ASR has been an awesome six-month experiment. There’s been incredible governance discussions across the board, and I learned a lot from everyone. Those who participate are very engaged: we see a lot of repeated names and valuable community members: Nate, Gian, PBear, DoubleU, cho, Lucio Tamino, Johnny the Clown, Fwog Ross, James Hanley, and many more. I want to give extra kudos to @pbear who took the incredible effort to write ASR Program - Continuation and Optimization .
However, there are some serious issues we’ve identified in this past few months. I believe CLOUD staking and ASR need to change a lot going forward, and I would like to take this to the community.
The shortcomings of ASR
We’ve noticed a few things:
Proposals take up a lot of time and compete with higher-priority strategic initiatives
We have found that the proposal draft, community consultation, iteration and voting process is very costly in terms of valuable team resources (time and focus) — this competes with higher priority strategic initiatives like building new products or improving existing ones. Eno for example prepares a LOT for each Forecast appearance, and that time could potentially be better used closing a big institutional client for example.
Even though the effort for proposals is extremely high, the ROI is unclear: we brought in approximately 2,000 Unique voter addresses across CLOUD 01 - CLOUD 05. But ASR cost 30 million CLOUD. While this did reward our existing holders, this did not help to bring new people into Sanctum.
Futarchy also seems to be quite complicated to many, despite our best efforts to simplify it. Even many who understood it did not like it; they didn’t appreciate having to trade CLOUD to be part of ASR. Many members pointed out that all CLOUD holders deserve to be recognised, not just the ones who participate in trading the futarchic markets.
Today’s ASR fragments the community instead of uniting it
Community sentiment appears not to have strengthened as a result of ASR. We have observed that the governance and voting process tends to make people more polarised and emotional (noting in particular CLOUD-05 governance discussion).
Additionally our current governance proposal process creates a false distinction between “what the team wants” versus “what the community wants”. When really, the original intention was to draft high-quality proposals together.
The amount of ASR is way too high
ETH stakers can expect to earn 3-4% APY on staking ETH.
SOL stakers can expect to earn 7-10% APY on staking SOL.
Would you like to guess what the APY is for staking CLOUD?
Let’s use this staker BQ1x3makDzjv6pwJaniEGL9qN7JdLSZe3oWddyF9o664 as a case study:
Staked 5,400,863.37 on 07:04:54 Feb 22, 2025 (UTC)
Claimed ASR-1 rewards 2,684,045.48 in ASR 1 and did not unstake.
Will receive 2,824,064.43 in upcoming ASR 2 claim.
The ASR season ended August 24, 2025. That is an effective APY of 202%.
Again, ETH stakers earn 3-4%; SOL stakers earn 7-10%.
I hope everyone can see that this ASR is insanely generous. This staker started with 5.4M CLOUD and ended with 10.9M CLOUD. He doubled his CLOUD in 6 months!
This is way too high — in fact, around an order of magnitude (10x) too high. For the purposes of incentivising governance, CLOUD holders are overpaying. In the long-term, this is actually bad for token holders: insane dilution can result in very negative price action which spooks potential new CLOUD holders.
Fixed ASR periods force the team to put up proposals even when they are not needed
A fixed ASR period of e.g. 3 months forces the team to put up proposals even when they are not needed.
Governance is here to stay — it is needed to approve any spending of CLOUD from the Community Reserve. That is a critical responsibility. But if there is nothing that needs a vote for 3 months, that should be OK.
Immediate implications
We do not foresee ASR continuing in its present form for subsequent seasons due to the above reasons.
That means that you should not expect any additional staking rewards from holding sCLOUD over CLOUD in the next three or six months or potentially even longer. We understand that staking CLOUD comes with an opportunity cost. If your long-term outlook aligns with the time we need to rearchitect ASR, we’d love for you to stay staked. But we understand if you need to unstake until we can provide more clarity.
I understand that this may come as a disappointment to many, but we have very generously rewarded ASR participants for the period that was communicated already. Admittedly, this should have been communicated earlier, and I apologise for that.
What should take the place of ASR instead?
We know that we do not want a repeat of the existing ASR. But what should take the place of ASR instead? I believe we should hit reset for now and build something new, something that lays a strong foundation we can build on.
