Secure TINY to extend Governance & Farm Rewards Period for 6 More Years

[TinyGovernor]

This discussion is already getting votes and traction - Future of Tiny Governance & Farms

Let’s take it to official proposal whilst we have momentum and there is fresh eyes in the Tiny Governance following the most recent vote that took place.

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, beyond governance.

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.

The Proposal to ensure the future of TINY for years to come:

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 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.

Cast your vote:

• 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

[Goldenalgo]

This is a utility-first proposal rather than a scarcity-first one. It prioritizes keeping TINY useful for a decade over maximizing short-term scarcity. For long-term governors, the extension is generally favorable because it protects the value of locking. For pure price speculation focused on supply squeeze, it’s less ideal. My only question is what does @EricTinyman have in mind for the roadmap. Specifically, What new use cases and future initiatives are in the works to continue rewarding long-term governors beyond 2028?

[NerdyForDesign]

The governance roadmap already has allocations for rewards post-the initial four-year period:

TINY Farming | Tinyman Docs

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, REGARDLESS of the farm rewards offered.

Just look at the data:

Almost $200k in the talgo/USDC farm: 0.97% APR.
Folks/Algo: $33k being farmed for a paltry 1.12% farm.

Tiny USDC offers a 19.39% farm and good pool APR, less than $8k locked in it.

Then we have the two largest rug-pulls on the platform and they hold a pitiful $6k and not even $300 each with a staggeringly high 74.70% and 31.61% farming APR. Effectively wasting our rewards while just 13 farm them – the largest account no doubt being the guy who bought up most of the supply to begin with.

The pattern repeats itself of liquidity being independent of farming rewards across the platform:

Less than 400k liquidity, yet only 0.07% farming rewards and a fourth of the LP isn’t even farming.

This is hardly a Tinyman issue. Industry-wide liquidity farming does not work:|

https://medium.com/@ancilartech/defi-in-2026-what-comes-after-yield-farming-and-liquidity-wars-de05c4f710ea

The Liquidity Crisis: Why DeFi Must Rethink Incentives for Sustainable Growth

There IS a better method to create lasting liquidity, but it isn’t with farming, and yet another method is to allow things like governance rights to LP holders, enticing them to lock their LPs long-term in exchange for voting powers:

Why Bonding is Better Than Yield Farming - Dappradar

Let the governance rewards fall. They’ve proven to be an ineffective way to secure price action (token price is still what, 95% down from ATHs?) and have absolutely starved our tiny-paired LPs for liquidity.

As has come up before, we will probably divert some of the fees generated to governance rewards after the initial allocation is up, however at our current trade volume, those fees would be almost insignificant to fuel rewards.

The main thing we HAVE to do in the meantime is:

Stabilize Tiny price action – something we can only really do by increasing the depth of Tiny-LPs, and waiting out VC unlocks – and the initial exit of some of our govs after the first governance vault unlocks start.

[acme]

@TinyGovernor

But the unclaimed airdrop tokens that are already earmarked to be distributed over the initial 4 year period won’t change, right?

Tinyman

[NerdyForDesign]

@acme Airdrop tokens were already used, that was the first proposal made.

Tinyman

There are no additional airdrop tokens planned that Tinyman has ever suggested, much to the contrary they have said the supposed airdrop are simply treasury assets currently not needed for operational expenses.

See our last proposal:

This proposal seeks approval to allocate approximately $1,000 worth of TINY from idle treasury holdings into the TINY isolated lending market on Folks Finance for a period of 90 days.

The wallet is named “airdrop” however this doesn’t actually mean anything and there are no indications there’s ever been plans for more airdrop, nore is this somthing anyone should currently want given the concentration of tinypower among 20-30 govs who’d net almost all the rewards (including me, and the last thing I need is a community-funded handout. I earn my tokens through governance and farming tiny-pairings).

Governance APR falling isn’t a bad thing. Just look at what so few govs actually participate in the few things they are asked to do: voting. Barely any participant in our monthly farm allocation votes and only 176 out of 3,723 voted in our most recent proposal. Less than 5%.

[TinyGovernor]

This proposal seeks to create a solid additional 6 year roadmap with a clear breakdown of exactly how much in year 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - that gives TINY significant runway to become profitable and replace subsidised Rewards - its clear that wont happen by year 4.

Your whole argument assumes no one is locking in 4 year Governance to be able to earn Governance Rewards or vote for pools.

It is one of the key reasons, if not the key reason, to lock for 4 years for the majority of users.

Governance Locks are what Locks liquidity. It is virtually equivalent to a LP locking a pool for 4 years.

We certainly do not need more 1 sided TINY liquidity being dumped into pools to dump price.

