We’ve been continuing to track your questions and feedback across Discord, forums, and social channels - and we’re back with Community Q&A: Volume 3, featuring direct responses from Supra’s founders.

Each month, we collect the most common and important questions raised by the community, bring them straight to Josh and Jon, and publish their answers for everyone to reference. This series is designed to provide transparent, first-hand insight into Supra’s progress, priorities, and long-term vision - directly from the source.

How Community Q&A Works

The #community-qa channel in Discord opens monthly for public submissions. From there:

1. Community members post and upvote questions using emotes

2. We curate the most relevant and frequently asked topics

3. Josh and Jon respond directly

4. We publish the full Q&A recap across platforms for easy access

These conversations are shaped by the community. Your questions drive the discussion, helping ensure we’re addressing what matters most and sharing clarity where it’s needed.

Thanks for continuing to build alongside us - and as always, we encourage open, honest, and forward-looking dialogue.

Question 1: paladien024

“Last question for this months QA if its not sent: Do we need the 2 way supranova bridge before POEL?”

Answer:

No, two-way bridging is not required for PoEL. However, we will be launching reverse bridging soon, which will be useful to attract more value to the network. So, if you deposit right now through PoEL, you won’t be able to bring your assets back to Ethereum until we launch reverse bridging. However, there is a large foundation multi-sig in place, which is a safety precaution in the case of a catastrophic situation. We will eventually remove this completely after reverse bridging is live.

Question 2: Harald I love to ban scammers

“Are we at least able to pause transfer to the exchanges for the next 3 to 6 months?”

Answer:

Yes, Supra Labs and the Foundation are doing everything in their power to mitigate any additional sell pressure both on-chain and on exchanges. We want to emphasize that there is a large set of guardians that need to approve any $SUPRA token transfer from Foundation wallets, and each transaction has to be approved by supermajority before any funds are moved. No group of executives or employees at Supra can do these transfers without the supermajority.

I know it can seem tough when prices have dropped so much, but I want to emphasize that Supra is a real business with over 100 hard-working employees that rely on us to support them and their families, and that means payroll and admin expenses don’t stop, even when the market is down. This isn’t a hobby or a part-time project, it’s something that a lot of people have committed nearly half a decade of their lives to, and it’s important to keep this in mind.

Question 3: paladien024

“Yeah a quick question. POEL allows you to bring in liquidity that equals 1/3 of the FDV. What happens during wild market swings when the value of Supra dips drastically?”

Answer:

What happens is the amount of assets that can be utilized from $SUPRA to stake increases proportional to the decrease in the token price.

For example, if you bring in a hundred dollars worth of ETH, this allows you to access a $100 dollars worth of $SUPRA that can be staked to node operators. Let’s say $SUPRA drops by 20% In the next epoch, four hours, program treasury will let you access an additional 20% of $SUPRA tokens, to match your $100 worth of ETH.

Likewise, if the asset you brought in falls relative to $SUPRA, the number of $SUPRA tokens you can access will also be reduced proportionally in the next epoch. For example, if the price of $SUPRA remains steady, but ETH falls by 20%, and your ETH is now worth $80, in the next epoch, the treasury will request back 20% of the $SUPRA that was staked to match your ETH. So each epoch, both assets are balanced so that they remain at a 1:1 ratio.

This means there are no liquidations in the traditional sense, which is one of the coolest things about this program.

Question 4: thejiperrrr

“can you give some insight on the progress of 1) Ledger 2) Bybit USDC pair 3) dashboard. Like what is holding it up or it’s no priority of the team (can be of course)? Hopefully you can discuss this with the team.”

Answer:

We don’t have any updates to share at the moment regarding Ledger or the Bybit USDC pair.

The dashboard is almost done and will be released very soon. We are just making some final touch-ups on the front end and the APIs and, and doing final quality review. It is a priority, and there is no specific hold-up.

Question 5: thejiperrrr

“Hi Chase, I would like to understand how many people tried to get the bounty of USD 1 million and besides being the fastest (we know we are), if we onboarded new parties/VCs etc.?”

Answer:

There were four credible attempts to win the EVM Speed Bounty. This and our other breakthroughs have definitely gotten us more attention and recognition from both dApps and VCs, and our waitlist for EVM projects is growing fast.