Sanctum Loyalty Layer
At present, we’re thinking of replacing ASR with something we are calling the Sanctum Loyalty Layer.
Sanctum has built the liquidity layer, can we now build the loyalty layer?
We are thinking that the Sanctum Loyalty Layer will be a lifetime score for holding and staking CLOUD, although we may have “seasonal points” that reset so that newcomers feel welcomed too.
We are still ironing out the details, but we envision the Sanctum Loyalty Layer to be the foundation for future campaigns (for example, Wonderland).
Above all, we want this system to make people feel their ongoing contributions aren’t forgotten and those who stick around to continually support Sanctum’s mission should feel that recognition.
The loyalty layer should ideally be a collaboration between team community. I see it as: team building the foundational layer, community votes for and approves CLOUD emissions that maximally grow the community and reward loyal members.
Here are some of our ideas for what and how the Sanctum Loyalty Layer could reward: I would LOVE the community’s comments and suggestions on this, as this is from the community, for the community.
1. Incentivising new and existing product launches?
The obvious one: introducing the Loyalty Layer gives us a strong base on which to build short-term marketing campaigns with boosts, bonus incentives and badges should Sanctum decide to push more into retail-focused user experiences and products (i.e. Wonderland S2).
Campaigns like “Deposit into INF” would onboard new users onto the Loyalty Layer and the Loyalty Layer would be a way to reward both new and loyal users alike.
2. Sanctum Ambassador Program?
Over the past few months we have improved how we communicate with CLOUD holders; you may have noticed the Sanctum Quarterly, for example. Going forward we will be doing a much better job of explaining what we’re focused on.
Now that the vision of Sanctum is clearer, we have clarified Sanctum V2 (which lays out our product suite, value capture strategy, and what CLOUD stands for), and the protocol is stronger than ever before, I would like to potentially explore an Ambassador Program. What does it look like to be a Sanctum Ambassador? What are the roles and responsibilities of an Ambassador? How can we identify and reward good Ambassadors? etc.
3. Exclusive benefits for top scorers?
On the team side we could maybe do things like the following:
regular calls for high-scoring Sanctum Loyalty members?
early invites to new beta products Sanctum builds?
exclusive invites to private Sanctum events as and when we hold them?
seasonal merch drops (christmas cards, lunar new year, etc.)?
What ideas do you guys have on how we can meaningfully reward community members?
Conclusion
Over the past six months, Sanctum has grown and matured by leaps and bounds. We are laser focused on growing Sanctum by doubling down on the things that have brought us the most success. We are leveling up our LST business and expanding our team to grow our new products.
We want to continue to engage and reward our community and core governance contributors. And while ASR won’t continue in its present form, governance and feedback from our community will still be an essential part of Sanctum going forward.
Let me say that again: governance is here to stay.
We try many new things and make mistakes along the way, but one thing is certain: CLOUD is our mission coin and we will be the the gold standard for ethical, yet successful teams in an industry that desperately needs a moral compass.
ASR#1 and ASR#2 is pretty generous. Why not continue it rather than pausing for long time but with a competitive APY rewards compared to ETH and SOL staking. Even though Not Generous at least Competitive to keep the staker around. A Revenue Share in form of CLOUD is another option that stakers could get on a monthly basis. Our goal here is to attract more stakers and grow the pie.
Loved the generous ASR rewards, fully agree on the reasoning behind “ASR is too high”.
(Also personally don’t like Futarchy.)
If the main reason for ASR is to motivate people to hold Cloud (not sure it is, I don’t follow the discussions very very closely), I’d rather raise the question: why does company value only accrue to INF and nothing accrues to CLOUD? I never really understood this two token structure in which nothing accrues to CLOUD. I assume people hold CLOUD because they (a) really want to participate in governance (I suspect, this is a minority), (b) to farm ASR, and maybe (c) in hope that sometime in the future, some part of company revenue will accrue to CLOUD.
Asked differently: is ASR only needed because no revenue is accruing to CLOUD?
(btw, I somewhat like the Helium model:
There’s one token values accrues to: $HNT.
If people want to participate in governance, they need to lock HNT to ensure long-term alignment: the longer you lock, the higher the voting power multiplier per HNT they lock (amount of veHNT per HNT), so people who prove long-time alignment get higher voting power per HNT they hold.
