The fact you are arguing that the 80/20 rule doesn’t apply in a context of meaning 80% of revenue comes from 20% of the customers tells me I am not debating with a serious person.
I am not buying or locking more TINY without a clear path of what I can do with it beyond Year 4 - It is obvious it will dump without the TINY Farm Rewards & Gov Rewards being extended as it would mean losing 2 key utilities, without the platform itself being profitable enough to subsidize these so soon.
The 6 year extension is beneficial for the TINY team and gives it more runway to turn the platform fully self-sustainable & helps retain TINY buy pressure for a much longer period.
I have said multiple times, I am not going to be exit liquidity - once there is clarity and a clear structure moving forward, I will buy TINY primarily to lock into governance.
You are the one who keeps saying you will buy the dip if it crashes - but clearly you don’t and you won’t - you are talking nonsense.
Your whole thing of pushing the argument back at me “of go buy up 10 mill today and lock it now” doesn’t work.
I am saying I will not buy more until there is clarity and I am sure many more people with big ALGO holdings think the same. My conditions for a clear path forward are not met, so I am not going to buy more - I have made that abundantly clear multiple times.
You are the one who’s saying your only condition to buy it all up is cheap prices. Well your conditions are met and you are doing nothing about it.
Again your arguments are mind numbing - it is akin to saying the guy who deposited $1,000,000 in the bank should not continue to earn interest on the $1,000,000 because he does zero extra work and then the other people in the bank with $1 worth of savings saying “yeahh!! that’s righttt.. why should he be getting more $$ than me from my precious bank without doing any extra work than me”.
$$ = Currency
TINY = Cryptocurrency
I do not know how else to explain to you that the key tenets of your arguments are ludicrous.
That’s fine. It’s a free economy, you are more than free to not buy more Tiny. I voted against the BBB program because I generally find them to be a poor method when I think the funds could rather be pushed into expanding the platform/program/company. I lost that vote and I continue to remain skeptical of it having been actually that useful vs the onslaught of selling pressure we’ve faced. But eh, I’m still here, still pushing votes, still trying to turn a platform with almost 4k passive govs into something more than like, a few dozen of us active on discord.
I lost the push for a diversified treasury I invested a lot of time behind. I am currently treading water in my efforts to get tiny-LPs a governance voting rights. I barely lost an onchain vote almost nobody participated in.
Yet I’m still here.
Still on the forums.
Still active on the discord.
Still locking, Still building LPs.
Not saying I’ll take by ball and go home if I lose.
Then I would advice you to get behind or propose your own solutions that can get the community backing behind it. Godspeed to you. It’s a lot of work. It’s a LOT of work. A lot of messaging users here. A lot of personalizing each message so the forum’s spam filters don’t time you out. A lot of hunting down users on other platforms, and getting mods on other community spaces to allow you to post and cross checking forum names and figuring out what people go by on other platforms and messaging them. I know, I’ve done it. A lot of sending out drops of tiny to our entire governance list with links.
A A shout out to an official discord with usually a few hundred at least online at any given time and nearly 6k members total. And it STILL took months to whip 50 votes.
Just look at this past farming rewards vote for another example:
A little over 1% of govs voted to distribute farm rewards for next period.
One. Percent. You say farming rewards are one of our most important features yet Governance as a whole sure looks an awfully lot like they don’t care about farming rewards at all tbh, and I fully expect a few thousand govs will unlock, sell, and leave immediately once their lock time expire based on their inactively. Something we discussed on your other thread.
I’m personally ok if they sell and leave once they unlock. I’d much rather have say 100, 200, govs locked who are activeand participating, than say, 98% out of nearly 4,000 govs that don’t bother to show up.Than say the 95% of govs that don’t bother to check in and vote on proposals. Than the thousands of govs who don’t bother to vote in farming reward distributions that we have around the same time every month. Decentralized governance means nothing if that governance is not committed, especially through the down times.