We need real liquidity which is the underlying assets such as USDC and ALGO and the way to get that is Governance Locks.

This is the most important utility of the TINY token currently and needs to be secured.

[NerdyForDesign]

Your whole argument assumes no one is locking in 4 year Governance to be able to earn Governance Rewards or vote for pools.

And most govs aren’t even bothering to vote for pool rewards.

[TinyGovernor]

You also keep saying no one cares about Gov or Farm Rewards.

However, it seems SHOB votes for BOTSY upon some reaearch.

So the very pool you screenshotted to say no one buys TINY to vote for pools seems to be a key reason the 32M+ TINY was bought and as a result over 1M+ ALGO of liquidity was added to TINY.

TINY price would be 1/4 of what it is if not for SHOB absorbing the VC wallets dumping on us.

So clearly the biggest supporter and buyer and Governor of TINY does vote.

The majority of big Governors also all vote for pools and participate in collecting Gov Rewards, meaning it is a key utility that must be preserved.

[NerdyForDesign]

You are aware this is a blockchain and we can look these things up right? Here’s some research for you:

Asset 2611139760 · Allo

Holders: 145

SHOB: 84.04% of the supply.
Of the 1 Trillion BOTSY in circulation, Shob holds 84.04%

What do we get when we visit BOTSY’s X and Discord links?

SHOCKER. They don’t exist. Because the project does not exist.

But we can see SHOB buy up nearly all of the supply himself of a useless token with ZERO use and functionality and zero channels.

It is REALLY weird for you to simp for a guy openly rugging Tinyman by trying to divert as many rewards into his own useless scam token as possible, and also try to allow him to dump on us by ending his lock early in your other proposal.

[acme]

@NerdyForDesign
No, airdrop tokens are not already used, that’s why we are getting 815K tokens per week, when according to the schedule we should be getting 700K per week.

In fact, the wording of the Unclaimed Airdrop Tokens proposal that was voted on states under section “1. Adding the tokens to Tinyman governance rewards”:

“Unclaimed tokens will be added to the current governance rewards and will be distributed to Tinyman governors in accordance with their governance commitments over the next 4 years.”

The way the governance rewards pool works is that the Tinyman team has to manually add tokens to the pool each year.

[NerdyForDesign]

@acme

Good let them fall. No one locking tiny at this point should be doing so simply for gov rewards, that’s insane-- your primary reason at this stage (Compared to when we had over a 100% APR on gov rewards) for locking tiny should be proposal and farm voting, not the tiny silver of rewards you get from governance. Mind you that’s not just me talking about reduced rewards:

The top THREE govs would get 25.50% of all the increased rewards.
The top FIVE would get 32.48%, One of those top five btw has been MIA for MONTHS and likely hasn’t even bothered to claim any gov rewards for ages. Fell from holding some 16% of our voting power and being a consistent vote for tiny/goBTC to just disappearing on us. I do wish he’d come back. I think he’d be significantly helpful in increasing tiny-paired liquidity, and I often paired my tinypower with his votes to build up tiny/gobtc when he was a consistent voter.
The top TEN accounts would receive a staggering 44.5% of increased rewards.**
The top TWENTY accounts would get 56.81% of the increased rewards.**

Tiny-paired LPs should far outpace the APR of governance to account for the additional risk of IL as well as the larger benefit LPs like tiny/usdc, tiny/talgo, and tiny/btc LPs have for the token in stabilizing it’s price and building a wall against sell pressure.

TINY price would be 1/4 of what it is if not for SHOB absorbing the VC wallets dumping on us.

Which is great until SHOB decides the rest of us are his exit liquidity and dumps on us himself. Which he will do. We’ve seen him rugging in real time. Why do YOU @TinyGovernor want to be his next rugpull victim?

You are suggesting we hand SHOB what the equivalent of 16.71% of every enhanced weekly rewards sent out from Governance, and many times that in BOTSY rug-pull farming rewards, a defunct token where he owns 84% of the supply, why on earth would ANY rational person want that?

[TinyGovernor]

@NerdyForDesign

The top THREE govs would get 25.50% of all the increased rewards.

The top 3 shareholders in any company get the most dividends.

No offense, but this sounds like you are trying to turn an open blockchain governance into a communist takeover, where people with the least get the most.

@NerdyForDesign

No one locking tiny at this point should be doing so simply for gov rewards, that’s insane-- your primary reason at this stage

Literally, on what authority do you make such senseless claims? I personally lock mainly for Governance Rewards and to Vote on my Favourite pools.

I can almost guarantee the majority do the same - if this goes to a proposal vote on actual TINY, it will prove out my thesis by winning.