The “rewards” for governance participation aren’t high enough to get people to participate in governance (all voters share 6% of daily protocol emissions as participation rewards), I rather think of it of somewhat offsetting opportunity cost of locking (in addition to the higher say one gets for locking longer) for people who do want to participate even without rewards.
Not suggesting Sanctum copies this model, just saying there are examples for governance models that
work with one token (or: protocol revenue accruing to the token needed for governance),
and a rewards structure that rather makes it easier for people who are interested in governance anyway to do so instead of paying out huge rewards with the potential side effects that many voters aren’t really interested in governance and just do some superficial voting to get rewards.)
Isn’t the idea of ASR to distribute CLOUD though? I always thought a goal was to get CLOUD out into the ecosystem in a reasonable way over time.
Though that could also be achieved via another loyalty based mechanism.
In any case whatever you do, the end goal is you distribute governance (and possibly some form of rev) via the allocation of CLOUD. So that needs to end up in the hands of those best aligned to whatever grows Sanctum as a business.
IMO the best new direction for ASR is to hit the reset button on staking score following the end of the 2nd ASR claim in order to even the playing field for stakers and welcome newcomers. Subsequent staking rewards could take the form of gamified staking rewards (which are lower than the APY in the 1st iteration of ASR, and therefore sustainable).
IMO eliminating yield for the next 3-6 months for sCLOUD stakers is too violent of a move in the opposite direction. I’d say that a huge reason that people are in crypto for yield, and providing a minimum sustainable yield will allow for continued servicing of staking expectations.
The suggestion I have for new staking yields is a blend of Kamino’s system (a small boost that accrues daily with continuous stake) and Jup’s system (fixed staking yield per quarter, while votes are suspended). This would mean that there would be an expected yield of some X% value per quarter, with the additional modifier of boosts with continued sCLOUD holding. The longer your stake (the higher the staking score), the more of a boost to yield you get. As a way to even the playing field, I suggest that all stakers start from a net boost of 0% at the start of the new staking phase, which is now. This sort of gamified yield helps to balance incentives to stake CLOUD with sustainability.
Okay, too simplistic I know, but this is what Sanctum is for me: Wonderland – an amazing experience I loved, and LSTs – totally changed how I view Solana.
I am personally okay with treating ASR and Futarchy as something we tried, learned from it and now we move on. I also agree that the ASR rewards were super generous and am okay if staking CLOUD won’t bring any rewards for 6 to 12 months, esp. if the focus shifts towards bringing value to CLOUD which if it has positive impact on floor price will be even better than receiving CLOUD as a reward.
Fan of exploring idea of a loyalty program. Would you be open to including LSTs, or atleast INF as the flagship LST*, or strictly just built around CLOUD? Would understand a wish to make CLOUD prioritized, eg. highest rate of score per $$$, but I would also like the community members who are users first - investor second, to also feel included/rewarded
First of all, I understand ASR1-2 can not continue as is now. Some changes are crucial for engagement of current and new holders to Cloud governance.
But cutting system suddenly does not sound fair and functional for your goals to reach. You can not put a new idea like stopping system and tell us we are aware of opportunity cost and dont insist of losing your opportunity if you dont choose to support.
As you wrote, we all learn from processes and mistakes. But this is not first year of sanctum. Sanctum is not on launching phase. Sanctum is profitable protocol now as you promised when you were launching. Then, we can discuss and system can change but rewarding holders MUST BE part of profitable protocol.
Governance system is not only for rewarding but also it’s symbolizing that we are part of Sanctum. So it should contain perspective like we are getting earned as much as sanctum is successful. Governance system should share protocol revenues like “dividend model” in conventional stock market.
Im not sure how other systems fit sanctum. As an example, Defituna created a general pool to which all holders can stake their $TUNA tokens. All revenue from protocol products go to that pool then all holders including team can earn their share in terms of SOL.
Im not sure buybacks works well but defituna system works fine at least for now. Because any holders who are willing to engage protocol long term do not need to sell governance tokens to get profits. They all need to wait in staking state and earn. Simple is the best.
I dont mean you should distribute all of your revenue but expecting people to stay with protocol from their heart sounds unrealistic. We should be rewarded in any way less or much.