Question 6: tobasam26

“Hello I would like to know when is the two-way bridge coming up because I came across a project that is offering a parallel transaction and bridgeless transaction and I know this indicates we are probably going up again so I think this is the best time to come out and start the marketing because this firm is currently raising over 600 million in presale please let us know what your plans are in order to be at the four front of the innovation thank you”

Answer:

Due to the unpredictable nature of blockchain development, and our commitment to maintaining integrity and improving trust with our community, we’ve made it our official policy to avoid announcing specific hard development deadlines. What we can say is that the two-way bridge is a core priority for our team, and it will be the next major piece of tech we release.

Question 7: paladien024

“Whats the status on Supra’s application to build TAO for BNB’s prediction markets?”

Answer:

It’s currently on testnet, and we’re in the process of optimizing it to be as accurate as possible. We’re getting around 97% accuracy or across about 2,000 questions, and our goal is to get 99% or above, but the development process is going very well and we’re making great progress. Soon, you should be able to play around with it on both Supra and BNB Chain.

Question 8: Linkinpark

“In this post: (link)

Josh is talking about EspressoSys “using our Hydrangea” what does it mean and how is it possible?”

Answer:

We’ve published our Hydrangea algorithms, so they can theoretically be used by other projects and companies. In this case, one of our algorithm reviewers is an advisor at Espresso Systems, and he introduced them to our tech. Specifically, Espresso Systems initially mentioned that they wanted to use Supra Sailfish, but since we came out with Hydrangea, Espresso has said they’d like to use it instead.

We should note that Supra is the primary author of these consensus algorithms, which we created entirely in-house.

Wrapping Up

That’s it for Community Q&A: Volume 3 - thank you to everyone who took the time to submit questions, and stay engaged in the conversation.

The #community-qa channel in Discord will be opening again later this week to begin collecting questions for December, so be sure to jump in and get your questions submitted.

We also want to acknowledge that this volume went out about a week later than usual - that delay was due to November ending on Thanksgiving, and we appreciate your patience.

As always, these Q&As are shaped by the community, and your questions directly drive these discussions. We’ll be back with Community Q&A: Volume 4 at the end of December, continuing the conversation with more updates and answers straight from the team.

Thanks again for building with us!

Its silly that so many still havent connected the dots and try to play the quick game. buyt anyway i think 2026 will be supra bullish for supra

SupraLiquid is under development.
It’s not just a dApp, it’s also a new infrastructure technology that will make the dApp feel extremely fast. We’re talking about block-times 3X or more even faster than HyperLiquid!

We have teammed up with another expert team that’s built exchanges before, so they have been working on the smart contracts in earnest.

We hope we can have an Alpha on a testnet within a month from now. But timelines may shift since this is new technology.

There will be a points system that should begin during testnet.
The points system will extend into mainnet a bit until we’ve bootstrapped enough activity and liquidity.

Afterwards, there will likely be an airdrop and then TGE for $LIQUID.

There are several features that we are working on that’ll make SupraLiquid different than other Perp DEXes but the team is waiting to share those ideas as we get closer to public testnet. We want to be the first to implement them.

There are many competitors out there so we need to keep our best ideas on how to grow the platform close to our chest for the time being. But we have some features and benefits no others are offering yet.

hint… there will be “SocialFi” aspects to what we’re putting together!

Background

Previously, a community vote was held to change the vesting schedule from monthly to quarterly, which was favored by eligible node operators and dApps. As a result, the vesting schedule was changed to quarterly vesting. Voting is to be done here: Supra Community Governance Proposal

However, we’ve received diverse opinions and suggestions from our community. Supra is committed to progressively expand community-driven governance of the Supra Blockchain. Therefore, we propose another vote on the vesting schedule.

Proposal

Should the vesting schedule of vesting contracts be reverted back to a monthly schedule, or should it remain at a quarterly vesting schedule? This proposal specifically applies to vesting contracts that initially had a monthly vesting schedule at the time of TGE and were subsequently changed to quarterly vesting following Supra Update Proposal 1 Supra Community Governance Proposal

Voting Options

1. Yes: Transition back to a monthly vesting schedule.
2. No: Keep the vesting schedule quarterly as it stands today.
3. Abstain: Acknowledge participation without expressing a preference.

Voting Framework

Eligibility: Node operators, large investors that have invested over $100K USD pre-TGE, and dApps active in the Supra ecosystem for at least three months. Retail token holders can participate through their supported nodes or dApps. Due to nearly 1 million accounts holding balances on Supra, direct voting for all account holders is not feasible at this stage.

