Bring TINY power into forum voting, I am all for it.
So should you be if your not spinning up Bot accounts.
I am the one advocating for transparency here.
Then post
Gatekeep the forum?
You have 13 votes and like 10 of them are from recently created accounts.
Then you try to turn that around and claim that @ROAM and I are the same account and spinning up accounts to block a proposal you are actually winning in the voting share.
I know you have ROAM and Nerdy becasue I received the same threat from both word for word.
I dont know what other accounts you have.
Do you support bringing TINY power into forum voting for blockchain level transparency?
“threat” lol. Whoa there tiger, don’t throw-out baseless accusations of threats without proof. To the best of my knowledge I’ve never spoken with you outside of this public forum. Although that would be easier to confirm if we, you know, knew who you are rather than hiding behind a generic forum name.
Do you consider this threatening? Cause uh… toughen up champ, and learn what hyperbole is.
And I have been a pretty consistent in my efforts in this becoming a more active governance group. Fake accounts on forums do me little good when they are not backed with tinypower for voting in an actual onchain vote.
I do not feel threatened - but saying you will gatekeep the forum votes by spinning up Bot accounts is what?
It’s hilarious to see you complain for weeks about the very things you do - you bought BOTSY low, sold it high - then FUDs. Again, you are free to do as you please with your money and trade how you wish - I am just highlighting the hypocrisy.
Sell TINY rewards, complains about SHOB who is yet to sell a single TINY. Again, you are free to do as you please with your money and trade how you wish - I am just highlighting the hypocrisy, for a second time.
Screams about SHOB voting for a pool with $15k TVL - then goes and votes for one with $54. Again, you are free to do as you please with your TINY power - I am just highlighting the hypocrisy, for a third time.
I really hope we can get this proposal to an on-chain vote and see who was right about majority support. I am getting tired of reading your essays and nonsensical complaining.
If the no wins - I will bow my head to your highness & never question your mighty authority again.
If the yes wins - I will rest my case that I was correct all along.
Correct! I did vote on an account by accident! And again if you actually bothered to be apart of the governance process rather than hide behind a fake account on the forums you’d know that slugger!
Ah yes I’m the rugger! I farmed the algo/botsy for short while with a handful of Algo because I was tempted by the APR as the quickest way I could compound my tiny into the tiny/usdc LP, but I have little tolerance for rug-pulls or non-utility tokens in general. If it’s not a LST, or governance token, I don’t really bother. As for rugging it… I mean sure if you consider holding like less than 1% of a LP rugging I guess.
However my voting record kinda speaks for itself:
So I ask you again, who are you and why should anyone take you seriously?
Back to what I said before:
But on the actual topic, I’ll repeat what I said before:
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.
Stabilizing Tiny price action is the only thing that matters. And we can only do that by increasing important tiny/paired LP’s like tiny/usdc, tiny/talgo.
Get a few 10’s of thousands of dollars in tiny in Tiny/USDC and a tiny/gobtc and our token will be far better off. Grow it to $100,000 on the USDC and we’ll outpace our parent token Algo.
But that’s only going to happen as a group tiny-gov effort. The market will not put liquidity in tiny/usdc.
TINY is up 20%+ in the 24 hours.
The biggest driver - SHOB - buying 20,000 ALGO.
That is how you get liquidity and price to go up - you get buyers.
Buyers that buy clearly based on the utility of the token. The key utilities of TINY token - collecting fees of exchange trading captured via the burns, yield from Governance Rewards, voting for farm rewards for LPs, Governance.
Kill off Gov Rewards & Farm Rewards and you have killed off over 50% of the utility and reason to buy the token.
It’s really not rocket science - you seem to have understood that part for yourself since you have said multiple times - “who cares let it crash - we will buy it all up”, but again I repeat my point - price is already 90%+ down why aren’t you buying up now?
Clearly your tactic of adding TINY one sided liquidity has done nothing for the price.
Whenever price has gone up it’s because there is more buyers than sellers - wow, big surprise.
No one is talking about killing off rewards and farm rewards. If you want to secure them, drive more users to Tinyman. Tinyman requires more FEE collection, that is, users using the platform. That’s the issue. There is additional runway after the initial 4 year allocation is over, the amount of rewards simply go down, they don’t go away, or you use what resources you have to drive additional yeild for the platform.