@NerdyForDesign

Which is great until SHOB decides the rest of us are his exit liquidity and dumps on us himself.

Upon analysis of your wallet and SHOB’s wallet you have sold way more TINY historically than he has. SHOB seems to have never sold a single TINY - I can see he just locks all his GOV Rewards every cycle.

@NerdyForDesign

You are aware this is a blockchain and we can look these things up right? Here’s some research for you:

Your wallet also seems to have purchased BOTSY in the past too & it’s actually dumped it on people at a high - like you are literally accusing others of things you have done + worse because you have sold TINY before, unlike SHOB who is a Chad and just locks every governance reward he or she receives.

At the end of the day, why should you have authority over someone else’s money, voting power & opinion?

@NerdyForDesign

we hand SHOB what the equivalent of 16.71% of every enhanced weekly rewards sent out from Governance

“We”, especially not “you” didn’t hand SHOB out anything - do you understand the concept that the wallet bought 1M+ ALGO worth of TINY with their own money in order to receive that voting power?

Instead of complaining about SHOB - please just buy 1M+ ALGO worth of TINY and lock it for 4 years and I will praise you just as loudly and I will respect whatever your 32M+ TINY power votes for.

It would dramatically help TINY if you do that - instead of complaining non-stop.

[NerdyForDesign]

@TinyGovernor

Your wallet also seems to have purchased BOTSY in the past too & it’s actually dumped it on people at a high - like you are literally accusing others of things you have done + worse because you have sold TINY before, unlike SHOB who is a Chad and just locks every governance reward he or she receives.

At the end of the day, why should you have authority over someone else’s money, voting power & opinion?

First off Wrong.

Your wallet also seems to have purchased BOTSY in the past too & it’s actually dumped it on people at a high - like you are literally accusing others of things you have done + worse because you have sold TINY before, unlike SHOB who is a Chad and just locks every governance reward he or she receives.

Correct, in that I have briefly held BOTSY to farm rewards, I just don’t have the patience to hold trash tokens for long, even if it means me getting less tiny rewards holding LPs that actually help the ecosystem like Tiny/USDC and tiny/talgo.

Although I actually didn’t buy ANY botsy according to you. All I did was add “one-sided liquidity” into the algo/botsy LP to experiment with farming tiny. I have hardly ever had enough to dump and cause price action: Go ahead though. Post the transactions you went through a bit of trouble to find.

The $1,000 of TINY 1 sided liquidity to a pool just dilutes the existing USDC/ALGO Liquidity across more TINY and is a non-sustainable income form as it’s based on subsidised rewards; not real income revenue generation.

BTW since you posted that the liquidity in the tiny/usdc LP has dropped almost another $3,000. Further eroding our ability to absorb sell pressure as people continue to dump Tiny on us.

Wasn’t some guy complaining about communist Russia a bit ago and silencing decent or some crap? So yeah I actually have a right to crap on a scammer SHOB all I please thanks. Or do you support “communism”?"

[TinyGovernor]

Silence you ?

[NerdyForDesign]

Ah yes, of course. It WAS ME RUGGING BOTSY all for a few hundred tiny. Made out like a BANDIT. Ya got me.

And ahhh, yes. I’m one of like five people active on a forum that no one visits. SHOOK I have posts on the seven topics that have been created in the checks notes … three months, two I created myself. Ya got me again slugger.

[kaan]

Hi @TinyGovernor — thank you for writing this up, and thank you to everyone who has jumped into the discussion. @Goldenalgo, also thanks for the roadmap question.

A few clarifications, and then how we’re looking at this.

The wallets labeled airdrop and airdrop2 are idle treasury. They are not a scheduled second airdrop. That was already the team’s position when we took the Folks Finance pilot on-chain. That vote did not pass, and we posted the close-out here: Pilot Deployment of Idle TINY into Folks Finance - #9 by kaan

In the current market, our first priority is keeping the Tinyman protocol running at a high standard. We have a small team, and before we commit to any new build we need to be sure the benefit outweighs the spend. What we take on has to earn its place against runway.

On the 83.8M TINY: that allocation is TBD for now. Moving a large idle balance into rewards would add sell pressure, and we have not seen demand that can absorb it. We do not want to create that pressure.

There are really two conversations here.

The first is whether Tinyman should plan for governance and farm rewards after the initial four-year allocation. That’s a fair question, and this thread can stay open for that.

The second is whether we should move 83.8M TINY — including treasury2 — into govrewards and farmrewards now. That’s a treasury decision, not a small rewards tweak. We would only take something of that size on-chain with a clear amount from each wallet, a year-by-year split, confirmation that this does not raise current APYs, and a clear picture of what remains for operations. We are not there yet.

