Entropy Foundation, Supra Ecosystem Fund, General Use of Funds, and the Supra Vision

Governance
1

Quick Disclaimer:
The information provided in this content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Always consult with a qualified professional before making any decisions related to your finances.

FAST SUMMARY:

  1. Funding for at least 3+ years of runway
  2. Strategic focus on building and delivering the most important technologies according to plan
  3. Use of funds discussed and outlined, Token Dashboard to be released in the near future
  4. No sell-offs by the team

AI Audio Summary of this Post! TL;DR

AI Summary, TL;DR
Supra’s recent foundation-related token transfers are part of a transparent, onchain strategy to support long-term ecosystem growth. All transactions are publicly visible and governed by a large multi-signature process that requires approval from multiple guardians. These funds are used solely for ecosystem investments, liquidity provisioning, selective grants, product development, infrastructure, operations, marketing, and legal costs—core needs that every blockchain ecosystem must sustain. A Token Dashboard on SupraScan.io is already in development to provide even deeper transparency into these movements.

Strategically, Supra is entering a major expansion phase as iAssets and the Proof of Efficient Liquidity (PoEL) protocol launch. The iAsset program introduces a three-tiered yield mechanism—staking rewards, DeFi yield from iAssets, and cross-chain automation income—while preserving participants’ original assets. This system creates a self-reinforcing “Value Flywheel”: ecosystem funds seed growth and liquidity, generating onchain activity and protocol fees that fund buybacks of $SUPRA, reduce circulating supply, and drive long-term value. With its integrated L1, oracles, bridge, and automation already live—and products like SupraLiquid, SupraMarket, and cross-chain DeFi protocols on the way—Supra is positioned to become one of the most comprehensive, value-capturing ecosystems in the blockchain space.

Full Post Here:

Hello everyone,
I had wanted to write this over a few days ago but I have been in and out of the clinic for a sports injury from lifting heavy. I’ll be ok, only painful when coughing at the moment!

So this post is in relation to transfers from foundation-related accounts and what the broader strategic next steps are for all stakeholders and the plan forward.

First and foremost, everything is indeed onchain and fully transparent. Details are published here: https://supra.com/academy/supra-token-tokenomics-and-utility/

This said, we listened to your requests for even more detailed transparency and thus have begun working on a Token Dashboard that’ll be visible on SupraScan.io – the work on this began over a month ago. I believe it will be ready within a few weeks to a month from now.

Any foundation-related tokens are only utilized for:

  1. Ecosystem investments (which will go into Fusion Token Vaults benefiting all token holders proportionally)

  2. Ecosystem liquidity provisioning, i.e. providing liquidity for various DEXes or Lending Protocols launching on Supra

  3. Occasional Ecosystem Grants; the foundation mostly does investments over grants, but there are times when a grant is appropriate

  4. Developments of various products and services, think: SupraScan.io , StarKey.app, OpenBlocks.ai, SupraNova.ai, SupraLiquid, Cross-chain DEX, Cross-chain Lending Protocols, and more (I will be expanding upon this and our overall vision for value capture later in this post)

  5. Infrastructure costs, such as Cloud, storage, and compute

  6. Operations

  7. Marketing (this is ramping up soon)

  8. Legal

Moreover, any token movements from the foundation require a very large multi-signature to be signed off on and the threshold to pass the proposal is high. Therefore, you can be assured that any request has been filtered through a large cohort of guardians that must align with the request in order for the transaction to go through. A detailed outline of the use of funds is always provided to foundation guardians; there is never a case where a single actor can push anything through.

Every single ecosystem must support these activities – Supra is not alone here. We have been doing everything we can to ensure we are as efficient as possible with our resources, nonetheless, there are pillar functionalities required for any ecosystem to grow, such as wallet and explorer support, as well as core DeFi primitives required to build a vibrant ecosystem.

We are at a pivotal point in the Supra journey. In fact, more than ever, our fundamentals are better than ever from a technology point of view. We are on the cusp of significant growth as dApps go to market and we bootstrap liquidity and TVL, most of which will begin in earnest as we launch iAssets and Proof of Efficient Liquidity Protocol (PoEL) within 1-2 weeks.

