Improvements to our Goverance System an xGov Pilot program

Governance Proposals
1

To make our process both streamlined and more nimble this proposal seeks to do several things:

First:

Immediately cut the voting threshold from 50 to 25 to pass proposals via the forum.

Second: give the tiny team the go-ahead to look into moving towards an “Expert Gov-style” system to replace the forum vote entirely. As this would take more time and resources and may not be entirely feasible right now, this is not to say it should be implemented immediately, but as resources allow. The idea being to make our system more responsive and start growing a smaller but hopefully more “dedicated” group of govs to hash out plans and move them forward and be able to do so quickly.

That is not to say moving on ideas without thought, care, and debate, but to make the system be less like hunting around trying to get an arbitrary number of votes (for example a majority of at least 50 votes on the forums, compared to the 3,712 govs with tiny locked) and more like a group of users who want to move from having a passive stake to an active stake in their role as govs and helping Tinyman grow.

It would function similarly to Algorand’s xGov system: You would be able to lock tiny for xtiny in a vault lock much like our current Tinyman Governance system. Xtiny would represent your voting power to vote up or down on proposals on-chain to push them forwards to a full-body vote.

Xtiny would function much like a LST, you could use it to vote in proposals, put it into an LP paired with Tiny to effectively give you an ability to farm tiny in an LP similar to say algo/talgo currently works. If a proposal comes up for a vote

Xgovs would receive no compensation for holding xtiny unless paired with another token in an LP, and governance votes to give it a farm for the pairing (say a tiny/xtiny and farming it), giving Tinyman a stable-token setup option akin to say algo/talgo or xalgo/talgo without the staking rewards.

Should this proposal be passed and when it is implemented, the team should also highlight tiny/xtiny in our monthly governance farming voting system to alert current and future govs that it is both an option, and one that should be desirable for users of our platform.

A third option, again looking to Algorand’s xGov system, would be to allow a rotation council of members (voted on by a full Tiny Gov vote) to any govs that wanted to join it, and have those members hold the voting power to pass proposals with an up or down vote in conjunction with the Tinyman team. This council would have terms, could be kicked out by a vote from the council or tiny govs in the event of bad behavior/otherwise dangerous actions to the protocol and community. This group could start small and expand overtime as needed as detail and a pilot program is worked out. Again this would be a non-compensated position.

  • Cut the minimum voting to move forward to 25 votes
  • Do not cut the minimum voting threshold to move forward to 25 votes
0 voters
  • Work On Replacing Forum Vote With an Expert Gov System
  • Do Not Work On Replacing Forum Vote With an Expert Gov System
0 voters
  • Replace Forum Vote with a “Council System”
  • Do Not Replace Forum vote with a “Council System”
0 voters
6 Likes
Implement minimum TVL for Tiny incentives to combat fraud and abuse
Pilot Deployment of Idle TINY into Folks Finance
Pilot Deployment of Idle TINY into Folks Finance
2

Do note that you can, and should vote in all three. There’s nothing stopping a mix of these ideas into coming into play at the same time. :slight_smile:

1 Like
3

hey @algoleagues, @algotables, @Bigred, @blue, @Brando.algo, @Dave, @Eden, @EricTinyman, @gulcinuras, @IsCrecTu, we got your vote over on Pilot Deployment of Idle TINY into Folks Finance, mind giving this a read over and casting a vote here as well?

4

@Not, @Trimk, @unicornking.algo, @Wiscobro @yazyyyyyyy.algo @erickpereda. That would get us up to at least 26 votes with all of you!

5

@NerdyForDesign First of all, thank you for taking the time to put this proposal together. I really appreciate community members thinking deeply about governance and how we can improve it over the long term.

Overall, I think there are a few different ideas in your proposal, and I’d look at them separately.

I definitely see the reasoning behind lowering the forum voting threshold from 50 to 25 votes. Given the current state of the ecosystem, forum participation is simply much lower than it used to be, and we’ve already seen proposals receive overwhelming support but struggle to reach the required number of votes. Reducing the threshold would make the process more practical while still ensuring proposals receive community discussion and approval. I think that’s a reasonable change.

The broader idea of moving towards an xGov or Expert Governance model is also interesting. Having a smaller group of highly engaged governors who can review and advance proposals could make governance more responsive over time. I also like the ambition of encouraging more active participation rather than passive governance.

That said, I think timing is important.

Right now, both the Algorand ecosystem and Tinyman are in a relatively quiet phase. Trading volumes are low, ecosystem activity is limited, and from the product side we’re currently focused on maintaining the protocol, fixing bugs, pushing improvements and running marketing initiatives that encourage more participation.

Moving towards an xTINY or Expert Governance system would be a significant undertaking. Beyond the governance design itself, it would require smart contracts, frontend work, audits, testing, documentation, and ongoing maintenance. I don’t think that’s where we would currently get the highest return on our limited development resources.