Consequently, I think team should review its decision. Because waiting for months to make it clear looks very romantic from holder perspective. If you believe we need have a new system, take your time but not by punishing holders. We are here to contribute you. Do a fine tuning, make it less APY but put a system on work till your our system is ready.
Your concerns over ASR not doing enough to incentivize new holders is something I’ve brought up on the discord server before and I’m glad the team has been putting serious thoughts into it.
I like the idea of having independent incentives for long term holders and short term events. I’m not sure what that looks like and it probably warrants a dedicated thread, but long term staking rewards at 200% is pretty wild. The system needs an overhaul.
Personally, I don’t think an ambassador program is something I’d want to see. I can’t help but imagine it would just turn into some kind of superficial popularity contest with little to no rigor/standards.
Loyalty layering is something I would fully support and I’d love to flesh out the details associated with something like that.
First of all, thank you very much for this 2 rounds. It was more than expected. As of future of CLOUD stacking and something that could potentially work, is revenue sharing with sCLOUD stackers, but not in CLOUD, but in INF. Similar system that DefiTuna has introduced, where they are sharing their income with TUNA stackers, but denominated in SOL.
I think if we could iron out the details, and keep it on competative market level, every CLOUD holder would be thrilled to earn best LST there is - INF. What am I even saying. INF is much more than simply best LST. Getting like 5% APR even could possibly turn the things around for CLOUD and reverse the chart.
Agree on that. But you also mentioned at the end of the post that “governance” will remain. You also talked about introducing a different loyalty-based reward model. Do you think you will spend less time on creating and managing the new model plus “governance” compared to the existing one? Specifically, since you mentioned ambassadors — if you plan to reward that concept, will it require less time to review ambassador contributions compared to the ASR model? I’m referring specifically to time resources.
Was ASR ever really about ROI, or was it primarily about loyalty rewards? How can you expect predictable ROI in a DAO model when, realistically, most DAOs are a myth? Nevertheless, Cloud was the most actively traded market on futarchy and had the largest number of voters among all markets.
Your ROI argument feels like context twisting. ROI can be positive or negative depending on which metrics you choose to define success. In the quarterly report, you proudly claim to be the largest futarchy in the ecosystem, yet on the governance forum, you question the ROI.
I used to think futarchy was complicated, but that was only because the concept of the two conditional markets was never tried to be explained in a simple manner.
Anyway, my question is: **does this mean the end not only for ASR, but also for the entire futarchy-based voting concept?
I understand your point about polarity. But polarity is actually healthy for a proper governance process — some agree, others disagree, and we all present our arguments. Whether ASR exists or not, we will still have different views. The final decision should ultimately be made on the futarchy market.
If the goal is to have a community where everyone thinks the same and no one challenges decisions, then there’s no need for a governance model at all.
You also mentioned the original intention — drafting high-quality proposals together with the community. But let’s be honest: when the team alone decides which proposals can go up for a vote, the process becomes complicated and limited by design. The team can simply ignore opposing arguments and push a proposal in the form that works best for them.
Let’s be real: today it became clear that the community fund has effectively turned into a quasi team-controlled fund. Proposals still have to pass futarchy to be implemented, but the team decides what gets put to a vote in the first place. There is no true governance mechanism that allows the community to express its interests — and today you made that very clear.
I had the false expectation that since there is a community fund, the team would gradually integrate more with the community and decision-making would eventually become more collaborative. But in reality, the community fund has never been something the community could truly decide on.
There are too many things left unclear, and everyone interprets the governance process differently. Personally, I thought I had some influence over the community fund as a Cloud staker — that I needed to draft proposals, collect a certain amount of Cloud staking points, and then push proposals into the deliberation stage. At least now I understand that this expectation was wrong, so thank you for clarifying this.
We can argue endlessly about whether the community comes up with bad ideas or whether it’s not mature enough to make good decisions, but maybe it’s time to face reality: DAO governance, at least in this case, feels like a myth. And if that’s the case, perhaps we should drop staking entirely, since without ASR it no longer serves any real purpose — and maybe even drop governance altogether, given that the team is the only one who ultimately decides which proposals can even be pushed forward.