This reminds me of a recent video I saw on Youtube by Jeff Bezos talking about Amazon’s journey. Take a look here for 2 minutes, you’ll see they even had a 95% draw down despite their fundamentals improving, and the market eventually caught up with their “weight”:

Our fundamentals are improving significantly too. Since TGE, we have launched SupraNova.ai and AutoFi, and invented Hydrangea Consensus and Threshold AI Oracle (TAO), both of which are going to a testnet soon. Our onchain transactions and accounts continue to grow, and new dApps are launching as well. Next our iAsset program is going live too, which is the main mechanism in which we believe will kickstart Supra DeFi, and thus revenue capture that’ll be utilized to buy back the $SUPRA token.

As a result, it is reasonable to always expect transfers from foundation, ecosystem fund, and legal/marketing accounts to fund product development, operations, et al. for the lifetime of the project. Every single L1 project needs to do this, whether it is onchain or through discounted, opaque OTC (over the counter deals), there is no free lunch.

Between tokens, cash, and other assets, the foundation has over 3 years of runway at current valuations. The exact breakdown of all our assets wont be disclosed here, as after speaking with the broader team and foundation members, strategically we felt it is best to not share the specific details yet.

We can either sit back and preserve or we can aggressively move forward to bring forth our vision which, to this author’s point of view, is an infrastructure that has the potential to drive the most value creation and thus value capture of all L1s. I’ll elaborate on this in this post here now.

Let’s take this moment to reflect on this to paint the picture of what I mean:

iAssets are launching soon, in a matter of weeks. The amount we can accept initially is capped to under 1/3rd of the value of tokens that are staked to provide Economic Security to Supra L1.

iAssets are minted in the following manner:

  1. Blue chip assets like $Eth, $wBTC, $USDT, $USDC, and eventually assets like $Aave and even $Link, will be able to be brought to Supra via SupraNova.ai and utilized as collateral to borrow $Supra token from our treasury.

  2. $Supra tokens are then staked to node operators, generating block rewards for those that bring their Ethereum assets (and then later other L1 assets we connect to) to Supra. This is the first source of Yield for participants.

  3. At the same time, iAssets, aka iEth, iUSDC, so on, will be minted and available to be put into Supra DeFi protocols, earning protocol revenue and fees. This is the second source of Yield for participants.

  4. The original assets in the Supra Vault on Ethereum can be put into Ethereum DeFi via Supra’s cross-chain Automation, which will ingest Oracle data such as best APYs and allocate those assets accordingly – without human intervention. In exchange, the Vault receives LP (Liquidity Provider) tokens and begins earning yield via Ethereum DeFi. This is the third source of Yield for participants.

  5. To unwind your position, you can redeem your iAsset (i.e. iEth), unstake the $SUPRA that was borrowed against the iAsset, and then via SupraNova.ai’s cross-chain communication protocol, you can obtain equivalent amounts of LP tokens in the Supra Vault on Ethereum. Thereafter, you’d simply bring the respective LP tokens to the DeFi protocols on Ethereum to claim your original asset.

Notice that in this program, you are potentially earning in 3 ways? And all the while, you have control over your original principal! Moreover, the $SUPRA you’re earning via block rewards offers an uncapped upside potential.

This program brings liquidity to Supra in a sustainable manner. Liquidity begets activity. Activity begets value creation and value capture. The fees that can be earned from value capture can be utilized for buybacks. Buybacks, effectively have a downward pressure on the $SUPRA circulating supply, which may increase, over time, Supra’s Fully Dilluted Value (FDV). As Supra’s FDV increases, we can accept more iAssets into the system and the virtuous cycle continues.

Here is a list of potential value capture mechanisms Supra will have in place, and, I would argue, the following is why Supra has incredible potential, since the following are all fee generating opportunities:

  1. Oracle Price Feeds
  2. dVRF (Randomness service)
  3. Automation Service
  4. Cross-chain communication (bridge)
  5. Threshold AI Oracle (TAO)
  6. Smart contract execution
  7. SupraLiquid (Perp Dex)
  8. SupraMarket (Prediction Market)
  9. Dynamic Function Market Maker (DFMM is a cross-chain, Native Asset DEX)
  10. Cross-chain Lending Protocol
  11. AutoArbirtrage (internalizing “good mev” and revenue sharing with dApps)
  12. AutoLiquidations (internalizing “good mev” and revenue sharing with dApps)

(12 or more revenue generators? That’s gotta be the most for any L1!)

