Future of Tiny Governance & Farms

[TinyGovernor]

Great to see the community come out in such a big vote on this latest proposal that made it to voting.

It is clear now that it is not going to pass which is a big win for the community long term; it seemed to be a proposal for the sake of making a proposal and extremely wasteful of TINY resources, especially the way it was framed - $1,000 being dumped on you today, $10,000 tomorrow - all whilst farming additional TINY to dump beyond the $1,000 extracted today, $10,000 tomorrow.

I think we need to be responsible in the way we allocate the TINY, especially if we are all here for the long term success.

For example, the 4 year period allocation of TINY to Governance Rewards and Farm Liquidity Rewards will eventually end.

What then? TINY Token will lose it’s biggest use cases and dump immensely, because it will leave no real utility reason to hold TINY.

What if we locked in longevity for these key TINY use cases and voted through to have the TINY key use cases of Governance Rewards + Pool Liquidity Rewards voting funded to extend another 6 years?

That way the funds will already be set aside and when the 4 year period elapses it’s not a race to try and quickly fix what will quite obviously become a major issue.

I propose:

1/ Allocating all remaining airdrop wallets airdrop (9M TINY) + airdrop 2 (17.6M TINY) + the smallest of the 3 treasury wallets, treasury2 (57.2M TINY) = 83.8M TINY in TOTAL to replenish both the govrewards.tinyman.algo + farmrewards.tinyman.algo wallets immediately.

2/ This replenished amount would not be used to increase Gov or Farm rewards APY - rather it would be used for the TINY Team to put a Roadmap for another 6 year period of Governance & Farm Rewards to be earmarked immediately and put aside.

3/ This guarantees that after the 4 year period elapses - Governance & Farm rewards would continue for another 6 years, albeit at a lesser %s than today - but nonetheless retaining the key utility of the TINY token.

I think this is one of the most immediate threats to TINY utility and one of the most pressing issues, that we should be immediately be addressing rather than chasing our tails when the day comes.

Discuss your thoughts below

• Yes, we should be thinking about the future and allocating TINY to preserve Gov & Farm Rewards for another 6 years, after the initial 4 year period elapses
• No, we should do nothing and let TINY lose its key utility of voting for Farms & earning Gov Rewards

[NerdyForDesign]

Great to see the community come out in such a big vote on this latest proposal that made it to voting.

Less than 5% of govs even bothered to vote at all. A mere 176 accounts voted, something that is hardly representative of the community at large given the winning vote came from just TWO wallets. The community voted in favor of it by an almost 3:1 margin despite that.

SHOB’s vote alone carried the No’s, and he’s content to waste our governance rewards on a rug-pull scam token pair that he owns almost ALL the liquidity for in an LP that has a mere $12,720.60 liquidity in it.

Absolutely not. In no way should we reward the largest 20 govs with a majority of increased governance rewards, and SHOB himself with the vast majority of those rewards meanwhile Tiny-LP’s that actually COULD do something to buffer our situation like tiny/talgo, and tiny/USDC are starved for Tiny because we can’t attract any liquidity to them, meanwhile SHOB will almost certainly dump on us all as soon as their lock is up – although I am fairly certain that we will have enough of us willing to snap those tiny back up when the time comes.

Further farming rewards drive almost ZERO liquidity to LPs, just look at Botsy for an example:
Botsy/USDC TVL: Pool: $274.44 Farm: 30.43%
Botsy/ALGO TVL: Pool: $12,720.60 Farm: 71.86%

Meanwhile with almost no farm, Algo/USDC holds nearly $2.8M tAlgo/USDC has just $321k.

As the Tiny team has made pretty clear imo, despite the name “Tinyairdop” wallet there is no intention that this are tiny destined for any community rewards.

[TinyGovernor]

You are a very loud voice for a very little stake.

The majority of Yes votes came from people with $100 or less of TINY locked.

Buy 32M+ TINY as well and lock it for 4 years if you are a true TINY supporter and true believer.

Then you can vote like SHOB for whatever you so please instead of complaining about someone who dropped 1M+ ALGO into spot buying TINY.

You clearly do not understand what liquidity is - it is the underlying asset. USDC, ALGO, tALGO are liquidity.

Adding 1 sided TINY to a pool for TINY creates 0 liquidity and is the equivalent of dumping TINY.

To get liquidity we need more buyers and people locking TINY. Not pulling TINY out of Treasury wallets and dumping them into the market as 1 sided liquidity OR putting them into Folks to generate even more TINY to outright sell it - that is completely reckless imo.

[NerdyForDesign]

@TinyGovernor

You are a very loud voice for a very little stake.

I don’t know I’d call a 4 year lock and 2.86M Tinypower pretty significant.

The majority of Yes votes came from people with $100 or less of TINY locked.