Mechanics: Eligible participants will choose Yes, No, or Abstain. The voting period will last until 18th Nov 2025 midnight EST, with all votes recorded transparently on-chain.

Approval Criteria:

• Participation Threshold: At least 67% of eligible voters must participate (Yes + No + Abstain).
• Approval Requirements: For the proposal to succeed, BOTH conditions must be met:
  • “Yes” votes must exceed 40% of total eligible voters.
  • “Yes” votes must exceed “No” votes.
• Status Quo: In all other cases, the current quarterly vesting and unlock schedule will be maintained.

Implementation Timeline

If approve, changes will take effect after 21st November 2025.

Do you think Supra will stay underrated, or will the next cycle finally give it the spotlight it deserves?

Thoughts

I should also mention that there are factions of the community who would like more transparency on the specifics of where the foundation funds are going. Despite them not being public funds, there is definitely an argument to be had that it is in the best interests of the community to have a little more knowledge into the specifics of how they financially align themselves with Supra.

Each month, we gather the most frequent and pressing questions from the community, bring them to Josh & Jon , and share their answers right back with you. Think of it as your monthly deep dive into Supra’s vision, progress, and roadmap - with full transparency and clarity straight from the source.

How to Get Involved

You’ll now be able to publicly post your questions in the #community-qa channel within Discord, which opens every month for questions.

From there:
We’ll gather and organize the top community questions each month (you can upvote them with emotes).
Josh & Jon will answer them directly.
We’ll publish the full Q&A recap across socials so it’s easy for everyone to reference.

We’re building this together - your questions drive these conversations.
Let’s keep the dialogue open, honest, and forward-looking.

Question 1: Lucas Entregas

"I feel like many people often complain about ‘launches’ without real use cases. For example, we could bring over assets like supUSDC from Ethereum but not actually use them. So, what’s the current state of the network in terms of attracting new developers and encouraging real usage? another question is: “Right now, what is the team more focused on? We know there’s work being done on Supraliquid, new networks for Supranova, and other initiatives — but where is most of the effort currently being directed?”

Answer:

Those are both great questions.

You’re right, supUSDC itself currently has limited utility. That’s why, right now, our main focus is actually on iAssets . This is a new framework we’ve developed that allows for multi-reward structures , meaning a single asset can earn yield from multiple sources , and we believe these multiple yield sources will be extremely helpful in attracting new devs and encouraging real usage.

For example, once iAssets are ready, instead of using supUSDC, users can deposit USDC (and other crypto assets) into Supra vaults, and get iUSDC . With that iUSDC, users can earn yield from multiple channels, such as:

• Block rewards through the Proof-of-Liquidity program
• DeFi protocol rewards (like from SupraDeFi)
• Cross-chain DEX fees through our upcoming Dynamic Function Market Maker (DFMM)

To support this, dApps have needed to upgrade to our new Fungible Asset standard , which will make tokens more scalable and efficient. We’ve been helping dApps upgrade to this standard, which requires audits and other tech assistance, and this takes time to get right.

The iAsset program is already live on testnet , and currently, we’re working with partners who may be able to bring in tens of millions in potential liquidity, but we want to make sure everything works perfectly before going to mainnet.

All of this will build the foundation for highly efficient cross-chain DeFi , which will give Supra a significant competitive advantage and help us attract more devs and users.

Second Question:

For Supra to have a compelling edge against other chains, we need several technologies to work together in unison, not just one. That’s why we have multiple teams of engineers each working on a few key projects simultaneously , all focused on building out Supra’s powerful core infrastructure .

This infrastructure consists of five key technologies working together, including:

• Layer 1 network (with parallel execution and multi-VM support for both Move and Solidity)
• Oracle + VRF (live)
• Bridge (live, reverse-bridging in progress)
• Automation (live)
• Cross-chain DeFi stack (iAssets + DFMM, currently undergoing pre-mainnet audits)

A few years ago, we might have been able to stand out by just launching with just a high-speed L1, but in today’s competitive environment, we need highly differentiated products to stand-out. That’s why we need to launch multiple products that work together, instead of prioritizing a single effort.

Overall, iAssets, DFMM, and cross-chain automation are all revenue generating protocols that, combined, will allow us to provide both devs and users a powerful cross-chain DeFi experience , giving Supra a unique value proposition and a deep moat that no other network can easily replicate.