The aforementioned are all potentially significant fee generating products and services. Moreover, the fees from these various endevours and protocols will be utilized to buyback $SUPRA tokens to various degrees (as much as possible).

The Value Flywheel is the following:
Foundation and Ecosystem Funds invest into Community dApps and Ecosystem-owned products, furthermore, they participate in liquidity provisioning. These generate onchain activity, which spur economic opportunities and thus value capture. The fees generated can be utilized for buybacks, putting a downward pressure on circulating supply. As supply decreases and onchain activity increases, this may have a positive affect on the $SUPRA FDV, thereby allowing the protocols and infrastructure to accept more iAssets. More iAssets that can be accepted means more assets into Supra DeFi, which means more liquidity, which should beget more activity. And the cycle continues, specifically, as FDV increases, we can continue to accept more iAssets from more Chains, which provides deeper liquidity, which provides a better UX for end consumers, which drives more onchain activity and thus value capture, in order to be utiized for buybacks.

So this is the vision.

This is the Value Flywheel.

This is the purpose of pushing forward.

As you can see, we are close to bringing all the core pieces to market to facilitate this. We have L1, Oracle, Bridge, Automation all live now. iAssets are launching in the next few weeks and we will line up, what I hope will be $100Ms of liquidity to come into Supra step by step in the months ahead. The last few pieces we need in place are reverse bridging from Supra to Ethereum, which should be enabled by mid November range, launching more connections to other L1s, and shipping SupraLiquid (perp DEX), SupraMarket (Prediction Market), Cross-chain DEX, and Cross-chain Lending protocol. All of these will be fee generating and will be utilized to buyback the $SUPRA token. Likely, the plan will be to payback the Foundation 33% of all buybacks over time until their coffers are replenished. The rest of any buybacks thereafter can be placed into the Decentralized Treasury as “Network Owned Liquidity,” which will be controlled by Decentralized Governance, aka all of you.

I’m personally quite excited about this setup. It’ll also be virtually impossible for a competitor to copy!

Finally, I want emphasize that those participating in the iAsset program get to have the wonderful properties of:

  1. You get to keep control of your original principal, i.e. your original $Eth
  2. You can earn through 3 methods (as described above)
  3. You can potentially participate in uncapped upside potential by earning $SUPRA block rewards.

I have not seem a better program than outlined here from my humble point of view.

Let’s discuss this all in more detail in this forum.

P.s.
Team tokens have not been moved. Additionally, teammates can only sell up to 5% of their vested tokens each month starting November 27th, so it will take at least an additional 20 months to fully claim. Founders will have to wait an additional year before they can sell anything, and likewise, they can only be claimed at a maximum of 5% per month then as well.

Speaking for myself… I aint selling any time soon!

12 Likes
2

Very detailed information and I believe this will go a long way to clarifying the obvious questions coming from the community

7 Likes
3

warming up takes more time than the lifting for me now - great post looking forward to the POEL iassets - live on main net soon - PS the ai overview is pretty cool to listen to.

6 Likes
4

I’ll make a lot of points here, from which it should be obvious that on a scale 1 to 10, the way it’s been done so far is (in my opinion) 3.

Some of the points are an economist’s explanation of the true effect of Foundation’s spending has been.

“Helping the community”

Without consultations/polling, there’s no way to know what “helps the community”.

For example, I would argue that burning every single Foundation’s token that would have been spent on dApps would have helped a lot more.

There’s no way to prove which would have been better, although I’d put $1K on my recipe over yours as I’m pretty sure burning 1-2 billion wouldn’t have crushed the price to near ATL.

What needs to be done (and I’m not going to give my full wish-list, this is the bare minimum):

  • Immediate cessation of new spending until standards acceptable to community are in place
  • Team (since I know you won’t let the community see them) review and termination of all funding that’s fais to meet KPIs
  • Report/analysis of spending by category, and which spending did and didn’t meet KPIs
  • Introduction of community-supported KPIs for all future spending
  • Review of harmful agreements that have obviously been in place so far (it’s either that, or negligence in enforcing clauses to protect the Foundation’s, and the Community’s, interests)
  • Commitment to transparency in future spending to maximum level possible. While certain agreements may have NDA or other similar clauses, even now there is no reason why aggregate figures and analyses cannot be made public. We know why they aren’t made public, of course - because it’s not looking good.