Govs voted for the proposal by a 3:1 margin. The majority is clearly pro-using assets in a non-destructive manor. Absent SHOB’s vote this measure would have passed with votes to spare.

And you lack an understanding about what you are talking about mate. One sided-liquidity isn’t a thing. Tiny added to tiny-usdc is swapped 50/50 for USDC. USDC depth is one of the ONLY methods we have to absorb sell pressure. Long-term supply building isn’t dumping and something we desperately need for our tiny-paired LPs.

Users are not interested in adding liquidity to the tiny/usdc LP, which means it’s up to us as Govs to decide to put a floor on Tiny’s downward price action. Something that is in the short-term a loss for us as govs, but long-term a stable Tiny token is a boon for ALL of us.

You are wrong in your assumptions about it. Period. You have a misunderstanding of the things you try to talk about.** What I don’t know is if there is malicious intent behind it or just a simple ignorance. Because you certainly seem like someone who is just wanting more fuel for yourself to dump.

The airdrop wallets are NOT set aside for future airdrops. They are apart of TREASURY wallets used for operational expenses as needed for Tinyman. Once they are gone – that’s it. We can’t replace them. We don’t have the fee volume or the price-action alone to build that back easily.

There is zero indication they’ve ever been intended for the community-at-large or tiny govs in particular.

Why on earth would we waste them for free handouts to a group of govs that can’t even be bothered to VOTE on things? One of the very few responsibilities we have as govs?

Look I’ve been at this whipping votes for forum proposals and spending weeks trying to push things through to full-votes for a while now. Trust me when I say this: You will never get a majority behind such at-best wasteful and at worst intentionally destructive idea like **dumping 32M tiny on us all for 15 govs to reap all the rewards from – and I say that being one of those govs who would benefit a lot well from the increased rewards.

I do not need a handout of Tiny. I earn mine via providing large portions of tiny-paired liquidity tokens like tiny/gobtc, tiny/talgo, and tiny/usdc, farming them, before eventually adding the tiny to my governance position.

[TinyGovernor]

Again, you are simply wrong. I tried explaining this stuff earlier and it is excellent to see the smart money clearly understood it and voted against it, as the majority of big wallets voted against it.

Your proposal, and no offense, seemed like people who do not actually want to buy and lock TINY trying to co-opt it and dump it and decide where and how it will be dumped by just being loud voices with small TINY power, rather than big holders with a genuine large vested stake in its long term success.

Like I said, if you truly believe in TINY market buy 1M ALGO woth as well and lock it in for 4 years instead of complaining about a Chad who clearly did.

The future of Governance and Farming being a utility feature of TINY for years to come is critical.

Tokens that are purely governance only with no utility beyond that tend to be the worst performing coins in the space.

We need to keep encouraging more people to buy TINY and Lock it in 4 year Governance.

Buying and locking is effectively locking real liquidity for 4 years as you need USDC or ALGO to swap it for TINY and that USDC + ALGO remains there.

[NerdyForDesign]

Adding governance rewards isn’t encouraging anyone to lock tiny. You can get far better rewards in any number of tiny-LPs and the VAST majority of our govs locked don’t even bother to vote in farms or check in.

They do not need more rewards they are going to waste, and SHOB does not need more rewards he’s just going to waste in rug-pull scams while the rest of the ecosystem struggles.

[TinyGovernor]

Yes, because people vote for farm rewards.

You are talking about allowing both farm & governance rewards to die out and lose that utility.

Also if you want more TINY voting power because you believe your ideas are the smartest, than buy 1M+ ALGO worth of TINY and lock it for 4 years.

[NerdyForDesign]

Ah yes, let me hop down to the money tree and pull off some extra bucks to drop into crypto while rent, gas, food, and everything else continues to increase in price.

People don’t vote for farming rewards. A handful of govs do, and that’s it. Much like with this last governance vote, the majority of our governance is just very passive and in a wait and see or abandoned it entirely like our #5 Gov Kedmd, who last I checled hasn’t had any transactions in months.

Further farming rewards have almost NO impact in liquidity pairings at all. No one farms LPs for rewards alone, and if they do it’s only because they either own most of the supply of the token themselves, or they just move on when the farm drives up.

Are largest LPs have the smallest farms. Our largest farms have some of the lowest liquidity around. Furthermore most LP providers dont even bothering farming at all. Farming rewards are ineffective at driving liquidity to pools.

Neither gov or farming rewards are scheduled to die off. Both will continue almost certainly with fee allocations, and governance rewards have years left of runway, they’ll just continue to decrease every year and that’s good for all of us.

Govs should not be locking tiny just to farm rewards, they should lock tiny for voting power and farm our tiny-pairings if yhey want yeild.