But if you could whip up those govs? If you could get all of them to just commit to each holding a small portion of their assets in Tiny-paired LPs, of voting their rewards to important Tinyman LPs, of being actively involved even if that mean just stopping in once a week to look at an overview here, of caring even when a market is bad for us all,Then I think that Tinyman could become a titan of Algorand’s defi, and push Algorand up and buffer it’s price action even in bad conditions. 4,000 govs doing just a little, is far better than one whale peeing on us and seeming to think we should think of it as rain and to be grateful for it and get even more hand outs because of it.
You are underestimating good things that have happened because they have happened in a bear market so their true value isn’t yet appreciated. The Buyback & Burn program is the single best proposal that’s passed to date.
Just like this Proposal to extend 6 years means this key utility will be here when the bull market comes and will definitely help us capture more buyers - Gov only tokens do not do well & that is what losing these 2 Key Utilities would reduce TINY to - a Gov only token.
The 60 day unlock I proposed would have aimed at solving this - it was all about getting the reward reduction curve being more aggressive to force activity - people having to come more often to max lock more often to retain the full power of their TINY - more activity = more visits = more trading.
And, it would have got people locking who don’t have the risk appetite to lock for 4 years by making it something more pallatable.
But whatever, that one, people didn’t see the vision, so I dropped it.
I have proposed as I said the 60 day unlock, people don’t see the vision, whatever - I drop it.
I have proposed this solution as it’s more obvious to see the detriment of losing 2 key utilities and people are behind it by and large.
The activity on this forum is just not significant - however, I am confident if it goes on chain it will become visible to atleast 100-200 active Governors and it will easily win the vote.
That’s why I have been contacting @kaan & @EricTinyman to try and get it to an onchain vote.
The way it would work has fully been broken down already in this thread:
You are free not to. I mean buying a few 100k Algo for any reason in this market a lot of people would call you crazy. But you do have the option just not to lock. That’s fine. There’s plenty of other places to park tiny offering decent yields and more flexibility.
As I’ve said before, no one at this point should really be locking tiny for governance reward APR alone – that’s insane and you are almost certainly better off taking your tiny to important tiny LPs and farming and earning a return with fees. Tiny/USDC offers almost 40% atm and is liquid. For me, and for the long-term benefit of Tinyman I park my tiny, help absorb sell pressure, typically funnel my voting power to said LP. Rinse/repeat till it’s large enough that I withdraw all as Tiny, and boost my tiny-power in Governance with it. Use that tinypower to boost the tiny/usdc LP, build up the LP again by putting my farming and governance rewards to it, withdraw all as tiny, lock it.
Pairing tiny with talgo is also a GREAT idea if you want to support the platform as it boostsTinyman’s share of staking rewards. Personally I’d like to see Tinyman as the largest single staking solution among Algorand’s LST’s, and those tAlgo paired with tiny in our LPs. I think that would be absolutely fantastic for the platform and Algorand. I’d love to see our talgo/tiny LP at 3x the size of algo/tiny. I wish talgo/tiny had the depth of liquidity of algo/usdc (and personally not have only a few people hold the pool, because I don’t think it’s healthy for one user to do that).
It’s a big reason I push for things that could expand Tinyman’s revenue beyond JUST fees. We cannot and should not plan long term for that. We need to figure out other ways to boost our treasury, ideally I’d like to have a future where Tinyman can function very well regardless of whatever a few BTC whales, or a president, or a single gov does on any random Tuesday. It’s also why I push for things like deeping our ties to other defi partners – we are stronger together and when appropriate we should seek out ways to come to mutually useful agreements.
Then I suggest you start sending out a LOT of algo messages to our tinygovs, and send out a LOT of messages via the PM system here and a LOT of working other forums and areas our partner platforms frequent to draw eyes to it.
It’s ABSOLUTELY maddening. It takes FOREVER. It’s spending many, many, many many, many hours whipping up votes here. It’s frustrating, it’s exhausting, it’s kinda disheartening. And sometimes you do all that for nothing to come of it, or for it to be tabled, or not be able to be done in our current environment. Then you come up with something else, and you do it ALL over again.