The futarchy model was supposed to be that market safeguard — the mechanism to decide whether a proposal passes or not. That’s why I find it strange that instead of simply putting ASR up for a futarchy vote and letting the market decide — especially since you clearly have resources to influence the futarchy outcome if needed — the decision was made to terminate ASR directly. In this situation, I would rather accept the outcome of the futarchy market than a unilateral decision — even if the opposing side had no chance of winning in futarchy at all.
The whole point of futarchy trading was to protect against bad proposals, and this was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that. Instead, we ended up with a centralized decision-making process. Now, futarchy and governance appear to have been used primarily for marketing purposes — to showcase a “unique governance model” in the Cloud report — while, at the same time, its ROI is questioned on the community forum.
I’m sorry if I sound too direct here, but you’ve always been someone who fights for a moral compass in crypto. I don’t doubt your integrity or honesty — your actions have proven both. But this whole situation feels confusing and inconsistent, and it’s difficult to reconcile the original vision with what’s happening now.
Small correction - not “is way too high”. The amount of ASR rewards was high in the past. Especially for the early day-1 stakers. I highly doubt that stakers who joined in 2nd half of ASR season received anything close to those 200% returns. But it doesn’t mean it would have stayed the same if we had continued ASR with reasonable rewards. So using that as an argument against continuing ASR doesn’t seem valid.
You also brought up SOL and ETH as examples, but those are mature ecosystems where tokens are staked primarily for passive income. SOL and ETH are deeply integrated into DeFi, their LSTs are used in loops, they serve as collateral, and LSTs have deep market liquidity. Let’s be realistic when comparing sCLOUD ASR returns with SOL/ETH staking returns — at the current stage, these are completely different categories.
We saw such high ASR rewards in the first place was because nobody expected ASR to be that high.
And instead of carefully evaluating the pros and cons and adjusting the model to make it sustainable, we ended up with the unilateral decision to shut down ASR entirely.
What about introducing a PASR model — Passive/Active Staking Rewards?
A portion of rewards would go to passive staking (PSR) — if no votes take place during the period.
Another portion of rewards would go to active staking (ASR) — if votes do take place.
This way, we ensure there are at least some meaningful incentives for staking, even when there’s no active governance voting, while still rewarding participation when it happens.
You mentioned in telegram that you would address the governance mechanism itself, but didn’t mention it in the current post. On the forum, the governance process was explained as one where staking points could be used to push proposals into the deliberation phase.
However, you also said that currently there is no mechanism in place for that, and that only the team can push any proposal into the deliberation or voting phase.
I’ll be straightforward here: if only the team has the ability to decide which proposals move forward, can we really call this a governance process and refer to it as a community fund?
Really unexpected to see this coming from you. Honestly, that’s very disappointing. Incentivizing people to use a product that doesn’t even need incentives to be used feels completely unnecessary. INF has highest APY already.
And this is example what I’m afraid of — unilateral proposals.
Here (https://x.com/SolanaFloor/status/1961055167584911393?t=SnicdRIaqBl7Xiiln5ZsbQ&s=19) you talked about that example as being negative — unless I misunderstood it. To me, it’s a clear incentivization of mercenary capital. By introducing this model, you risk creating more harm for CLOUD holders than if we simply stayed with an adjusted ASR model.
Instead of incentivizing short-term behavior, why not focus on exploring and strengthening INF in DeFi? For example, why not launch a Sanctum-curated market on Loopscale specifically for looping into INF? You could make the borrowing interest more attractive than the current rates used by Loopscale managers (perhaps based on INF’s actual APY, for example).
I haven’t run the calculations myself, but even with the current rates, people already loop. With slightly optimized parameters focused on loopers, you could potentially attract much stickier INF capital compared to incentivizing mercenary capital at the expense of CLOUD holders.
As I see it right now, that idea risks putting CLOUD into the hands of mercenary capital, which will inevitably dump on the market. Meanwhile, Sanctum as an entity remains profitable — yet you’re proposing to use CLOUD as incentives for “Deposit into INF”?
How do you envision a proposal that rewards ambassadors? Do you expect such proposals to be passed based on a “just trust me, bro” approach? Doesn’t that feel like a step backward from the transparency concept we’ve been aiming for?
While ASR itself wasn’t perfect, at least it was fully transparent.