“Investments”

If there’s no positive ROI, it’s waste, not an investment.

We don’t even have to ask, since we can tell from the amounts spent vs. dApps we have how poor ROI must have been. Anyway, that money is gone - dumped on CEXes - so that’s that.

Let me also explain how winner-picking by a small committee (or maybe even one person) results in fewer dApps than with 0 spending:

  • Winners are picked and - with poor oversight and virtually no one ever kicked out - they get a long-term edge over all other similar apps
  • Once locked on the Foundation’s teat, the milking goes on as long as possible (evident from what we’ve seen). Even though some of these dApps look hopeless, anyone contemplating the same or similar service has to raise funds at economic prices and has to compete against a subsidized “Supra champ dApp”

The effect of this is diminished competition and worse apps.
It’s CHIPS Act and Intel on Supra’s L1.

If simply nothing was done and the Foundation decision makers spent that time minding actual ecosystem development, we’d have two-way SupraNova, EVM, more dApps and maybe less roadmap delays.

Can anyone seriously claim that the community is do dumb that it can’t figure out which dApp to back/sponsor/invest in?

Ecosystem liquidity provisioning

An economist’s translation: the Foundation helps projects short Supra.

Without this funding, there’s no liquidity of any kind - no Supra, no other coins. A dApp has to find the funding.

So how do they get it? They gets it by opening up for LP’ing and from there it comes in two ways:

  • Community members, VCs, stake own Supra
  • New users buy Supra
  • All LPing participants also need other currencies, which they have (crypto-savings) or acquire (by selling Supra or their fiat currencies)

What this does is:

  • Increases incentives to buy and hold Supra as you get extra yield due to scarcity of funds
  • Increases incentives to bring external crypto-currencies into the system (TVL) as net-new funds for LP-ing, which happens because you can get a higher APR for an asset here due to its relative scarcity on Supra’s L1 (e.g. supUSDC).

But Foundation’s handouts or interest-free lending destroy both of these incentives. The Foundation competes with Supra holders, making it less desirable to hold Supra and even with prospective hodlers, who would have bought if ARPs weren’t crushed.

And it’s not only that. Because LP have half of value in non-Supra currencies, either the Foundation or the recipient dump half of the amount. This is insta-dump that directly crushes the value of our Supra holdings. This doesn’t have to be elaborated upon because we can all see the result in our Starkeys, but it has another, 2nd order effect in that the Foundation’s all remaining tokens lose value when the price drops due to such dumping.

In other words, the Foundation makes an instant and significant loss for itself as well as for every single Supra hodler out there.

Consider this: you have 1 billion Supra, and dump 20 million to “help the community”. The price drops 0.01c. Now your net value of the remaining 998 million is around $100K less. You just lost $100K on your “investment” which was just 20 million Supra.

Net result:

  • Hodlers crushed
  • Foundation crushed
  • Foundation’s ROI is deeply negative
  • Supra L1 TVL isn’t increasing because there’s no point in bringing funds in - the Foundation effectively makes sure LP-ing is not lucrative and due to dumping the price of Supra is dropping faster than any APR you can get

No wonder, in this situation dApps don’t even care to find actual customers - their main focus is on milking the community (through the Foundation). Stay in the system as long as you can, milk as much as you can.

“Other” spending (Occasional Ecosystem Grants, etc.)

Obviously we have no way to know which item is responsible for how much, which is very important in order to have a sense of what may have been wasted and where.

Without knowing the details by category (how much went where) and specifically further breakdowns of top 3 items (e.g. dApps - which one got how much during what period of time), I simply assume colossal waste across the board.

Transparency

Does the Foundation work for the community? If yes, how come we have no say or visibility into what’s going on?

Personally, there’s no way in hell I would give 1 Supra in funding to most dApps the Foundation is funding (this doesn’t mean I wouldn’t invest in some myself, it means I would not invested other people’s money, which is what the Foundation does). But here, no one ever asks. It’s:

  • Do you want to invest more (Citadel)
  • Or highway

When does a funded cause (dApp, or “other”) fail to deliver?
What are the KPIs?
Who’s evaluating these and how come there’s always enough “items” that qualify for more handouts as this runaway spending train doesn’t seem to ever stop?
Why on earth would the Foundation give a dApp resources in exchange for seemingly nothing?
At the same time, there’s 2 good dApps. Hello?