To take a page out of your book:
If you are so concerned, go drive more users to the platform. Bring in 10’s of thousands of new people swapping on the dex to drive up fee collection. Or figure out another way to bring income to tinyman.
This isn’t a thing. Stop saying it. Repeating your wrong assumptions will not make them right. “One-sided” liquidity does not happen. In this situation your Tiny is flipped, half for USDC and added to the LP.
This is what is currently in the tiny/usdc LP, including my share:
6,048,584.05 Tiny
6,207.75 USDC
I’m now removing both my shares of Tiny and USDC tokens: 130,295.09 Tiny AND $133.72 USDC, despite the fact I am only withdrawing TINY.
Now notice, despite the fact that I removed only tiny, my entire position was emptied and TINY and USDC were removed from the LP:
And when I go and put the tiny back:
Again subject to some slippage, the USDC assets, despite me ONLY adding and removing TINY went back up. That’s how adding one-sided liquidity works on Algorand via Tinyman. The LP will swap the assets to maintain a 1:1 ratio in the LP between the two assets. So you still are adding BOTH Tiny and USDC into the LP. Everything else is irrelevant.
But go ahead, you’ve claimed you’ll dump 100,000’s of algos worth of Tiny into Governance if only we allow you to unlock at the slightest pump by making the lock only be a month to keep your max tinypower. So park 100,000’s of Algo’s worth of Tiny yourself into tiny/USDC for a few months. 4x the liquidity for a bit and enjoy those farm rewards. Drive the total liquidity up to $50k and commit your voting power to farming rewards for it for six months.
And I have been a constant advocate for increasing Tiny/USDC depth: from a proposal to allow Tiny/USDC tokens locking and voting rights in our vault.
to a modified proposal to create an expanded Tinyman Treasury:
Also potently voters, consider what a fund like this could go towards:
- Matching grants from the Algorand Foundation
- Advertising drives to push more users to Tinyman
- injecting much-needed energy into our community
- a reason to give some VC’s hesitancy to dump on us all at once
- an added reason to lock Tinyman to have input over how the funds are directed
- creating core Tinyman groups focusing on unique growth tracks and plans for Tinyman expansion like: working on creating blog articles, vlogs, social media campaigns – Real Decentralized Growth campaings
- energy in our community to then turn into growth potenal, working together to boost LP pairings important to Tinyman and Algorand as a whole
- working together with other defi protocols to develop campaigns that benefit us both: like perhaps working with Folks Governance to establish enhanced rewards on LPs that benefit us both like FUSDC/FALGO, and other often overlooked fasset pairings and combining forces to highlight the rewards those innovative pools bring to us both.
To our last on-chain proposal that I would have offered an amendment to to direct earnings from Folks into the Tiny/USDC and farmed those assets to compound liquidity into it as fast as possible.
In conclusion:
Dumping Treasury assets into Governance and Farm rewards will do nothing to stabilize Tinyman’s price action – we already have years of data on that as our token continues to drop and it has done nothing to stabilize Tinyman’s price and rewards have done little to add actual liquidity to LPs. The largest LP’s offer almost nothing in farm rewards, the smallest offer large rewards with little new liquidity and users flowing in.
Your simply wrong, it is sad to see that you cannot wrap your head around the concept that adding single sided tiny to an LP is akin to selling it at a 50% split. You are advocating for mass sell pressure and calling it a strategy.
If there was no farm or gov rewards no one would lock for 4 years and if those TINY were liquid with no utility beyond Governance they would have been dumped - TINY would have zero bid and be 1/100th of its price.
Its obvious the Farm and Gov Rewards being secured will bring in more buyers, and cause them to also lock for 4 years.
More buyers = more txs as well.
TINY price going up constantly will also bring more buyers as people prefer to buy tokens that constantly go up rather than down only.
And I have also explained by reducing unlock from 4 years to 60 days in a separate forum that it would also bring in way more buyers and definitely more txs - but that concept seems also a difficult one for you to wrap your head around, so I have simply dropped it.
Also, why would I drop 100,00s of thousands of ALGO into a TINY/USDC pool when the 2 biggest utilities are set to die off in 2 years with no clarity moving beyond that?
Its obvious the token would become far less attractive and get dumped.
Why would I do that to myself?