@Goldenalgo — we are not going to sketch a 2028–2032 product roadmap in this thread. Current work stays on keeping the protocol solid and on the public 2026 roadmap. Rewards after the first four years are a separate question, and they are not “zero unless we refill today.”

This is not an official proposal until there is specific on-chain text. If the author wants to take it there later, please post the items above and we’ll review it with the team.

Please keep this thread on the treasury question. Wallet-level arguments don’t change the process.

Appreciate everyone thinking about the long-term health of TINY.

[TinyGovernor]

@kaan

The second is whether we should move 83.8M TINY — including treasury2 — into govrewards and farmrewards now. That’s a treasury decision, not a small rewards tweak. We would only take something of that size on-chain with a clear amount from each wallet, a year-by-year split, confirmation that this does not raise current APYs

That is correct - the proposal is not to raise current APYs rather to lock in certainty in the protocols key utilities for an additional 6 years, beyond the first 4.

The additional 83.8M could be split into two quantities - 30M for Gov Rewards + 53.8M for Farm Rewards.

Currently, that is what our farm rewards look like:

With the 12M earmarked “Later” + the 53.8M Extra it would be 65.8M

We could then do an even split of that 65.8M for the next 6 years, after year 4 elapses.

We would replace “Later” which is ambiguous to a clear path forward into the future with the below added to the existing table instead:

Year 5 - Total Amount 10,966,666 TINY - Monthly Allocation 913,888 TINY

Year 6 - Total Amount 10,966,666 TINY - Monthly Allocation 913,888 TINY

Year 7 - Total Amount 10,966,666 TINY - Monthly Allocation 913,888 TINY

Year 8 - Total Amount 10,966,666 TINY - Monthly Allocation 913,888 TINY

Year 9 - Total Amount 10,966,666 TINY - Monthly Allocation 913,888 TINY

Year 10 - Total Amount 10,966,666 TINY - Monthly Allocation 913,888 TINY

Currently, that is what our Governance rewards look like:

With the 18.8M earmarked “Later” + the 30M Extra it would be 48.8M

We could then do an even split of that 48.8M for the next 6 years, after year 4 elapses.

We would replace “Later” which is ambiguous to a clear path forward into the future with the below added to the existing table instead:

Year 5 - 8,133,333 TINY

Year 6 - 8,133,333 TINY

Year 7 - 8,133,333 TINY

Year 8 - 8,133,333 TINY

Year 9 - 8,133,333 TINY

Year 10 - 8,133,333 TINY

Personally for someone like me, the Governance and Farm Rewards is a super important utility and with clarity & clear structure like this for the future - I would personally be dropping a couple of 100,000 ALGO into buying TINY to lock into Governance.

It just seems a big ask to buy big amounts of TINY and lock it in Governance with no clear path forward on the future of Governance and Farm Rewards.

From an APY perspective - years 6-10 would yield much less APY for Governance Rewards and Farm Rewards than they do today - however, it would still be sufficient and give confidence that those key utilities of the token will not be lost or become completely insignificant.

[NerdyForDesign]

@TinyGovernor

It just seems a big ask to buy big amounts of TINY and lock it in Governance with no clear path forward on the future of Governance and Farm Rewards.

Then just don’t buy tiny yourself? There are plenty of us willing to buy up unlocked tiny as we can – those of us active anyway. I am hopeful for even more to come. When the initial four year unlock comes from governance I expect an exodus of a number of our initial holders, and the number of tiny govs will likely drop significantly from the almost 4k we hold now, and likely add into a small wave of sell pressure (although it will be just a drop compared to VC unlocks).

We will be left with a smaller, but more robust and committed governance group, and that’s good for both Tinyman as a platform and us as holders.

[TinyGovernor]

@kaan can we get this to an onchain vote and see who people agree with please

If Nerdy is right the way he says he is, there should be no fear or no need to gatekeep in the forum and attempting to block this vote from going onchain, right??

@kaan Nerdy and Roam have also verbatim word for word used the same threat to me saying they will spin up heaps of fake bot accounts on TINY forum to gatekeep any idea they disagree with.

Roam and Nerdy seem to be the same person who has spun up fake bot accounts in the forun gaming this design flaw for years now.

Is it possible to integrate TINY power into forum voting as well and use the blockchain to confirm the real voting voice of the community on these topics?

The only person who would be against such an idea is a person with less TINY power who has indeed been spinning up zero cost forum bots to gatekeep genuine well intentioned ideas without having a significant vested interest in TINY to match their oversized Forum voice.

[NerdyForDesign]

speaking of those bots.