Decision-making

I have no illusion that the community might somehow gain control over or impact the way the Foundation works, but if the Foundation wants any support from the community, urgent decentralization of at least some decision making is required.

At least 3 items - 1, 2 and 3 - must be addressed to maintain some confidence.

  • Analysis of what happened so far, to the maximum that can be disclosed. I not only want to see who milked how much, but also need to know which dApps I need to stop using
  • Future transparency and community’s impact on decision making

It is incredible to me that this (and more) is happening/possible:

  • the Foundation funds projects without getting a stake in them.
  • the Foundation hands out community money through contracts with NDA clauses
  • the Foundation funds projects that have not passed any community scrutiny, then claims it’s for our good
  • Complete lack of failure analysis tells us this either isn’t managed well or all funded projects have been successful and not 1 has failed. Have 100% of all dApps succeeded? If not, what happened with those that failed? Was their funding cut, when and why? Why can’t we have their names? If you contractually obliged yourselves to be unable to disclose, why have you done that? How much did Tamada Fi get before they got cut off and why did the Foundation not sue/clawback?

This list goes on…

Focus

Anyone who looks at the list of categories the Foundation has been spending and has enterprise experience immediately realizes these tasks done right are a full time job.

Which means it is simply impossible to do it right if the same people are also supposed to run Supra. And that shows in both the Foundation’s and Supra’s results so far.

Instead of doing 10 things, “help us” by delivering all of the delayed products. Cease new spending on items 1, 2 and 3 and stop spending time on playing Sim City with community’s money (spending on items 4+ is already more than Supra justifies with its results, I just don’t want to go there).

An assessment of Foundation’s work so far can be delegated to Jon who can look at what went wrong, tell us what happened and work with the community to figure out how people want to have it done (items 1, 2 and 3).

Burn challenge

Let’s have the Foundation burn 100 million Supra by sending it to an un-spendable address and see how much that will hurt us.

How about we burn 20 mil a day for the all of next week?

Summary

From what I understand, I would characterize the work of the Foundation so far as an absolute mess and a disaster.

I am convinced that with one third of worst spending eliminated, the price of Supra would be twice as high today. And that’s the ROI of this black box ops so far: a negative 50% or tens of millions dollars of destroyed value.

5 Likes
5

Thank you for your reply, indeed I can see you’re an Armchair critic. I’m only kind of kidding. I will respond in detail soon, in the meantime:

State your experience, expertise if you have any, and background.

Bonus if you’re willing to disclose your public address on Supra.

1 Like
6

Impressive transparency and strategy. Excited to see how iAssets and PoEL drive the Value Flywheel staking, DeFi yield, and cross-chain automation all in one ecosystem is next-level. $SUPRA is clearly building for long-term growth

5 Likes
7

If you’d join your own discord you might know who this is, he’s not your typical supra airdrop farmer who’s blindly bullish. He’s been the last bull standing actually in the discord, up until recently. Maybe come join us in price discussion for a chat with the actual supra community, not the usual bots on X you have conversations with.

2 Likes
8

We set this forum up so that we can have a permanent record of our discussions together.
And to let search engines index it etc.

This forum will become how Supra ends up distributing decentralized governance. It won’t be based on a plutocracy, aka who owns the most tokens.

Fwiw, would you prefer I spend time talking on discord daily instead of building real technology?

I think this forum needs to become token gated though. I’m going to recommend that.

p.s.
It’s a free, decentralized world. You can just leave if you’re not aligned with our vision.

And tbh, if you don’t understand the vision of what is obviously coming together, even after we give you an AI distillation, you’re not that useful to the future of Supra.

We’re going to start to require folks to prove they at least hold a minimum of a certain amount $Supra in order to start to expect an answer from the core team.

2 Likes
9

I know there may have been paid FUD spreaders so you want make sure that’s not where I’m coming from. This isn’t one of those situations and in any case you can see from Supra Upgrade Proposal (SUP) #1 - #23 by ArmchairAncap the only other time I spoke up was months ago (so, not new) advocating interests of stakeholders (so, a freakin’ Supra hodler!).