1 Like
This is what you are not getting, and why I advocate for allowing tiny/usdc to be locked into Governance for tinypower.
Short term sure it’s a very miniscule amount of sell pressure.
However attracting long-term liquidity into tiny/USDC is the ONLY method we have other than our BBB program to stem the slide of Tinyman price.
What you also fail to note is you can also just pair tiny with USDC directly and it has no sell pressure at all. Even so the miniscule amount needed to swap a small bit of tiny to usdc and put it in the LP is insignificant compared to VC sell pressure or forthcoming governance unlocks, especially if you are holding and farming tiny/usdc long-term.
There is NO scenario where long-term depth of the tiny/usdc LP, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth doesn’t act like a floor under tiny price action.
None at all.
I agree with you here - and I would add ALGO/TINY too, not just USDC tiny.
However, my proposals are for USDC sided liquidity to come in and ALGO sided liquidity to come in instead.
That increases the liquidity as well as increasing the price. I am wanting to increase the liquidity of the underlying collateral because that is the REAL liquidity.
TINY in itself is not liquidity - TINY paired to nothing = 0.
It’s liquidity is how much ALGO’s + USDC’s are attached to the TINY token.
What you fail to note is this is exactly what I want to do - except with the ALGO/TINY pair instead - I prefer ALGO pairing rather than USDC to be honest, especially when ALGO is so cheap - when ALGO goes up which it will to $1+ eventually it will drive TINY up with it - if prices of ALGO were high, then sure USDC focus is better.
However, what you also fail to note is that I do not want to drop any significant sums of money to a token that has no clear path forward from year 4 (a completely speculative path forward instead beyond year 4) for it’s 2 biggest utilities.
I only need to rub two brain cells together to realise it will dump, some people have already stopped max locking in preparation for the 4 year unlock to wind down so they can dump - so I refuse to be exit liquidity.
This proposal I have put forward brings clarity for year 5-10 and gives people a reason to keep holding and buying TINY and gives the TINY team an additional 6 year window to make this protocol self-sustainable so Tx Fees can subsidize Gov & Farm Rewards.
Until then the team will probably need to keep selling portions of TINY to fund themselves and the last thing we need is to lose 2 key utilities and have even more people piling in to sell, causing the ability for the TINY team to fund itself to greatly diminish.
Also by extending the runway for up to 10 years for the 2 most important utilities it buys us time to do more things on this protocol that can generate yield:
1/ Maybe adding a Perps Dex - Hyperliquid prints, why can’t TINY in the Future have a Perps Section?
2/ Maybe adding RWA and Tokenised Securities - Algorand is starting to grow in this space, why can’t TINY have real world shares backed 1:1 that pays out the actual dividends of say Apple or Google but the TINY protocol keeps a 5% clip of those dividends + charges tx fees as an additional income source for TINY holders.
These great ideas would take capital and years to achieve - losing the 2 foundational utilities of TINY prematurely would be a death sentence to such ideas.
Securing Clarity moving forward will drive in more TINY investors to further keep absorbing team sells and what little left the investors have to sell (they’ve almost all sold out - they’ve sold more than what they have left to sell) + it would ensure existing governors go back to max locking get the most out of Gov Rewards & Farm Rewards that they could rest easy knowing they will be around up until Year 10.
1 Like
Pretty loaded proposal… Again, this is not neutral proposal and a lot of fake “users” voting.
We really need some verification to link users to their voting power. Without that, I don’t trust this governance site anymore.
1 Like
I think it will be critical to get this one on an onchain vote to put this to rest.
See if there is legitimately more support than not.
Would be extremely surprised if this proposal doesnt get 70%+ yes votes on chain.
@kaan @EricTinyman how can we get this vote on chain?
Its clear it wont get the minimum 50 voters, due to the bear market inactivity, but the pilot deployment to folks (that got rejected) went to an on chain vote did not have it either.
There seem to be way more active Governors within the Tinyman platform than on X, Discord, Telegram and this Forum put together as we saw with the last proposal.
It could not get the 50 forum voters requirement, but on the onchain vote hundreds of Governors came to vote.
1 Like
Algo will not go back to $1 without Tiny, Folks, and the rest of it’s defi strengthening.
