I propose a UI/UX overhaul with rebrand
I propose a UI/UX overhaul with rebrand
Is this a proposal? Or should we move this to the Site Feedback category?
Agree with TD that a major UX/UI overhaul is needed along with a rebrand of stbl2.
Given the huge fandom of algofi and the talent within this pool, I would propose the cheapest way to do this would be to have a contest. The winner with the best UX/UI will receive Bank as the reward. The amount of bank is up for discussion.
Sidebar: temp check on adding a Deridex tab to algofi. It’s already built on the platform and feeding the algo/stbl2 pool, a direct link would be great and could only help.
a contest to give the algofi team some ideas what people want sounds like a nice way to incorporate the community. there should be a few guidelines imo to make sure a design wins that embodies what fits algofi’s public image
Before a UI/UX overhaul, how about getting the info info.algofi to read accurately?
One thing I’d be curious to hear the group’s thoughts on is using a contest to just create a new front end entirely, not just the UI/UX, but the code. There is value in having multiple open sourced front end implementations from a decentralization perspective. The dev team, while great, is a centralized entity and has already expressed interest in working on other projects. In the long run, if we expect them to won the UI, that is a centralization risk. They also own the UI (and the domain) and can monetize it in ways that benefit them (ads, fees from fiat onboarding, etc). Rather than relying on them to revamp the UI/UX why not make this a big initial DAO push once decentralization of the protocol on the roadmap is finished.
It could be a great initial project for the DAO to take on because it isn’t high stakes (because the existing UI exists). It would also be a great example of the value of BANK in terms of governance. People who rely on Algofi are going to have strong opinions on how the UI/UX feels and owning BANK is a way to have more influence over that. It would also help to ensure that even if the dev team completely disappears, the open source front end could deployed by any one of us to ensure users can continue to utilize the protocol. Long term, integrations with other platforms (Pera, Coinbase Wallet, etc) are also going to be big in this vein of thought.
while i think it sounds like a good idea when it comes to decentralization i have some safety concerns. how does a user verify that the code of a hosted website wasnt changed malicously? i think i would prefer what aave does, although the used ipfs gateway is security concern too ias far as i understand it:
“The aave-ui is hosted on IPFS in a decentralized manner. app.aave.com just holds a CNAME record to the Cloudflare IPFS gateway.”
how does a user verify that the code of a hosted website wasnt changed malicously?
Glad I could start the much needed conversation
I personally have no ideas why we need to spend precious resource during a bear market on a change in UI/UX providing the fact that the current one is quite intuitive, easy-to-use, and has been functioning like a charm.
We should let the team fully focus on bringing in more creative products that can really add value to the Algorand defi eco-system and generate profit to BANK holders.
You’ve probably seen this post of mine already since you commented in that thread. But
“let the team fully focus on bringing in more creative products that can really add value to the Algorand defi eco-system and generate profit to BANK holders”
is exactly what would make BANK a security. The point of the DAO isn’t to vote on things for the devs to do like shareholders, that is how securities function. AFAIK we can get them to do stuff like this but I believe we’re supposed to pay them for that out of the DAOs treasury, so that its the DAO paying for the work to be done, not BANK holders operating as a board of directors for the dev team.
It seems im in the minority here, but frankly at this point in time i dont see the need for a rebrand or ux/ui changes. Algofi has a simple interface that is easy for nontechnical people to use. It has the highest tvl on algorand. What more can you want? Also stbl doesnt need a rebrand. It needs adoption by ecosystem platforms. This requires patnerships to be formed, not a makeover. Change purely for the sake of change is a bad idea.
Completely agree! The UI is fine and growth of the ecosystem should be of utmost importance.
I actually didn’t read/see your post since I haven’t read too much into the “security” issue of a token (BANK in particular).
The reason is quite simple: The SEC is very unclear how they classify a token a security. Yes, they do talk about the Howey test. But even with that, we can see a lot of tokens/coins can be classified as security depending on how you inteprete it and whether the SEC pick you out of the crowd. ALGO itself can also be classified as a security.
So I don’t think it’s productive to read too much into that front. Pay attention to the product side. And resolve the issue when the regulation side is clear.
Regarding the UI/UX overhaul and rebranding issue, my personal opinion is clear: it’s just a waste of resources to focus on these cosmetic things during a bear market, especially when it has been working properly since day 1.
I disagree on both fronts.
So I don’t think it’s productive to read too much into that front [SEC regulation]. Pay attention to the product side. And resolve the issue when the regulation side is clear.
The smart thing is to follow the prevailing legal guidance that the most well funded projects follow. The dev team has already stated they are bringing in outside legal counsel to assist, with a focus on tax compliance. I can’t imagine any decent legal counsel recommending anything outside a relatively conservative approach. Given the most extreme downside risk is jail time for the dev team (they are US based), this seems quite fair.
it’s just a waste of resources to focus on these cosmetic things during a bear market, especially when it has been working properly since day 1.
I agree it shouldn’t be done for cosmetic reasons but ensuring there is an alternative front end is quite valuable from a decentralization perspective. If we end up getting the legal stuff wrong, the worst case happens, and the dev team has their domain/assets seized, it will be nice to have another means of interacting with the smart contracts to get your funds off the platform. I know some of us could do it programmatically but I’m guessing most can’t. Open sourcing the existing front end would be an acceptable half measure. The SDK is already open sourced so its probably not a stretch to do.
Look, while I understand and share your concern about the risk of relying on the current front-end, I do think that it is just overthinking at this stage of the development of Algofi.
We can agree to disagree and that’s fine. We’ve stated our arguments and its up to others to decide how they feel about it. The poll I posted here should give us some initial understanding of where people stand on the issue. But so far, there seems to be an interest in building a new UI.
I don’t see a proposal in this thread. The original author hasn’t proposed anything. It’s a dillydally post that has created discussion, but nothing tangible as far as a proposal. In fact, it’s written as insider knowledge that a new UI is coming. This thread should be archived and @DragonFi should repost a detailed proposal if indeed they wish a proposal to be submitted for a vote by the BANK utility token holders.