Question 2: anonymousuzzer

“Will supraliquid incorporate chain abstraction or similar mechanism(similar to myx which 200x’d in the past 2 months) to reduce friction caused by having to bridge assets over?”

Answer:

As Supranova continues to roll out additional bridges and integrations, users will be able to access SupraLiquid directly through Supranova .

Question 3: Marcus B. Bull

“Given the concerns that are repeatedly expressed here , what concrete steps is the Foundation taking to improve governance and execution so that the tech potential isn’t undermined by organizational failures?”

Answer:

This is an important question — and I think there’s often some confusion around what “foundation tokens” actually are and how they’re used.

First, foundation tokens are not public funds . That’s true not just for Supra, but for every major project — including the Ethereum Foundation. These tokens are reserved resources meant to support the project’s mission, ecosystem growth, and technology development .

Supra’s token is a utility token , not a governance token (yet). Our long-term goal is to introduce governance responsibly, through a reputation-based system , rather than a system where the largest holders automatically control decisions. This will take time — about two years to design and implement correctly — because we want to avoid plutocracy and build a model where governance is earned through genuine contribution, not just token holdings.

In the future, when the decentralized treasury is live and generating revenue, that’s when governance will shift more meaningfully to the community. The treasury will be network-owned , and decisions about how those funds are used will be transparent and participatory.

In the meantime, the Foundation’s focus is on using its resources efficiently to build, ship, and support a vibrant Supra ecosystem — not to hoard tokens or sit idle. We’re actively funding and supporting around 10 ecosystem projects at different stages, while also developing 10+ revenue-generating mechanisms that will feed the decentralized treasury.

This includes innovations like:

• Automated systems for arbitrage and liquidation capture that can generate significant revenue
• Value-capture models that convert positive MEV (miner extractable value) into protocol-level revenue
• SupraLiquid and other DeFi mechanisms that generate real yield for the network

These mechanisms are designed to make the Supra ecosystem self-sustaining — generating consistent revenue every block. That revenue will later fund community initiatives, token buybacks, and treasury governance.

As for execution: we’re realistic about the fact that Supra is taking on one of the most ambitious infrastructure builds in Web3 . The team is small, highly specialized, and focused on long-term scalability and security. That sometimes means things take longer — especially with audits and new cryptographic systems like reverse bridging — but the trade-off is worth it. Every delay reduces future technical debt and ensures we’re building something that lasts.

The bottom line:

• Foundation tokens are being used to build and strengthen the ecosystem , not held back.
• Governance will evolve toward a reputation-based, community-driven model once the decentralized treasury is live.
• Supra’s focus is on execution and sustainability , not speed for its own sake.

We’re playing to win long-term , not just to survive the cycle — and, consider we’re building something that’s never been done before, that requires patience, precision, and continual improvement.

Question 4: timsntech

“One question for the next community Q&A: How many pairs will be tradable on SupraLiquid launch? It would obviously be great to have as many pairs as possible so people are actually interested in using it. Not only 2-3 pairs, like Supra ↔ “X”.”

Answer:

One of the biggest advantages of how we’ve built SupraLiquid is that the perpetual markets run directly on Supra’s on-chain Oracle price feeds . That means we already have the data infrastructure to support a very large number of trading pairs right from the start.

In theory , we could launch hundreds of pairs on day one .

However, the smarter approach is to roll them out gradually to ensure strong liquidity and a smooth user experience.

So the plan looks something like this:

• Launch: Start with a strong set of high-demand markets (around 10–20 pairs)
• Post-launch scaling: Add new pairs continuously — potentially hundreds over time
• Long-term: Capable of supporting 500+ markets , thanks to our Oracle + automation stack

Because Supra controls the Layer 1 , the Oracle network , and the automation layer , we’re uniquely positioned to scale fast and introduce new markets much more quickly than most other ecosystems.

In short:

SupraLiquid will launch with a solid lineup of tradable assets — and has the infrastructure to expand rapidly into one of the largest perpetual markets in Web3.

Question 5: Ticker

“Question for Q&A, is SUPRA Team (Josh, Jon, James, you Chase) interested in a Coinbase listing, if not, WHY? If SUPRA Team is already talking with them, what is the status?”