I suggest you stay active in our discord, and (kindly) stalk people who reply to our x account asking them to pop over and vote. Hell I’ve basically begged. I’m what, 0/3 on proposals passing atm? And only one of them even got on chain and even then barely anyone bothered to log in and notice there was a vote happening.
Heck I got blacklisted by an overly aggressive filter as a spam account for trying to lure kedmd.algo back into the fold just recently, then had to go around trying to figure out how to get removed so anyone could see my messages.
Of note if you try to send messages via the PM system: A) the system will time you out if your messages are not unique enough, so no copy-and-pasting the same message to govs ya gotta tweak them so they’ll get past the filter. B) then you gott*a hope they actually pop in and see it. C) you gotta keep track of who you have and have not sent a message to already.
*
It. Takes. Forever.
But I’ve done it.
You also have pointed out one very key flaw in the forum vote:
A few people can effectively veto your proposal just by not voting at all and withholding you getting to the 50-vote threshold.
Which is why I proposed some changes to this:
Interestingly you voted agaisnt these initiatives.
Of note you keep saying farming rewards are one of Tinyman’s key things, but Tinyman Govs would disagree.
One Percent voted in the last distribution. One Percent. Most of governance does not seem to care about rewards distributions, and they provide a very, very, lackluster incentive to lock tokens in LPs. Farming rewards do not determine liquidity in a project. Even just a CASUAL look at our LPs will show that. They do not drive liquidity to pairings.
Tiny/Algo: $31k locked farming, Farm rewards: 5.40% Only 64% of the LP is farming. Tiny/tAlgo: $11.9k locked farming, Farm rewards: 9.15% Only 52.95% farming.
Tiny/usdc: $8,161 locked farming, Farm rewards: 18.54% Only 72% is in the farm goETH / goBTC: $16k locked farming, Farm rewards: 0.31% Only 45% is in the farm. Folks/Aglo: $30k locked farming, Farm rewards 1.27% Only 25.41% is in the farm. Botsy/algo: $7,957 farming, Farm rewards 58.89% Only 52.03% is in the farm.
gobtc/Algo: $39,786.86 farming. Farm rewards: 0.10% Only 31.23% of the LP is in the farm.
Farm and Gov Rewards are a significant reason holders buy and lock TINY.
Its clear to see even at a glance 100M of the Total 200M TINY power voted for the most recent farms even in the depth of a bear market.
That is 50% of the ENTIRE TINY POWER. 50% of our entire BUY pressure.
The majority of the remaining 50% didnt vote because they have probably given up on TINY and are not even active at all anymore, as can be seen by the inactivity in this forum.
That is why it is critical to try get this one on chain - even if it gets rejected (which I highly doubt because imo its a no brainer to retain 2 key utilities - I am extremely surprised that even one person is against it) at least an onchain vote gets people excited about TINY and participating.
We cant get more than 20 people to be active via voting on this Forum OR more than 5 typing something - with the Governance vote we activate at least 100-200 people to get involved.
You hadn’t voted on it as of a few days ago, but you did vote on the other proposals.
I know because I thought it a weird one to skip.
If you want to get the proposal on chain, whip the votes. Do the hard work of dragging people back to the forums. Go get a list of our govs and start messaging them with your algorand account.
edit
Also of note:
You can infact get the votes. It’s just a LOT of effort. I’d get to work messaging people on the forums and on chain personally. And that was not that long ago ---- the forum is as relatively dead now as it was then.
I guess there’s special circumstances if a proposal is good @EricTinyman@kaan & there is some leeway in the understanding that this is a bear market and could be virtually impossible to get the threshold votes?
My investment fund did. I was a young gov then, I made some mistakes. My original poll was to gage interests on my idea. Gather information. Reform it.