I could mention my expertise and experience, but how could that determine who is likely right? We still wouldn’t know. I stated my opinion based on the minimal information what we have. Minimal info equals more off the mark shots, but there’s an easy way to fix that…

Why not do something productive that moves us in the direction of improving Supra’s community’s satisfaction with the Foundation’s work? Even if it’s high (I doubt), why not aim to make it higher?

Perhaps along the lines of what I suggested (it doesn’t have to be exactly like that) - let’s get someone who already has access to all this information and the community knows, spend some time on this. Let him share his and your analysis of what worked, what didn’t, why, get the pulse from the community on it and we continue from there.

Specifically related to my opinion, Jon could simply do an on-chain poll: rate the Foundation spending on items 1-3 by sending 0-1 Supra (1 Supra=best, 0.01 or less = worst).

Then feel free to eliminate all addresses created after October 1st 2025 or with less than 10 transactions and let’s see what the holders think and use all that to improve if improvements are deemed as necessary.

Would that work for the Foundation? It seems less confrontational and more productive than comparing resumes.

Publish an address and let us provide feedback. We’ll vote with our wallets.

You’d get responses from old/proven holders, see how different holders (by address age, amount, number of transactions) think about this situation and you can filter out all the low-reputation addresses. What’s not to like?

That way we get our scientific results from real hodlers and you don’t have to grill any individual community member about their on-chain identity. Not that I mind disclosing it, I’d vote on chain like everyone else, but sharing my wallet address is much less valuable than getting a bigger picture from dozens of stakeholders and improving the way items 1-3 are attended to.

My overall rating (previous comment) was 3 out of 10. How would you and Jon rate the Foundation’s work in categories 1-3 (which are more “public” than the rest)?

In addition to some kind of on-chain poll, Jon could also start new thread(s) here for more detailed feedback on the spending categories 1-3 (although we may get comments from FUD-spreaders or people with nothing at stake).

On a separate topic, why not run similar on-chain polls after every community meeting, to see how proven users and hodlers feel about our progress?

2 Likes
10

I see where you’re coming from, but governance can’t de-incentivize large stakeholders.

Any system that gives disproportional power to smaller wallets is inherently game-able as big stakeholders can disperse their holdings into millions of small wallets to gain power over medium and small voters who have 1-2 wallets. (The next step is usually asking everyone to KYC, so that 1 person = 1 vote, etc. only to end up with 2 million KYC-ed users from some 3rd world country.)

Furthermore, small holders have no economic interest in Supra’s long-term survival and token appreciation. They have little at stake now and they’ll have little at stake in the future.

The project can favor small-to-medium wallets to a degree, but if medium-to-large holders lose significant voting power, it won’t work well… You’ll end up 1,000 noisy micro-stakers voting for any and all spending proposals that can lift the price in the short term, so that they can cash out and move on to the next airdrop campaign.

2 Likes
12

Decentralized Governance is more nuanced than it appears.

Progressive decentralization is likely the best way forward for all infrastructure projects.

We would like to create a Governance Structure, more like the following, over time.

  1. Staked Node Operators have 40% of decision-making.
  2. Other Stakeholders, including even content creators, educators, protocol designers, marketers, dApps, community economists can represent another 40%
  3. Any foundation votes would be for the last 11%. In other words, the only thing a foundation can influence are the tie breakers, all on chain. And depending on the scope, certain decisions may need to be 51% (simple majority), but some may require 67% (super majority).

Let’s all design something better, be smart and respectful to each other.

3 Likes
13

I flat out disagree with your suggestion that the way to drive value in Supra is through token burning and decreased community spending. You are playing the short game, you want your bags pumped to sell to the next guy. The win for the team and the project is to play the long game. When you speak of “results”, if you mean results in terms of token price then sure, not great, but it is a fools game to burn your main L1 token (which is finite in supra and not inflationary beyond the token unlocks) just for a temporary boost in price - which by the way is manipulated by the whale market makers anyway. For someone so focused on token price, one would think you would be more shrewd in understanding how the market makers took advantage of the launch hype.

As far as delivering on milestones, the Supra team has been shipping plenty products successfully and on time with only occasional minor delays. Furthermore additional value must be created through dapps and activity in the ecosystem. A team that doesn’t support it’s dapp ecosystem is an L1 that becomes a ghost town. Only the OG altcoins can get away with that lunacy at this point. The price then follows bullish thereafter. Had anyone bought the Supra token yesterday, looked at what the team is building and the progress that has been made, they would not have any of the complaints you’re making. These complaints appear to be motivated by token price - hence you’re desperate for this burn like it will somehow be the saviour of Supra - and you’ve made many more assumptions on how the team operates without any evidence whatsoever.