Answer:

Yes - we are absolutely interested in a Coinbase listing. There’s no question that it would be a major milestone for Supra and an important step in expanding accessibility.

We’ve spoken with the Coinbase team before. The biggest hurdle has been that Supra currently uses a MOVE-based environment , and supporting new chains like ours requires Coinbase to build entirely new infrastructure on their end. They’ve also had a backlog due to them going public and prioritizing chains that are simpler to integrate.

However, once EVM support is fully live on Supra, the process becomes dramatically easier. Coinbase already supports many EVM-compatible networks, and integration on that front is 10–20x faster compared to onboarding a brand-new architecture.

So the strategy is straightforward:

We want to be listed
We’ve already opened communication
We’re waiting until our EVM rollout is complete to accelerate the process

Once that piece is live - it’s full steam ahead on centralized exchange listings.

Question 6: [HEIM] Kingmaker MartinDude

“Wen SolanaVM mainnet?!”

Answer:

We’re now following a policy of not publishing specific timelines — mainly because these are extremely complex engineering challenges, and even small delays can lead to community frustration if expectations aren’t aligned.

That said, work on our SolanaVM compatibility has already begun . We started development over a month ago. Early results are very promising.

To summarize:

SolanaVM development has already started
Early performance data looks very strong
It will take time — but we’re building it the right way
No public timelines until we’re closer to launch

SolanaVM is a key part of our Multi-VM strategy and a big step toward welcoming even more developers and users into the Supra ecosystem.

Question 7: paladien042 || Solido Money

“Does Supra have any plans to raise more VC funds? Or facilitate OTC transactions for VCs that want out? Has Supra thought about reducing foundation seed funding to projects (to give them the bare minimum needed to build) and instead have them focus on winning funds from the community? This would reduce the amount of tokens flooding the marketplace from the “ecosystem fund” and instead reduce token supply (support positive price action) by forcing projects to win tokens already circulating from users.”

Answer:

We’re already moving in that direction.

In the past, some ecosystem funding commitments were made when market conditions were much stronger. We intend to honor those agreements , because backing out mid-stream would hurt the builders who are relying on us — and we want our reputation to remain solid and reliable. That said, we are significantly tightening how ecosystem funds are deployed moving forward.

Instead of heavily funding projects directly, our focus is shifting toward community-driven funding , including:

CommonFund sales — where new ecosystem projects raise directly from the community, with new sales approximately every 4-6 weeks
More opportunities for users to earn and hold token allocations
Projects receiving only the minimum needed to get started , then growing through market demand

This reduces the need for the Foundation to distribute as many tokens, helps protect the circulating supply , and increases community alignment with the projects being built.

On the VC / OTC side:

Yes — those conversations are ongoing , but that’s not something we can comment on publicly right now.

To summarize:

• We’re honoring existing agreements
• We’re becoming much more conservative with new token deployments
• Community-driven fundraising is now the primary path for new projects
• OTC and VC discussions are active but confidential

Ultimately, the goal is to support builders without flooding the market , while keeping the community at the center of ecosystem growth.

Question 8: paladien042 || Solido Money

“How much liquidity is ready to come over to Supra once POEL is ready?”

Answer:

We’re already in conversations with groups that collectively have access to hundreds of millions of dollars in liquidity. The interest in Supra’s Proof-of-Efficient-Liquidity program is very strong.

However — we’re intentionally taking a slow and controlled rollout approach.

Even though the demand is there, the DeFi team wants to ensure that we:

Validate stability
Confirm optimal performance
Monitor rewards distribution
Minimize early risk

So here’s the plan:

• Week 1: cap the program under $1M
• Gradually scale liquidity week-by-week
• Expand caps and add more iAssets as the system proves stable
• Growth could become exponential over time

For example — 10 weeks after launch, the cap won’t necessarily be $10M — it could be $50M+ , depending on adoption and performance.

The key point:

We’re starting small on purpose , but the potential upside is massive once everything is validated. The groups we’re working with are prepared to move substantial liquidity into the network as we scale.

Question 9: Happy

“I want to ask the Supra team, has there been any token burns since the Supra token was launched on the market? If so, can I have the wallet address so I can check it myself?”

Answer:

Yes. The network is currently engaging in ongoing $SUPRA token burns.

Every single transaction on the network — whether it’s a transfer, automation trigger, or smart contract interaction — includes a small gas fee where a portion is automatically burned, but these tokens do not go to a specific wallet. Instead, the burning happens automatically inside the system itself. As with other networks, this permanently removes those tokens from circulation.