You’re saying that ASR preparations are too time-consuming, but do you really believe it will be less time-consuming to manage regular calls and run ambassador programs? And on top of that, you’re saying that governance is here to stay?
At this point, why not just create a final CLOUD-006 proposal and transfer the entire community fund to the team’s reserve? Honestly, I would vote in favor of that proposal.
While I agree with certain points about the shortcomings of ASR, my overall impression is that you were mostly looking for arguments to justify shutting it down, rather than seriously discussing possible improvements or meaningful adjustments.
I’ve always been someone who says what I think — and I’ll remain the same. But I genuinely can’t understand how you can be proud of the governance model in the Cloud quarterly report while at the same time making a unilateral decision to stop ASR.
For me, your post brought more uncertainty rather than the clarity I was hoping for.
I also admit that I was wrong in my assumptions. I thought that being part of the community meant having some influence over decision-making. I took governance too seriously — but clearly, that was a mistake on my part.
I also understand that community members have invested different levels of time and effort into discussions, proposal preparations, and voting — yet everyone was rewarded equally under ASR in terms of voting power. I’m not sure how that model could be improved in a fully transparent way.
However, even with its imperfections, I would feel more motivated under a model that ensures clarity and transparency — like ASR — especially with clear rules on how proposals are pushed into voting, rather than relying solely on an ambassador program.
I honestly don’t see how the community will be meaningfully involved in deciding which ambassadors to reward, what exactly they’re rewarded for, how much should be allocated for ambassador incentives, or what KPIs/ROI you expect from these programs.
Ambassador programs, to me, feel like a grey area — there will be no real transparency, and they’re likely to attract people who don’t truly care about Sanctum but are simply working for ambassador incentives.
What I ask from you now is simple: be transparent with CLOUD stakers.
I don’t want people to keep their tokens staked based purely on speculation about future rewards during “Wonderland seasons” or other programs that may or may not happen. If nothing has been voted on, there is no real commitment, and decisions can be changed unilaterally at any time.
You’ve mentioned ETH and SOL staking rates before. So please, be clear about your expectations for CLOUD staking rewards in future programs (such as Wonderland) — are we talking about 5%, 10%, 20%? I believe it’s fair for everyone to understand your vision, because what seems fair to you might not feel fair to many stakers.
And since we’ve now started discussing ROI of ASR, it’s fair that stakers also take ROI into consideration when deciding whether to stay staked or instead keep CLOUD unstaked and explore other opportunities — for example, using CLOUD as collateral.
I want to state this very clearly: I do not consider myself as a mercenary capital, and I never expected ASR to double my stake. But I am genuinely demotivated by the way you decided to make a unilateral decision, and many of the arguments used to justify it feel questionable to me.
You’ve effectively moved from a “not perfect” system to no system at all, creating even more uncertainty for stakers.
Speaking for myself, I’ll most likely become less active in discussions — not because of the rewards, but because I no longer see any real value in governance when I have no genuine influence and no ability to challenge decisions under the existing governance model.
What’s the point of opposing anyone’s arguments if they can simply be ignored? You can say you’ve “considered” the feedback but ultimately dismiss it and still push the proposal you want into the deliberation phase.
It also feels like you’re trying to invent artificial incentives just to keep staking alive, even though without ASR continuation there’s no real reason to stake anymore. Do you expect people to lock their tokens for 30 days in exchange for something like a Christmas card?
I honestly wonder if I’m the only one feeling this way. Is my moral compass broken? Or am I simply expecting too much from a 30-day staking model? What am I missing?
Right now, I have mixed feelings about staking. To be honest, I feel very uncertain. I keep having internal debates with myself about whether to stay staked or unstake completely. And every time I even think about unstaking, it feels painful — but after the unilateral decision to shut down ASR, I’m left deeply uncomfortable.
You ignored the ASR topic for as long as you could — until I started pushing it very heavy — and now you’ve dropped a bomb on all stakers without even giving us a chance to oppose. Yet, this only serves as another confirmation that governance is a myth.
The only proposed exclusive benefit I currently see for top scorers is regular calls. But this raises a serious question for me: why would you give privileged insights to top scorers while at the same time advocating for ethics and a moral compass in the crypto industry? To me, this doesn’t align with the values of fairness and transparency.