Roam started another poll burried further down the thread, months after that vote started, so to get it passed, we had to round up an entire new vote AND get them to the correct poll. (Idealy a new post should have been made in the “Governance Proposals” category as it’s own thing with a link to the discussion post.)
Worst still, this was months after I had first floated the idea so we had to get the ball rolling again.
Then came the hundreds, of hundred, of hundreds of messages sent. Of getting eyes on it in the official algorand forum, on reddit spaces, I even managed to get a then-Algorand employee to re-tweet it for a visibility boost.
I myself didn’t post a poll because I was still unsure if I’d done the format right as I was still relatively new to the forum and procedures. I didn’t even know we had a discord at the time.
Notable I did not ask the Tiny team to put thr last proposal on the Folks Tiny deposit on chain. I was busy already starting on the individual messaging on forums and on chain to get the eyeballs to the proposal to vote.
Like I said, it’s a lot of work. Part of me dreaded it. There was a lot of apprehension in me. But I started non the less.
Thanks @TinyGovernor — same as in #16, this is not going on-chain as written.
Folks was a small, fully specified $1k pilot. We said in that thread we would submit it. This thread is a treasury move of 83.8M TINY, including treasury2. That is a different decision. Forum poll count is not TINY Power, and Folks is not the bar for a reserve this size.
Locking the full 83.8M into years 5–10 would turn the main remaining TINY reserve into emissions. Fees fund operations. That reserve is optionality for keeping the product solid and for any later spend that clearly pays for itself. We will not commit it to a six-year rewards schedule while demand to absorb unlocks is weak.
Allocation of those wallets stays TBD. We will not move 83.8M into govrewards / farmrewards. If someone later posts specific on-chain text — wallet-by-wallet amounts, year-by-year split, no current-APY raise, and what remains for ops — the team will review it.
Please keep this thread on the treasury question. Wallet-level arguments don’t change the process.
I have already shared that above though - year by year split and the APY does not increase year by year, it decreases post year 4 - and remains a flat consistent emission from year 5 to 10.
treasury 3 and treasury 1 remains for Ops which is still 160M TINY.
treasury1 and treasury3 would stay it would not turn all remaining Reserve into emissions.
I guess the team also needs to ask itself with 2 key utilities gone - what purpose to buy TINY other than Governance voting?
And if good proposals don’t make Governance votes because they get gatekept from going to on chain votes for fear of them winning? What is the purpose of even having Governance Power - it’s basically an illusion of Governance as well and the tokens are worthless.
They are neither Governance nor utility tokens at that point.
The other question is - is it better to have 250MTINY in Treasury that trends towards 0 value & can never be sold for what you think it can, because there is no liquidity as there is no reason left to buy TINY?
OR is it better to give up the 83.8M TINY to secure two key utilities and have 170M TINY that have buy pressure and can be sold for real value.
The idea that the emissions are greater than amount purchased to lock for 4 years is unrealistic.
Is there any Governor who could recoup their initial ALGO or USDC investment in TINY locked for 4 years via the emissions they receive? Not even 1/10th of the value they locked and invested, even if they sell every farm and gov reward.
That means 9/10ths of that buy pressure initially to lock go back to those holding liquid TINY that can sell at any given moment.
So the existence of Emission causes buys & locks that skew greatly in the favour of existing TINY holders i.e. the Treasury Wallets.
My opinion is better to have 170M left in the Treasury that can take liquidity up to $1,000,000 or more over the next 6-8 years.
Then a Treasury with 250M left that cannot even extract more than $37,000 at time of writing, because the buy pressure completely dries up.
The utlitles will not be “gone”, rewards (and thus emissions) will just be lower.
This is plainly false as most govs don’t even bother to vote in farming distributions.
Again just look at the data:
One Percent voted in the last distribution. Just one percent of all govs.
As I stated before:
Most of governance does not seem to care about rewards distributions, and they provide a very, very, lackluster incentive to lock tokens in LPs. Farming rewards do not determine liquidity in a project. Even just a CASUAL look at our LPs will show that. They do not drive liquidity to pairings.
