# Fourm Vote Replacement, improvments to our gov system **URL:** \ **Category:** Proposal Discussion\ **Created:** [June 21, 2026, 8:44pm UTC](https://gov.tinyman.org/t/fourm-vote-replacement-improvments-to-our-gov-system/1022 "2026-06-21T20:44:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NerdyForDesign](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/gov.tinyman.org/nerdyfordesign/32/300_2.png) [@NerdyForDesign](https://gov.tinyman.org/u/NerdyForDesign)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2026, 8:44pm UTC](https://gov.tinyman.org/t/fourm-vote-replacement-improvments-to-our-gov-system/1022/1 "2026-06-21T20:44:03Z")
Some of us have talked about a replacement for the current 50 vote threshold limit from time to time. We call agree the forums are not exactly active, and whipping up the votes is at best a chore and at worst an exhausting and disheartening process – 50 votes is also largely irreverent when we have 3,709 govs at this point, 99% of who don’t frequent the forums. - One of the simplest is to for the moment, simply cut the voting threshold from 50 to say 25. A vote still has to win approval, and win a majority of yes vote from our govs. And imo this should happen regardless as the next idea would likely take more thought and time to implement: The other idea is to look towards Algorand’s xGov system: - A new voting token, via a tiny derivative and a separate vaulting system for it, specifically the token would be for voting up or down proposals – however this would also require an investment in front-end changes, audits, etc, likely so to be clear, this is a “future” idea, even if moved to the Gov Proposal category, passed, and passed by a full vote, **I’m in no way suggesting this be done now, next week, next month, or even next year.** _We could also nominate and vote on members to form a council system. These members would work with Tinyman to vote up an down on proposals. The council would be term-based and at the end of said term a full governance vote would be held to serve a new term. The system would start with a small team, then expand as warranted to be more inclusive and decentralized as needed._ This could evolve as resources permit into an xGov system for Tinyman, as it would require far less of an upfront expense for the platform imo. This is strictly a: **How do we make our system more robust, more responsive, and specifically more committed for long-term holders. How do we make governance be more _active_.** - Rewards for locking **I don’t think this token would need to be rewarded directly, after all the major reward is tiny rising in price.** This would be enough I would hope from a more committed section of govs. However it is novel to consider if this was a separate token (say xTiny), that you could effectively use it as a LST of sorts. You could even pair it with tiny in an LP to give us a stable pairing to farm akin to that of algo/talgo and encouraging more locking/use of a LST by voting for rewards to the tiny/xtiny LP which would just give us another option to earn on our tiny – and also increase the TVL vs depositing it to lend. Just a thought. Along with an update to that system, we should also consider raising the minimum yes vote to pass proposals in the on-chain vote. A minimum of 2.25M Tiny yes needed to pass is… not very reflective of this stage of our governance platform. For one it is a relatively easy bar to clear atm,even if most govs didn’t bother to vote at all a fair amount of us could pass votes just by our own voting strength backing it. Or just a handful of us together. Example: 12 govs total hold enough tiny power alone to pass a measure just by no one opposing them. We have: 3,709 govs: Top 10 hold 41.31% of voting power. Top 20 hold 53.82% of voting power. Top 30 hold 61.28% Top 40: hold 66.86% _ **1.07% hold 66.86% of power.** _ Now of course there’s nothing we can do from stopping someone with deep pockets from buying up tiny, however I think we can all agree that we also don’t want a handful of accounts to be able to just push through measures regardless of what a majority of gov wants. \*\*Finally: \*\* **Overtime if an xgov system was implemented I would hope the group would eventually evolve to helping tiny admins out with things if needed. The point imo of an xgov system is to have a more “committed” group who’s main reward would be the value of the tiny they already hold in the ecosystem rising in price. It does not need a reward in and of itself to function.** _Anyway this is the discussion forum so I’m open to thoughts, ideas, considerations before formalizing an actual vote over on the governance-proposals catagory. I figured we should start while we have momentum building from our pending vote on deploying tiny into Folks Finance._