Since you actively promote transparency and CLOUD is traded on the open market, I naturally think about the principles of public entity disclosures. Providing any insider information to a limited group of people would definitely be concerning.
And if these calls are not meant to provide any insights or insider information, then what exactly would be the real benefit of having them at all?
I would have felt much better if we had at least been given a chance to vote on the futarchy market. But it seems that it’s more important to highlight the significance of governance in the Cloud report than to actually stress-test the futarchy concept, whose primary goal was to protect against bad decisions.
Instead, we’ve ended up with an even “better” protection mechanism — there’s now no chance for any decision other than those coming from the team to even reach a vote.
And I personally don’t want to live under the illusion of decentralized governance. I’m not here to please anyone by giving comfortable feedback. If the current system doesn’t work, then let’s just admit that DAO governance is a myth and abandon it entirely, rather than creating artificial incentives for stakers and speculating about future rewards in upcoming Wonderland seasons.
Here from the beginning, I orginized the 1st meetup in Europe (Thessaloniki Greece) and the 2nd around the world. I love the way the team is moving and the new experiences it always try.
My opinion, all these tries (ASR, futarchy etc) are very good, the loyalty layer seems promising and maybe attract new participants BUT we must also focus to the $CLOUD utility, sanctum is at the 4th place by TVL (source defilama) on SOLANA (not in a small network) something without so much impact to the $CLOUD token (at the moment).
I think a stronger $CLOUD in combination with loyalty layer (or moves like this) will attract people to sanctum.
Just one person, but - ASR captured and held my attention, causing me to pay close attention when I otherwise would have diverted elsewhere. I became a larger investor as a result of this “incentivized learning”. So, it was not all for naught. That said, maybe the cost was not in line… So the ASR “dividend” goes a way for a while.
The greatest reward should still be growth of CLOUD value through smart business development. IMO the greatest way to attract new community members is to constantly communicate bigger vision and deliver on it. Community is strongest when everyone is winning.
I don’t believe voting in and of itself is divisive. IMO the gap between process expectations and reality is what caused the division.
The ambassador program sounds like paid marketing. It can be fine, but be careful not to create the perception of insiders OR conflicts of interest, which is what the 005 vote felt like (true or not).
As for giving out more CLOUD - why? I buy dividend investments when I want the steady cash. I buy growth stocks when I want the growth. I remain loyal to the investment if I believe the growth is high enough, sustainable and will ultimately convert to profit and investment appreciation. What makes this different? The need for staking, I suppose.
If the whole goal is onboarding new users and investors AND that will lead to the greatest price appreciation for CLOUD holders, then focus reserves purely on newbies… then everyone wins.
But, vision, communication and action are the cheapest ways to attract and retain people. ASR didn’t fail to attract newbies IMO… large periods of silence did. It’s all a balance.
tldr. That last point. Governance and staking incentives don’t have to overlap. They can kill governance and continue to rewards stakers in different ways.
I’ve been thinking about this ASR update and the broader governance shift.
Decentralized, consensus leadership sounds great on paper. It builds community early on, gives everyone a voice, and makes people feel part of something bigger.
But at some point, it starts to break down. The people doing the hard technical work and deep decision-making are usually working with way more context than the average holder. When those people start feeling like their efforts are being second-guessed or slowed down by votes from people who aren’t in the trenches, things get messy.
Maybe a couple of ways to handle that:
One is to try and educate everyone and bring them up to speed on all the inner workings. That’s ideal but probably not realistic.
The other is to let the team make the hard calls and only open up decisions that don’t need deep technical context. That ends up being more of a centralized leadership model, whether people want to call it that or not.
I think that’s where Sanctum is heading now. And honestly, I don’t blame them. Jupiter already hit the same wall and paused governance too. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sanctum is just watching to see how that plays out before they try to bring it back.
Of course, no team is going to come out and say “community governance didn’t work because you guys aren’t qualified to run the protocol and are slowing us down.” But if we’re honest, that’s probably part of what’s going on here.
community. I see it as: team building the foundational layer, community votes for and approves CLOUD emissions that maximally grow the community and reward loyal members.
okay with treating ASR and Futarchy as something we tried, learned from it and now we move on. I also agree that the ASR rewards were super generous and am 
