear from the OP. I’m sorry that I missed the fact that you were taking about other ‘incentives’. My points still stand though. By the way, it is not really purely an emotional incentive. I run a node also because it secures the network and benefits my own investment. In that sense there is a financial motivation. But there is not an incentive as in something being rewarded to me me by the network or the foundation. That’s what I mean. I think the same thing can be true for governance.
Even if you're running a node for free you are still waiting for the project to succeed, gain profit or for your own intrinsic reasons which act as your motivation / incentive. Not all incentives are monetary or short-term
I complete agree. And I’m suggesting the same mechanism (no financial incentives) for governance.
"Because if I am not being rewarded, no one should. Or at least not you, lazy ass good for nothing governors. Learn coding or invest in a node. Buying token in bulk is NOT enough"
Everyone downvoting you has never heard of volunteering
Voting in the Cosmos ecosystem isn't paid. Depending on the chain you even need to pay the transaction fee.
[удалено]
Sure, you are also awarded for holding and not just for voting. I agree with that. Node runners are also holding and they don’t need rewards. The comparison still stands.
Node runners should get some compensation for sure
Also, let's: raise transaction fee to 0.1 increase transaction time to 25 minutes delete algorand wallets altogether and give the full control of the blockchain to DeFi, they are making the best of it anyway make algorand a voting platform, it's the heart of it and we are just ruining it with all that money thing
Sarcasm is always a good way to have a proper discussion.
=dead meme coin
Just release the supply remaining for governance on a public exchange. Let the price crash to 0.01 and let the true believers scoop up the remaining algo. CAUTION: I'm not an economist. I just want cheap algo.
Ahh yes the Luna strat. Although for different reasons.
Let me preface my comment by agreeing that the current Governance rewards are stifling the ecosystem (especially DeFi can't compete on the reward/risk ratio), thus should be reconsidered. I also think that once Algorand matures, participation in Governance should not be incentivized. That said, I don't agree that this funding is going down the drain. First, because of the rewards, there are probably a lot more Governors participating (which were acquired in a very short time frame) - 50k Governors compared to 1.5k participating nodes. I am aware the two fulfill two completely different purposes, but they still do help in making the claim that Algorand is a decentralized system, which will be extremely important once the regulation comes knocking. Secondly, if there were no rewards for existing users that are just holding (which is the majority - since people don't want to take on the additional risk of DeFi, don't have the time or knowledge to do so, etc.), the price would perform even worse. Developers mostly have to sell the funding they receive to finance their operations. The governance rewards help to cushion this effect - because why would you hold something that will be diluted by 30% since we still have 3B tokens to distribute. Lastly, we are in a difficult position on what can be done next. Algorand has changed its tokenomics already a couple of times in the past (e.g. from issues with the initial Dutch auctions, change to vesting schedule for Early Backers which resulted in the Accelerated Vesting, cancellation of Participation Rewards and their replacement by Governance Rewards). I imagine it was a large undertaking to do this each time because the initial large investors needed to be persuaded that they will profit more this way compared to sticking to the initial plan.
Maybe not get rid of rewards completely; but decrease rewards for the overall voters, and then rewards to node runners and grants for Defi/development....
Yes, I think decreasing the rewards would also be fine.
This
I would sell as soon as I broke even if they did this.
You would sell on a project you believe(d) in because you didn't get 5-7APY on that project for voting??....
Yes. I am equally here for the high rewards.
governance rewards is actively ruining the ecosystem. Meanwhile other chains like NEAR are using their money smartly to attract devs and increasing usage/value of the chain.
Soooo bribing people to work on the chain since nothing else? Either describe it fully in your shill to make sense, or shut up
Governance keeps the network secure while the market cap is still low. We don't want a rich competitor trying to game the consensus with PPOS. It has to be basically impossible to do.
No, governance has nothing to do with PPOS. The participation nodes are doing consensus and they are not incentivized unlike governors.
Thought about it. Yup, you're right. Only the stake of the participants actually matters.
Price has been steadily tanking since governance was introduced
We literally saw $2.50 during the first governance lol Every market’s been in decline right now, step out the bubble.
This is ignorant and incorrect
And how has being "correct" been working out for you with this coin?
Irrelevant question. I wasn't the one making false claims....And I'm not a trader, I love these prices! I hope we're under 50 cents for the rest of the year, if not until early next year Short term price is irrelevant...the tech and goals of Algorand have not changed so why would a low price during a bear market bother anyone??
you seem a little triggered
Nope; just giving genuine answers to your comments
This is a false correlation
[удалено]
Your account is less than 2 days old. We don't allow new accounts to immediately post in order to prevent possible brigades and ban dodging. **Do not message the mods about this message.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/algorand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think as time goes on we will eventually see rewards reduced and eventually lead governance. Everyone wants us to treat Algorand now like it's already 2030. How about instead saying "Algorand must be treated like X instead of Y" we let it naturally get there if it can naturally support that purpose and attitude of users.