Look, I’ve been here a long time. I was buying algo when we were and above the $2 mark. I was in Algorand Governance from P2 to the end of it. I’ve been around the forums, community spaces, for a long while.
And do you know what I finally realized? Algorand’s 10B algos are not going to be bought up by institutional investors alone. The public is not going to rally around some come to jesus moment where they see blockchain as the future anytime soon, and there is NOTHING we as individual holders can do vs the 10B Algo supply total. Nothing.
And what I also realized was that Algorand should not lead the way in it’s Defi protocols. Algorand should not determine Tiny price. Or Folks, or Pow (and Folks is a good example of this it’s token price while still far under the initial hype has stayed a lot higher than say Tinyman or Pact’s governance tokens. Especially given the far smaller total tokens available for Governance v Algorand’s massive 10B supply.) Algorand will thrive off it’s DeFi growing, it’s DeFi will not thrive hoping that one day Algorand will turn around from some mysterious future thing.
Where are these mysterious user fees going to come from exactly? Are you going to bring them here? Where have they been the last year? Two?
Is tiny/algo an important LP? Sure (although for us personally I’d argue talgo/tiny is far superior as it talgo brings with it income for Tinyman via the share of block fees). Has deep liquidity in tiny/talgo done anything for us thus far? Nope. Not a thing. Tiny is down what, 98%?
Tinyman needs income independent of fees.
It needs a revenue source independent of just Algorand’s price action maybe someday pulling up Tiny along with it. It needs income that isn’t just hope that things will change in the future.
**And in part to get that it needs a Governance body not intent to waste what runway we have on just hope that some benevolent whale is going to buy up and lock more tiny and a Governance body that is ACTIVE enough not to have less than 5% of us vote on farming rewards and governance proposals.
It needs a defi ecosystem that works together to strengthen each other when we have mutual interests in common.** It needs a strong foundation on it’s platforms.
Its clear it wont get the minimum 50 voters, due to the bear market inactivity, but the pilot deployment to folks (that got rejected) went to an on chain vote did not have it either.
It had a 4:1 vote in favor of individual govs despite falling, and only failed due to one single govs vote. Just one. One who I have no doubt would LOVE the opportunity to dump millions of Tiny at the moment we have a good pump if they could.
1/ Maybe adding a Perps Dex - Hyperliquid prints, why can’t TINY in the Future have a Perps Section?
2/ Maybe adding RWA and Tokenised Securities - Algorand is starting to grow in this space, why can’t TINY have real world shares backed 1:1 that pays out the actual dividends of say Apple or Google but the TINY protocol keeps a 5% clip of those dividends + charges tx fees as an additional income source for TINY holders.
Where exactly are we going to get the funds to do this? We as is don’t have the resources to commit to massive changes absent a method to get income apart from fees collected. Where is this mystery money coming from exactly?
Our major issue is financial atm, we are currently lacking the ability due to decreased activity across Algorand, lower volume and fees collected, and a not fantastic price action on our governance token or our parent token. Until we either get a large influx of new trading activity, or we get enough liquidity in key tiny-pairings to help absorb sell pressure, or liquidity in a pair like tiny/btc and btc’s price rises that can cause a large intake of tiny in the market, what funds exactly will be used for this?
Passively hoping that somehow other people will lift Tiny’s fortunes hasn’t gotten us anywhere – and we’ve been doing exactly that for a long time now. Until Governance decides to be active and actually take some ownership and come together to do something, we will continue to struggle.
I think it will be critical to get this one on an onchain vote to put this to rest.
See if there is legitimately more support than not.
Would be extremely surprised if this proposal doesnt get 70%+ yes votes on chain.
If you want to get it on chain, I suggest you get more votes first. “13” yaes against 3,724 Govs, might wanna start messaging them.
I have been in crypto for 10+ years.
Unfortunately BTC goes first, then alts like ALGO second then their Ecos recover.
In bear markets its much better to strengthen the ALGO/TINY pair.
In bull markets it is better to focus USDC/TINY pair.
When crypto price appreciates the masses will come. People are driven by fear and greed.
Our job is to ensure TINY has its key utilities to capture the growth waves that come with the bull markets.
New users that come in the bull, are the ones you retain in the bear. Very few new user acquisitions will come in a bear market.