I’ve been in the crypto space for a while, but only recently actually getting more involved in community spaces, and one thing I was shocked by was the sense of entitlement there is around every community. People who build nothing and want their bags pumped. People who demand freebies for nothing. People who complain about the way something was done without any details of the project and think they know better (this isn’t directed at you but it could be in this instance :laughing:).

This statement though had me really puzzled “I am convinced that with one third of worst spending eliminated, the price of Supra would be twice as high today”. If it’s a 2x you want in this crypto, or any half decent crypto for that matter, you going to be mind blown from what is about to come… and if you don’t understand how easy a 2x would be from here then you don’t understand how irrelevant your token burn suggestion actually is.

One thing you may have a point on though is how the weighting should be applied to governance. But I won’t go into that here, it’s too much of a rabbit hole.

3 Likes
14

So many people give their opinion from Just the token price and it saddens me. The supra team is doing incredible wellđź’Ż

3 Likes
15

You sound like your wallet is one of the many destinations for our Foundation’s “investments”.

You have no idea how much is being spent on what and why, but you’re against cuts.
That doesn’t make any sense.
Surely at least 1% gets wasted, so why wouldn’t ever community member be interested in cutting that waste and saving 10-20 million Supra every year?

Has Supra so far rewarded you in any way beyond validator staking or vault staking?

You have absolutely no idea what those coins sent to CEX are for, no idea how - within each spending category - they will be spent, and yet you claim it magically benefits us in (of course) the long term. That’s funny.

That’s a laughable claim, but I don’t even want to go there. Let’s just focus on the Foundation (especially spending categories 1-3 that are “public”) and leave roadmap delays for another time: with everything else being equal, would or would not Joshua’s decreased activity in the Foundation (assuming Jon started doing more there) make those “occasional, minor delays” even minorer?

If that would help, the next question is what would be lost by having Jon manage most of the Foundation stuff? I suspect nothing because Jon seems like a competent dude, but we have no clue since we don’t know what’s going on - all because we can’t get the info.

I say I don’t want anything from the Foundation except to let us know what’s going on with our community’s funds and let us vote on its work (even if it’s only advisory - let them be on the record for overriding our vote, so that when we call them out they can’t hide behind NDAs and “high level overviews”).
You say you want handouts, which means spending, which requires dumping, which crushes the price, which decimates Foundation’s foundations. And I am the entitled one?

Why are we even discussing all this when we don’t have any relevant information?
If they won’t let us know and change how they make decisions and spend community’s money, so be it!

I just wanted to make my opinion known, so that they can’t tell us they had no idea it wouldn’t work or “how no one was against”.

@Meditrade are you in any way compensated or rewarded for making these highly unusual comments?

16

They didnt promise to reward me anything. What makes you think I or anyone else deserve to be rewarded anyway? This is exactly what I was talking about on entitlement. As long as the team is developing the products they have outlined I’m satisfied. Delays are perfectly normal in software development especially on projects of this nature. A few extra months of waiting isn’t a problem. Ethereum and Cardano had several years of delay on products even.

You do not plan waste. If you knew it would be waste you wouldn’t have planned for it. Community involvement is good but I’d rather the team set out their plan in what they believe. Running things past the community is too slow and they are the experts in the field anyway.

There’s a lot of what you posted I disagree with and I’d just be reiterating myself at this point. Though I don’t disagree that increased transparency of funds and of development is a good thing, I only ask by what metric are you judging the Supra team on? Because most projects out there in crypto don’t even meet the transparency of Supra, nevermind this auditing of how many paper clips Josh bought on the company’s money you seem to be expecting.

17

They don’t give us anything, so what are community members expected to do?
Not form an opinion and play along?

Of course, we judge them on perceived costs and benefits. From what we can see, costs have been very significant (and we know that only because they couldn’t hide it - it’s on chain).
But we don’t even know what per-category breakdowns are (another layer of useful obfuscation), let alone anything else.

