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

Governance
22

I already referred to specific examples in my first comment.

  1. How much was given to Tamada Fi and whether the Foundation attempted to claw back or sue (depending on termination cause)?

  2. In categories 1-3, how much was given to other projects that never made it to Mainnet?

  3. What KPIs does the Foundation set, how are they reviewed, how do these timelines work?

Example: SupraLend a.k.a. “this is where real DeFi on Supra begins” (https://x.com/supralend/status/1938608712446566752). Funny enough, this is where it ended as they’ve never posted anything since they hit that “milestone” of … nothingness.
Other projects as well.
We’d also like to know if Pixudi was getting funds since 2022, for example.

image
image616×457 46.5 KB

How many projects were terminated due to failing to reach milestones, how much was spent on that, and who was in charge of reviewing them?

And so on, and so forth…

From the very beginnning I compromised by asking for the least sensitive and most (what ought to be) public parts while not even commenting on what’s probably the largest and most “sensitive” categories (4 and beyond).

You’re asking me about these minimal requests as if it’s something unheard of.

We want to know nothing more than all transparent Foundations publish without anyone having to ask for it.

Even some large and pretty terribly managed (crypto) Foundations account for every penny spent (they waste a lot, but it’s transparent and the community decides).

Decentralized Treasury was a big item (big enough to make it to this August roadmap), but now asking to let us use it makes me a saboteur. :person_shrugging:

image
image733×387 14.1 KB

Or was that feature meant for something that doesn’t impact the important work that the Foundation does?

1 Like
23

This is a slightly more constructive approach, and I’m on your side in regards to transparency. I just disagree with the way you’ve gone about this. I’d suggest

a) don’t come here implying funds are deliberately being wasted without care
b) don’t come here all pissy about the token price and demand burns to fix it
c) don’t act like you are an authority on what is being done wrong without any knowledge of internals

A constructive debate on transparency and auditing is healthy, but also some things are best kept private. A generalised overview on spending would be a good thing. I’d just rather the team focus on building than wasting time proving themselves to pissed investors because the token price is down. Do you want them to create value or not? Because things like this slow the team down.

1 Like
24

I implied that because many of us in the community tried to get more information which didn’t work, so we made educated estimates based on the information available.

Even now - after all these “he said, she said” interations - we can’t get any information.
Do you think an undecided reader reading this thinks due care was fully exercised? I think the average person would thin “if it was done right, we’d have the details by now”.

Examples of of these dellusional points I’ve raised:

  • Our Foundation’s leadership (at least Joshua, I don’t remember if Jon commented) posted on X that Tamada Fi violated the spirit (and seemingly more) of the agreement and their funding was cut. How much was given? What was done to clawback/recover those funds? If nothing, why weren’t the agreements created to better protect the community?
  • Did “builders” such as SupraLend (they haven’t delivered anything, hence the quotes) receive any funding, and why? Have they been terminated or are they still getting funded?
  • How many builders have receive funding since TGE, how many failed to hit mainnet, and how much was lost that way?
  • How many are seriously behind schedule (> 1Q) due to own issues and why are they still being funded?

You can’t tell me nothing was lost, because we’ve not received any updates on funds recovery from anyone, so I assume those were just written off. Water under the bridge.

And after a year (if not years, but no one outside the Foundation has any clue) barely a half a dozen apps made it to Mainnet (and some after crazy delays, which begs even more questions).

Are you claiming nothing has been wasted?
Or that the waste was “minor”? But how would you even know?

Why not?

That is exactly how I would vote if Supra’s (checks the notes) “Decentralized Network Owned Treasury” promised for August was made available to me!

Many of us are an authority on what’s being hidden from us: everything.
Knowing that, one doesn’t assume funds were spent with great care.

I see, we’re back to “trust me bro”.
Bbbut, what was Network Owned Treasury supposed to do?
Was it meant to remain a Testnet dApp, so that those pesky, unreliable hodlers can’t harm the project in the real world?