Ah yes, let’s just wait till this mysterious force someday swoops down and lifts us all up on it’s wings shall we? Instead of doing the hard work of securing our own backyard first, and building ourselves up in a “bear” market. Folks Finance, compared to the Algo, Pow, Tiny, and every other governance token is doing remarkably well comparatively. They also have a more diverse portfolio when it comes to income. If only we could do that ourselves. But alas we are dependent on fees, largely from staking and platform use.
When crypto price appreciates the masses will come. People are driven by fear and greed.
I’ve been here for a while. Algorand Governance P2 was what, Jan 2022? Do you expect Algorand to mysteriously recover anytime soon?And in those years I’ve listened to countless people say “next halving”, “next administration”, “xgov”, “staking rewards” etc replace it with any hopeium you like. Don’t know if you’ve noticed but uh, we are at ATL’s with Algorand. Algorand’s ecosystem should drive Algorand’s price, not the other-way around.
Here’s the big difference between Algorand, and Tinyman though, we, comparatively, have a lot less total tokens. Like a LOT less. It’s a LOT easier for other tokens, like USDC to absorb sell pressure, and BTC/ETH/etc to effect Tinyman’s price in a bull market comparied to our chain’s token the Algo.
I DO agree with you on that : BTC can drive the price of Tiny when it rises: via a deep tiny/btc LP, which atm is setting at less than $4k total liquidity in it, and it hasn’t had a substantial farm since kedmd and myself stopped backing it with rewards voting – and I stopped some six months ago, and kedmd has been MIA for longer. Another gov in our top 20 Stango has been absent for sometime, although I have attempted to get kedmd and Stango to pop in 
Because tinyman isn’t gonna build itself up (shout out to Stango for at least responding to me 
) and kedmd has at least been a little active lately after a long, long absence, and at the very least
What I disagree with is that dumping a bunch of new tiny to a handful of govs a lot of whome are not even active in our spaces, is a good call. Or that offering even more tiny to be sent to rug-pull farms is a great use of resources when we should be looking at ways to expand our operational runway via new ways of income, and buffering Tiny against price action and future dumping by VCs and eventually a number of govs.
There seem to be way more active Governors within the Tinyman platform than on X, Discord, Telegram and this Forum put together as we saw with the last proposal.
It could not get the 50 forum voters requirement, but on the onchain vote hundreds of Governors came to vote.
Hundreds? It didn’t even get two hundred… it got 176. Out of 3,725. 4.7% of our govs. 95.30% of them didn’t vote and most of them probably didn’t even realize we had a vote.
Yes because most people become inactive when a bear market lasts for years as this one has.
When people come back they will not buy TINY if it does not have its 2 key utilities secured.
Losing Gov and Farming Rewards whilst asking people to lock for 4 years to get the maximum yield on their voting power is a one way street to burying the TINY token beyond ressucitation.
It will capture 0 bid when the bull returns.
SHOB is a perfect example and many other top governors who all vote for farms - that farming rewards and gov rewards are key utilities for which they bought and locked.
There is not “loss” the amount budgeted just goes down, as they just did a while ago, these events are well documented on tinyman. No one buying and locking Tiny should be surprised by them, and note, govs are still locking despite the lower rewards. Most are not locking for rewards anyway, I mean just look 3,711 of govs, some 99% of our total governance, account for less than 1% of total tinypower, and less than 1% of the reward payout.
They are not getting anything but peanuts out of this proposals, nor are the farms that most of them don’t even bother to vote for.
The vast majority of the benefits are going to go to 10-20 govs and a big percentage of them don’t actually do anything. They are not active here or our discord. They are not engaged in this process at all.
Our top 30 LPs have about 100 govs in total voting for them. Add in another 20 or so govs and that’s how many have voted in our top 40.
Around 50 Govs voting decided what farms get allocated rewards this next cycle. Just 50ish out of 3,711. Far less than who even voted in our governance proposal. Yikes.
Well based on the above it does look like most govs don’t care much about said utilities based on farm voting records.
In any business, the top 20% account for 80% of the Revenue. It’s called the Pareto Principle.
The majority of the top 20% of the Governors all care about those 2 utilities as they all actively vote.
It’s obvious that if those 2 utilities were gone - buy pressure would drastically decrease, whilst at the same time sell pressure would ramp up as Governors seek to wait for unlocks to dump since there would be no point locking anymore.