At the moment, I also don’t feel that governance mechanics are the primary bottleneck for Tinyman. Our bigger challenge is increasing activity across the protocol, bringing more users into governance, and creating more reasons for people to participate. That’s why we’ve recently been focusing on campaigns like Vote & Win, which aim to increase governance participation using the infrastructure we already have.

So my view is that there are really two separate conversations here.

The first is whether reducing the forum voting threshold makes sense today. Personally, I think it does, and I’d support that change.

The second is whether Tinyman should eventually evolve towards a more advanced governance model. I think that’s an interesting direction and certainly worth keeping on the roadmap for future discussion, but I wouldn’t prioritize it while our focus remains on growing protocol activity and making the most of our current resources.

Again, thank you for putting this proposal together. Even if we don’t pursue every aspect immediately, these kinds of discussions are valuable and help us think about where governance could evolve as the ecosystem grows.

1 Like
6

So my view is that there are really two separate conversations here.

@EricTinyman I completely agree. My major goal was simply to group together ideas that could be voted on at once rather than hunting for votes for one then another, then another. Since activity is down, I just wanted to ensure that we could possibility get a majority approval on at least one idea :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: or if we got approval for all, they could each be presented to Governance at once to decide.

Because I figured we can come to a conclusion on at least one being a good direction and get approval.

And coming from responses on ideas like allowing LP voting rights I wasn’t exactly sure what would be practical for you all to actually implement at this time with tiny price action and overall ecosystem slowdown. I have no expectation that an xgov system would be something that could be implemented quickly and kinda expected it might be something that could be passed and then “tabled” for the moment and just added to the roadmap for the future. Since voting here is the thing that takes the most effort to rally users towards it just seemed easier to go ahead and start hunting down votes for all three. :grin:

I didn’t want to risk an idea like an xtiny token to get voting approval, then it not being a practical solution for you all at this time and have to restart on a new vote for something else, when most of the same people would likely vote on the new proposal as well. :sweat_smile:

I just want to find ways to empower those of us who continue to be active on the platform to be able and come together and work on ideas at a quicker pace than we’ve been able to so far. (xgov might also be a solution to the continued concentration of tinypower among govs in the top few dozen, making a consideration of "what matters more, voting power for LP rewards or voting power to push proposals forward).

That is not to say debate and direction from the community at large is a bad thing, it’s just difficult with the conditions we are working with compared to say the launch of Tinyman’s Governance system.

It feels like a lot of govs are in a “wait and see” mode. And I get it, I do. I’m just more of a “how can we come together and make improvements to xyz” even if I’m sitting on a fair amount of unrealized losses.

Of note @EricTinyman There is one small thing I didn’t consider when pushing this vote that I think should be addressed at some point: The minimum yes vote needed to pass a proposal has to my knowledge remained unchanged since launch I think it’s a minimum of 2.5M Yes (assuming also in the majority) That’s a little silly now given our top 13 govs by themselves could pass a measure if only they alone voted and it is less than 2% of our total voting power of all govs. I could not find anything saying it had been updated however.

Temporary airdrop2 wallet allocation
7

Screenshot 2026-07-27 at 18-45-52 Improvements to our Goverance System an xGov Pilot program - Governance Proposals - Tinyman Governance Forum
Screenshot 2026-07-27 at 18-45-52 Improvements to our Goverance System an xGov Pilot program - Governance Proposals - Tinyman Governance Forum730×663 56.5 KB

Honestly I didn’t expect these two to be as split as they are. It is encouraging the amount of votes for and against them however.

Overall I think cutting the vote requirements is the most useful (because it requires zero costs and implementation) and xGov and/or Council vote to be useful for different reasons. It has come up before in discord about rethinking the vote limit and I just thought, ok well if no one is gonna make a proposal, I’ll make a proposal and we’ll see where it goes.

And personally I’m pro both of them or either of them and I’d hope the idea and position could evolve overtime as needed. I just want tinygovs to feel more empowered. Yes there’s not a lot we can do as individuals against a global economy, against wars, against whatever BTC does on any random Tuesday if a whale gets itchy and dumps, against VC’s, BUT there are enough of us that working together I do believe we can have real meaningful impact on both Tinyman and Algorand.

I also don’t see Algorand’s struggles as Tinyman’s struggles either, imo Tinyman as well as our partners in Algorand’s defi should work together to strengthen ourselves and each other. It is my firm beleif that while defi is not everything a blockchain can or should be, we can help reverse our chain’s fortunes. A strong Defi system = a strong Algorand.

I also agree with others that have at times voiced that Tinyman will likely be better positioned and more active post-VC unlocks, and I agree that it might. I just think we can be better positioned to take advantage of that as well as some concerns about how many govs might be eyeing an exit after so long of a lock. I’m sure there’s plenty of us willing to buy up their dumps, however I will always be an advocate for “What can we do to make this better for us” long-term questions.