One additional comment about the direction of this thread/topic.
Eeryone who agrees with SupraDaddy: guys, give up! You can’t win this argument unless you can show how this way of running a crypto Foundation is common among Top 50 cryptos.
Even if someone “proves” my arguments were wrong and post full of misguided guesses, the fact remains - we don’t have any idea what’s going on.

That’s the only thing the hodlers who read this are interested in.

1 Like
25

I’ll make this my last post because the points have been made. Some of your points on transparency are reasonable, but some of your points I thought were plain stupid. Quite clearly you have no knowledge of markets and how to create value for example.

As a startup you have to take risks to win, and those risks are better revealed further down the line when you’re more established. Programs like the fused token offering are steps toward aligning accountability with the community in the ways you are asking. I think they learned from being burned and this is an example of actions taken to prevent this from happening again. Do we really need to know the specifics? I don’t see how that in any way is useful.

1 Like
26

Decentralized treasury will be seeded through on-chain value capture like our “AutoBalancer” – aka, AutoArbitrate and AutoLiquidations. We’ll begin to share more on these (dashboard and all) in literally weeks from now (3-5 weeks range).

Moreover, it will be seeded from foundation and ecosystem fund.

But we don’t have good enough, stable decentralized governance yet to just let any random community members control it etc.

The current governance we have is dApps and Node Operators.

Once we roll out the decentralized treasury, aka Network Owned Liquidity, it’ll only be managed by dApps and node operators initially – that’s the only form of governance we have atm.

If it was purely based on tokens, foundation and team would dominate all decisions. So we have taken ourselves out of that equation for now.

Decentralizing Supra will be a process, we are already beginning to progressively move in this direction.

2 Likes
27

re: Tamada,
not more than a few tranches.

re: In categories 1-3, how much was given to other projects that never made it to Mainnet?
Anyone getting any investment is either on their way to mainnet or live already. Investments are done by committee and also in tranches based on milestones.

re: What KPIs does the Foundation set, how are they reviewed, how do these timelines work?
The investment committee meets with these projects monthly. Payments are dispersed monthly or quarterly.

Projects have to continue to ship in order to continue to receive ecosystem investments, which are paid out in tranches. Each deal has their own terms.

Moreover, these tokens will be put into FTO (Fusion Token Vaults).

1 Like
28

I agree, and being more of a tech- than governance-geek, I am not a big fan of spending my time on deep diving into this.
I hope Jon and others can take some of that work, which would give you more time to work on products.
Much of this work would consist reviewing how others do it and seeing what’s suitable or preferred here.

Good.

Suggestions related to decentralization and voting:

  • Early experimentation with low-risk decisions would be highly beneficial and we’d learn from it quickly. I’d love to have someone like Jon or another person be dedicated to this
  • On-chain: even if just advisory voting (along the lines of what I mentioned above) is quickly introduced, the Foundation would be able to see what confirmed users would like. It wouldn’t make anything happen (or not happen), but it’d be a clear message
  • Participation: if TAO (once available) allows that, gamify governance to increase participation. This can be done without TAO, of course, but I think TAO could make fun and be a good way to promote TAO itself

There are many things that could be done, some less, some more important or pressing, but in all scenarios it takes a lot of time and it provides an important feedback mechanism. We may disagree the price (of our token) doesn’t do that, but then we need to have a sense of urgency to find other valid mechanisms… It’d serve us well if Jon or some “task force” took care of all that while you focus on products in this key quarter.

29

Why don’t you Dox yourself and join Supra?

1 Like
30

Foundation probably would want to interview you. Fwiw.

1 Like
31

I’m already active (not just as a critic - as a user, evangelist and small-time builder), just not as much as I’d like due to my day job workload.

Thank you, I’l consider it!

32

I think you can learn a lot by giving yourself transparently to missions that are hardcore computer science, meets economics, meets governance, meets real world impact. Fair, sustainable, well structured.

2 Likes