You have acknowledge that point and agreed with it multiple times with the “phrase” we would just buy all the additional sell pressure - and I’ve asked multiple times - if you would buy an entire dip, why are you not buying now?
You have an excellent opportunity to buy up huge amounts of voting power.
So it should.
Your % rewards should be proportionate to your % holding - it works that way with shares, with dividends, with cash in a savings account. Why should TINY be different where regardless of how much you hold, everyone gets the same benefit?
Imagine having $1,000,000 in the bank and someone has $1 - and then you the person with $1 squeals - heeeyyyy the majority of the cash the bank pays in interest goes to the top depositor with $1,000,000 - we should all get the same, so unfairr!! Or I buy 1 share of Tesla and complain heeeyyyy most of the dividend goes to Elon Musk so unfairrr - I should be getting the same as Musk, I bought 1 share yesterday!!
No offence, but even the fact you keep continuously bringing this up as an issue is mindblowing and hurts my intelligence.
2 Likes
Really now lol. Don’t make me laugh. First the principle is wrong in “any business”.
That’s not what the Pareto Principle means.
To be clear, via the Pareto rule of 80/20 the 80 and the 20 only coincidentally add to 100. The rule could just as easily have been 80/40 or 90/5, and it varies among businesses.
Example:
In recent months, Microsoft has learned that 80 percent of the errors and crashes in Windows and Office are caused by 20 percent of the entire pool of bugs detected
Well yeah, most of the bugs errors and crashes being caused by only a small fraction of the bugs detected makes sense. Because most bugs don’t bring down the whole system, they are simply annoying or unintended. So if you fix the biggest ones, the system gets better. No duh.
Its also far more of a rule of thumb than actually backed up by data but heuristics are what they are.
Coincidences in life and nature are infact a thing.
Second:
#1 SHOB5W…4MUI votes for a scam token to get rewards for himself, sucking Tiny dry in the process.
#2 despite recently buying a large share of tiny, doesn’t vote at all. 5.08%
#4 doesn’t vote at all. 3.92%
#6 doesn’t vote at all. 3.32%
#7 doesn’t vote at all. 2.36%
2,4,6,7 account for a total 14.68% of total tiny locked… and they don’t bother to even use one of what you said is one of Tiny’s core features, 4 of Tiny’s biggest shareholders just… don’t do anything. What would you say it’s called when you want to reward people who don’t do anything again?
I can go on but far more than what 50, 60% of govs never even bother to vote in farming allocations at all. Maybe more?
If the majority of govs are not even USING these utilities… and farm rewards have shown very little effect on the actual liquidity of an LP period, why would we want to worry about “extending” this when there’s other far more important things to worry about?
You have acknowledge that point and agreed with it multiple times with the “phrase” we would just buy all the additional sell pressure - and I’ve asked multiple times - if you would buy an entire dip, why are you not buying now?
And you have ignored my counter that: guess what there are other priorities in the world than crypto. I don’t actively buy any crypto atm. Period. Because there are other important things in life – like surviving under inflationary measures and ya know, eating. But I do aggressively reinvest my earnings.
Mind you a lot of my tinypower comes from earning my tiny via prodiving liquidity to important pairings and agressibly reinvesting those earnings into those pairings, withdrawing as tiny, and then locking it. You can see me doing just that above.
That doesn’t mean we should give them a handout of millions of more tiny for doing exactly zero extra work.
If they WANT more Tiny, they can earn them and support the platform by putting their Tiny in tiny-paired LPs that earn significantly more than the governance lock. Further they can compound that by showing support on initiatives like being able to lock tiny-paired LPs into governance.
The top 30 or so govs with most of the tiny lock, don’t need the “socialism” of wasting our runway giving them even more tiny. They can earn it in LPs with higher yields than governance.
And you have argued in bad-faith. I have hundreds of thousands of more tiny invested through LPs and those both earn be far more than governance locks do, nearly twice as much, and do more via adding liquidity into an ecosystem extremely lacking in Tiny and overtime I will add hundreds of thousand more to those LPs.
Go buy up 10 million tiny and pair them into tiny/talgo, the tiny/usdc LPs then, because someone needs to do it and we can’t do it via earnings we have as a platform and users themselves don’t seem to care enough to do it themselves.