You can look at the pairings yourself, here is a listing of some of the larger/well known pairings them:*
Tiny/Algo: $31k locked farming, Farm rewards: 5.40% Only 64% of the LP is farming. Tiny/tAlgo: $11.9k locked farming, Farm rewards: 9.15% Only 52.95% farming.
Tiny/usdc: $8,161 locked farming, Farm rewards: 18.54% Only 72% is in the farm goETH / goBTC: $16k locked farming, Farm rewards: 0.31% Only 45% is in the farm. Folks/Aglo: $30k locked farming, Farm rewards 1.27% Only 25.41% is in the farm. Botsy/algo: $7,957 farming, Farm rewards 58.89% Only 52.03% is in the farm.
gobtc/Algo: $39,786.86 farming. Farm rewards: 0.10% Only 31.23% of the LP is in the farm.
**
You cannot, by looking at the data, claim with any confidence that tiny farms drive much of anything. No one is attracted to LPs just for farming rewards. To many don’t even bother to farm if one is active at all. Because I’ve certainly tried to whip up support in LPs via throwing my support behind pairs with little actual success. What usually happens is I just end up farming said tiny myself and just recommit it back into the pool, much like I have done with tiny/gobtc, tiny/usdc, and tiny/talgo in the past.
A large part of my Tiny power has come from backing Tiny-paired LPs who’s yeild outpaced the return on governance APR, then withdrawing as 300k-400k Tiny and locking it. Over half of my Tiny power was built this way.**
Opinion, not a fact. Again in state like we have currently in digital assets, when 95% of govs never even bother to vote in farm distributions, what’s the point in having a vote at all?
For me, I’m content to wait until the tilde-wave of VC selling and likely dumping of Tiny by some of our older govs once unlocks come up is over and hopefully we have a far leaner governance pool, but at least a group of people that are more dedicated to the platform.
Is there any Governor who could recoup their initial ALGO or USDC investment in TINY locked for 4 years via the emissions they receive? Not even 1/10th of the value they locked and invested, even if they sell every farm and gov reward.
I’m quite content with building my tinypower as I have so far, and once VC’s are out I believe my farming and gov rewards will be worth significantly more, especially given that a low tiny price means even more burned with our BBB program-- which helps offset decreased user activity.
Even at us JUST getting back to our ATH I’d make many times over my total cash investment in the entire algorand ecosystem just based on what is in my gov vault, and I’ve got 3 years and 10 days left currently before that’s touchable. Heck just the total tiny I’ve earned to-date in governance rewards sold at our ATH would be worth a decent pile of cash.
As I recall you said yourself you farmed BOTSY/ALGO pool for TINY Farm Rewards Right?
This is you below for a second example holding an LP to Farm Tiny Rewards only right?
Seems to be that your statement of “no one is attracted to LPs just for farming rewards” is not true on your own example - you said you accidentally voted for TINY/TINU and you are ONLY holding it to Farm TINY.
I think the BOTSY Chart Disagrees - let’s compare BOTSY (literally the only chart in all of Algorand ecosystem in a persistent uptrend all of 2026) vs. the much famed FOLKS you were saying TINY needs to take a page out of and replicate their success.
FOLKS chart looks like a complete rug pull vs. BOTSY who is a rugninja token with it’s main utility at the moment being farming TINY - completely outperforming the entire eco.
I’d say the data is in - and it firmly supports everything I have been saying.
If I thought throwing more Tiny from a reserve account to governance rewards/farming rewards was an effective method of doing anything I’d back it. Cause that’s kinda my whole bit. How do we get more tiny into and more importantly held-long term in TINY-paired LPs. Farming rewards haven’t really done it so far.
The issue with your premise is the basic premise that securing Governance and Farm rewards right now is absolute necessary thing we must take action on. However, prove it. I don’t think it is. Governance doesn’t seem to think it is atm based on their voting patterns (or lack of them).