On the benefits side, there’s literally 2-3 good apps, several delays, several failures and at least one likely scam (no clawback or suit filed to recover our funds, according to what hasn’t been shared which is nothing) after years of “investing”.

Even within this “dApps” category, we have no idea which one cost how much, so how can you have an opinion on whether the funds some of them got were too little or too much?

Why can’t we know how much funding went to scams and failures, for how long and when it was cut?

And what is the justification for this multi-layered obfuscation on every possible level (categories, analysis by outcome, analysis by time (including planned spending))?

It doesn’t matter how I judge Supra. This topic is about the effectiveness and (lack of) transparency of the Foundation’s spending. Both Joshua and Jon happen to be officers there, so this is unrelated from Supra the company, Supra’s roadmap, etc.

If you don’t disagree on the matter of transparency (our topic here), why not state what improvements in this area you’d like to see and we can discuss other things elsewhere?

18

First of all, thanks @jtobkin for the transparency push and the comprehensive explanations. The implementation of a token dashboard for a more transparent vesting schedule and the outlining of the different uses of the tokens governed by the foundations is much appreciated.

This gives us a good insight into the responsibilities that have to be fulfilled and in which way tokens might be used or deployed.

I am all for transparency - up to a limit. When daily operations are impacted, just to do everything transparently as some request, then more important tasks will get pushed back. So I don’t agree with you @ArmchairAncap, that all kinds of spending should be stopped immediately and every little nook and cranny should be turned over to identify any in your eyes unnecessary spending. Running operations need to be paid for, incentives need to be set to grow the ecosystem and funds need to be moved to bootstrap and increase liquidity. You’re welcome to try and go to any other Crypto project and demand the same - the most you might get is a report once a year or so.

So yeah, the foundation could do an audit on spendings like once or twice a year and report on funded operations and also failed investments/grants (e.g. Tamata) - but we also need to see the bigger picture here. Supra Labs and the foundation are a big construct with many people, several teams on research, development, relations, marketing and more. If we expect a post mortem for every transaction taken, then we might as well just move on, because we would never see the end of it.

The token has taken quite a few hard hits by outside attacks (organized FUD, indiscriminate market selling, exchange Marketmaker games), sentiment turning sour, market sentiment being on a downturn for a long time, … - and I think we can all agree that the token performance is the main cause of the bad mood for many. Now everyone is trying to point fingers and blaming the CEO, the team and the other guys mother.

But we should at the same time look at what Supra is delivering. The team is working hard in the background bringing together all the different parts to bring the vision to life. The roadmap is being followed through and features are delivered.

Sure not everything was done perfectly and some things might even have backfired or gotten delayed. But so is the nature of active development.

So I thank the team for following through, for trying to be more transparent and listening to feedback and hope we all can one day celebrate that we gotten through these trying times.

And to preempt the question: I am in no way paid or compensated or rewarded. All I got so far was heartfelt thanks. I am a private investor and also invested in some nodes and just trying to help out with feedback and testing - other than that I have no relation to the team.

2 Likes
19

I limited my asks to categories 1-3 from the top. My ask verbatim:

Cease new spending on items 1, 2 and 3

  • Ecosystem investments (which will go into Fusion Token Vaults)
  • Ecosystem liquidity provisioning
  • Occasional Ecosystem Grants

The first one is investments, which hasn’t worked well (to put it mildly) and needs a review and feedback/mandate from the community. The second is dumping Supra to raise other cryptos. The third one is irregular (hard to think suspending it until the community votes on it would cause damage).

Given the Foundation’s success rate with “investments” and the obvious impact of items 2 and 3 on the price, it’s hard to imagine that a temporary suspension of new spending could negatively impact us until a review/report is done and feedback collected. If anything it would boost the price because seeing how well it’s done, we’d all increase our Supra bags.

If the Foundation wanted to do it, we’d be 70% done now as they could have provided this info in 1-2 days and we’d be half-way done in providing feedback.

I was very specific regarding categories 1-3 because, while I suspect other categories may contain even worse news, they may be less “public”, have a bigger impact on Supra operations and have a non-discretionary nature. Didn’t ask for those.

20

So you, too, concede some fraction of the spending on items 1-3 was likely wasted, but don’t want to know which, how much, why, and how to avoid it?

1 Like
21

What specifically are you referring to?

What are the examples you’re alluding to?