We are in the process of creating a token dashboard that will allow everyone to track these burns more closely.

Right now, the gas cost is extremely low because we prioritized accessibility and network usage during the early growth phase. As activity increases and the ecosystem matures, we plan to adjust gas fees upward, which will increase the amount of SUPRA being burned over time.

We will soon hold a community vote to determine the updated gas parameter — ensuring the adjustment is aligned with what the network and community believe is healthiest long-term.

Burning vs. “Freezing” (future model)

We’re also exploring a model where tokens removed from circulation are “frozen” for a set period (e.g., 3 years). While frozen, they have the same supply-reducing effect as a burn — but later can be directed to the decentralized treasury to help fuel future ecosystem growth. This provides deflation now, while also supporting long-term sustainability.

Summary:

• Burns are already happening automatically on every transaction
• More burning expected as gas fees normalize
• Community governance will help determine next burn-rate adjustments

That’s a wrap for Community Q&A, Volume 2!

Big thanks to everyone who dropped questions - keep ‘em coming, we’ll continue doing this every month.

See you in Volume 3.

So we’re giving everyone access to the SupraBTM binary, The same parallel execution engine we used in the Supra vs Monad Blog.

$2,500 USDC bounty To the first dev who proves us wrong.
Run SupraBTM
Benchmark vs any parallel EVM
Post your verified results

SupraEVM Beta | SupraEVM | SUPRA

I noticed the allocation overview ain’t ideal - I would separate that part into two boxes and use consequent color coding, so the allocation overview could be color bars filling up with progress, nect to the pie chart showing general distribution, followed by the line chart using the same color.

What would be great to have also:

• A next unlock event view - showing the dates of the upcoming unlocks and total percentage of that unlock (see https://tokenomist.ai/sui for example)

• To further improve the dashboard going forward, a revenue section would be great - this way people could see all the parts of the ecosystem (oracles, DVRF, automation, dApps, liquidations, DEX fees, fees in general, …) generating revenue. This could be a welcome addition later or maybe even have its own separate dashboard, depending on how far into detail Supra Labs wants to go. Same for treasury buybacks later. To promote the intended revenue flywheel once its in action this would be a great tool for insights.

Also… public api by any chance?

Plugging in APIs soon, hope to release the full thing live in a few weeks or so.

You can play around here:
https://qa-data.supra.com/data/supra-tokenomics-dashboard

*** The data is not accurate yet, but the frontend is live.**

If you have any clear feedback on the Type of Data You’d like to see, please let us know.

Please document it and provide us a list of anything you think we’re missing.

SupraLiquid tech.

Thank you, I’l consider it!

jtobkin:

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

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.

ArmchairAncap:

• How much was given to Tamada Fi and whether the Foundation attempted to claw back or sue (depending on termination cause)?
• In categories 1-3, how much was given to other projects that never made it to Mainnet?
• What KPIs does the Foundation set, how are they reviewed, how do these timelines work?

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).

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.

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.

SupraDaddy:

a) don’t come here implying funds are deliberately being wasted without care

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

Currently producing blocks at 60ms~, about 15+ per second range.

We think we can get this faster.

More to be shared here as soon as possible.

Proof of Concept (PoC), is coming together well, looking forward to sharing that content soon.

We can’t let this Forum, unlike other social media or chat platforms, become a dumping ground full of strawman arguments.

This Discourse software (for the Forum) already has analytics built into it. I figure it’s certainly a good place to develop a points system, which may over time behave as an onchain Reputation System. Folks will have a Soul Bound NFT that accrues Reputation, which is used in weighing your decentralized vote.

@JatinSupra let’s open source it, no sweat!

What are the examples you’re alluding to?

mickeyonchain:

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 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?

mickeyonchain:

Running operations need to be paid for,

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.

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.

I think the community would appreciate if the code could be shared on Github for everyone in the community to use it. We didn’t have integration with Discourse until today.

Where There Is a Will, There’s a Way!

Nice work!

SupraDaddy:

I only ask by what metric are you judging the Supra team on?

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?

ArmchairAncap:

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

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.

SupraDaddy:

I flat out disagree with your suggestion that the way to drive value in Supra is through token burning and decreased community spending.

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?

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 ).

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.

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.