[TinyGovernor]

Most of the big wallets voted. 1 big wallet not voting is not the end of the world.

The key is getting TINY buyers, thats how you get sustainable liquidity; when buyers become HODLers.

People want confidence and predictability for the future.

Preserving 2 key utilities for the future is far more important than giving a slush fund to small governors with loud voices to make themselves more influential than their TINY power suggests, by coopting the Treasury.

[NerdyForDesign]

@TinyGovernor

Most of the big wallets voted. 1 big wallet not voting is not the end of the world.

You lie outright and expect us to take you seriously lol. This is onchain. You can check it:

Tinyman

The top 10 accounts that voted make up 78% of the voting power. A majority of them (6) voted for the proposal.

34 govs have 1M tinypower or more. Only 14 of them voted at all. 6 of them voted against this proposal. 8 of them voted for this proposal.

You can’t have confidence and predictably when our largest gov is wasting away our farming rewards on rugpulling a token he owns most of the liquidity for with a project that is long defunct.

[TinyGovernor]

Is 6 out of 10 not most of the top wallets?

In the world I live in 60% is “most of”.

Your farming rewards? This isn’t communism friend.

Your rewards are proportional to how much you invest and stake; they don’t belong to a person with a voice 10x louder than their stake.

Do you honesty believe someone who put in 1M+ ALGO, can ever recover that via Governance Rewards?

Whoever invests that much is clearly investing for price appreciation of TINY or because they believe TINY has a huge future and they want a permanent slice of that pie.

[NerdyForDesign]

Also you know we can see when new accounts are created right?

Funny you say communism.

Five new accounts created at about the same time 13 hours ago with zero other posts or interacts suddenly show up and vote for your proposal, in a forum that almost no one visits, with most of us who do vote are active elsewhere.

So I ask, how many other emails are you going to use to prop-up your bad proposal, friend?

[TinyGovernor]

Sorry to burst your bubble but I only have one account.

Perhaps the recent vote brought in fresh interest?

If you are such an important and dominant force you would buy more TINY and lock it; simples OR your proposal to co-opt the Treasury with a measly 2.86M TINY power would have won

This is a blockchain, your proposal transparently lost.

You need to stop slagging people who have invested way more and locked way more TINY than yourself.

[NerdyForDesign]

“Co-opt the Treasury” again you spread baseless fud or are just misinformed.

You need to stop slagging people who have invested way more and locked way more TINY than yourself.

Weren’t you the one calling out and ranting about communism or some crap a bit ago?

Mate I sent out HUNDREDS of messages to EVERY tiny gov we had last year. Trying to get them to pop into the forums and rekindle some activity here. To look at proposals. To vote.

I sent messages via the system here. Fighting the spam filter tooth and nail because my messages had to be all unique enough to send. Trying to make sure I didn’t send them more than once to the wrong people.

I popped into discord. I got mods on reddit to post about it trying to draw eyeballs back to Tinyman and the forums. I practically begged people just look over things. It took seven months to get 50 votes on my first proposal.](Tinyman Investment Future Fund *clarification*) And I was not alone in trying to get users to come over.

Do not question my commitment.

I know what it takes to try and round up people to participate in this process. It’s hard.
So yeah, I’m suspicious of a bunch of new accounts suddenly propping up your proposal in a forum that’s kinda a graveyard.

You are a very loud voice for a very little stake.

You can ask some people around. I have been a consistent voice to get Tiny Govs to not be idle in the slow fall of their token. To vote. To try and heard cats to get us to work together and build something. @ROAM and @GeorgeFeb would know. All three proposals I have supported have either been canceled, tabled, and failed. Yet here I still am. And still considering what can be done by us, what proposal can be created that would actually help build a stronger foundation under our flagship platform. What can be done to create a powerhouse in Algorand’s defi scene, and not carelessly waste what resources we do have or encouraging dumping on us all.

What’s your stake though while we are at it? You post behind the most generic name possible and don’t even have an NFD with it on governance.

I don’t hide who I am. You can find me on the official Algorand forums, you can find me on reddit, on twitter, on Folks’ forums, on discord. With a little effort you can even find my spotify if you poke around some of the accounts.

Back to business:

A lot of people see Tiny’s struggles in part a market thing and an Algorand struggle thing.

I disagree. I think (and I think to some degree Folks Finance has shown this) utility tokens of important defi projects CAN and should outpace their parent tokens. Algorand should not drive the success of Tiny’s price, Tiny’s price action should help drag Algorand up along with it.

We need to keep encouraging more people to buy TINY and Lock it in 4 year Governance.

That’s kinda a weird thing for you to say considering you pushing a proposal to allow govs to dump on us in a few months:

1/ Any Governor who currently has a lock greater than 60 days, automatically reduces to 60 days unlocking.