The only thing you’ve stated is that you wont lock more without a long-term commitment, but we have no way of knowing how much you have locked period, and it does not matter, because you are of course free to just not buy up more Tiny and lock it. You have that right.
But what you are claiming atm governance rewards and farming rewards are the lifeblood of Tinyman, **and what I’m saying is, without a doubt, the data disagrees -
but I’ll have more data at the end of the September to back this up most likely.**
Then I would advise you to reform your proposal and put it to a forum vote again, and do the hard work of getting the votes and backing here among other community members that have been here for years. I’d advise you to start messaging those members one-on-one. Go to the community. Track them down on twitter, on discord, on Algorand’s forums, on reddit, on-chain. Get those votes.
Governance is it’s key utility — it’s that for any governance token of a project on a chain. Folks. Pow. Tiny. Governance is the point. Our issue (imo) is our governance isn’t exactly active.
You have no proof that Tiny will lose any use case or dump, you are assuming, and the roadmap has gov rewards in place after it’s initial allocation already.
It’s just less each year for the initial four years. So far, despite continuing declining gov rewards and price action for a while, the total tiny locked as only continued to go up. 241.97M locked atm, despite rewards declining and scheduled to continue declining. Despite more and more tiny put in to circulation constantly, via VC unlocks, farm rewards, and gov rewards, the relative total tiny locked stays at about the same, around 40%
I occasionally screenshot the tiny vault status to compare it overtime for my own curiosity. It’s not a formalized dataset, I don’t have specific dates and times and periods I do it like every x weeks or something, but here’s a few data points according to the dates in my folder:
Without your roadmap, total tiny-power went up by about 50M in four months, around what over a 20% increase in total tinypower, about a 2% increase in total govs, and what a 25% increase in total tiny locked? So, why is this actually that important? The market seems to disagree with you because people keep buying and locking more Tiny. Notably that lock alone also does not really do anything vs VC selling.
I am a huge ALGO supporter and you cannot imagine the amount of back end work I have done to make TINY one of Algorands/Cryptos breakout tokens for the upcoming cycle.
I will stay loyal and not sell any TINY and HODL to the bitter end.
However, I will scarcely appear in the forum moving forward, but I will still keep my eye out as a major TINY investor from time to time and as someone who would love to see it succeed.
As the old saying goes “you can bring the horse to water, but you cannot make it drink”.
I agree with you that we should think about long-term Tiny future (In fact I brought this topic few times on discord). And voting for farms is the only utility at the moment. So yeah it should be priority №1.
But…as a governor we don’t have control over tokens allocated for “treasury”. Those Tiny are completely up to Tinyman team to decide. It was stated many and we have to accept it.
If they like they may allocate some part for special events farms like we saw for Tiny gov NFTs or sell on open market or allocate them for rewards.
Tinyman team may consult with community via governor vote but that’s all.
I suppose this misunderstanding was the reason why many whales voted against last proposal. They wrongly assumed those tokens will be excluded from governor rewards.
What we can do is to propose to replace buyback & burn program with buyback & allocate for future rewards.
Botsy isn’t exception here. We just have to wait when SHOB whale gets tired of playing with Botsy and sells their tokens.
And I don’t really believe in this VC story - if they supposedly care about ecosystem they wouldn’t pick up useless rug Botsy to support at the first place.
There was also a push of FUD claiming the last proposal was “theft” of “our” rewards, and I to think that the title of the wallet itself may have led to that. Regardless it did make me think that future proposals, even if they pass a vote, get on chain, will need a planned and coordinated campaign to whip votes from those of us that are active. I’d even say that the time period between a proposal passing and going on-chain should be fairly long, with outreach made in advance in Algorand spaces, and perhaps some discussions between members of the Algorand community to help coordinate.
An example of some Fud claiming “theft” :
And I don’t really believe in this VC story - if they supposedly care about ecosystem they wouldn’t pick up useless rug Botsy to support at the first place.
