Talk:Algorand

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 19 June 2021 by reviewer Cerebellum (talk · contribs).

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptocurrency Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

LionCoin (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Bhaney44 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Thegreenrex (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Anon - I don't have much expertise on Wikipedia's banner policies, but I don't understand why there is a warning that the article was written for money, when I can't find any discussion of that on the talk page. It would be very helpful to understand whether this is just an assumption with respect to cryptocurrencies or something else.

Notes on the first draft of this article submitted for review:

(1) This article is related to, but is separate from, a prior article that I submitted related to Algorand. That first article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Algorand Although it wasn't my intention, it appeared that that first article was about Algorand the organization (which develops the also-called-Algorand technology platform / network) rather than the also-called-Algorand technology platform / network. I've tried to remove any ambiguity about that issue by, among other things, changing the title of this article versus the title of the previous article. I had looked into just submitting a new version of the original article with the title updated, but I couldn't figure out how to update the title. So here we are.

(2) I appreciate that the sources cited in cryptocurrency-related articles are subject to a standard for reliability that is higher than in other subject areas - and I understand the rationale behind that. In the interest of making review of this article as efficient as possible, I am adding a table below with comments regarding on all of the sources that I've cited and why they meet this heightened standard.

Notes on Sources
Citation #	Article	Link	Notes
1	Academic paper titled “A Survey on Blockchain Consensus with a Performance Comparison of PoW, PoS and Pure PoS”	https://doi.org/10.3390/math8101782	This is an independent, peer-reviewed academic paper from a reputable journal. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics
2	Academic paper titled “A Formal Model of Algorand Smart Contracts”	https://fc21.ifca.ai/papers/202.pdf	This is an independent, peer-reviewed academic paper from the proceedings of a reputable conference. https://fc21.ifca.ai/papersubmission.php
3	Academic paper titled “A Survey of Distributed Consensus Protocols for Blockchain Networks”	https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8972381	This is an independent, peer-reviewed academic article from a reputable journal. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/aboutJournal.jsp?punumber=9739
4	Academic paper titled “Recent advances in consensus protocols for blockchain: a survey”	https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11276-019-02195-0	This is an independent, peer-reviewed academic article from a reputable journal. https://www.springer.com/journal/11276/ https://www.springer.com/journal/11276/ethics-and-disclosures
5	CNBC article titled “Bitcoin and blockchain consume an exorbitant amount of energy. These engineers are trying to change that”	https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/23/bitcoin-blockchain-consumes-a-lot-of-energy-engineers-changing-that.html	CNBC is a well-regarded mainstream news source.
6	VentureBeat article titled “MIT professor debuts high-speed blockchain payments platform Algorand”	https://venturebeat.com/2018/02/15/mit-professor-debuts-high-speed-blockchain-and-payments-platform-algorand/	The reliability of VentureBeat has been commented on positively on the noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#Venturebeat.com,_aumag.org,_uscops.com,_and_positivelyaware.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_105#VentureBeat
7	Business Journals article titled “Algo VC Fund Raises $200M to Fast-Track Its Own Cryptocurrency”	https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/inno/stories/fundings/2019/08/27/algo-vc-fund-raises-200m-to-fast-track-its-own.html	I’m citing Business Journals for the fact that the Algorand test network was launched in April 2019. Discussion on the noticeboard indicates Business Journals is generally reliable, with the caveat that it does include a mix of legit content and paid content and that the paid content should be avoided as unreliable. It goes without saying that this source has been used carefully here, and that it is not paid content that is being cited to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_288#Business_Journals_/_bizjournals.com
8	Crowd Fund Insider article titled "Bahrain’s Shariah Review Bureau Certifies Blockchain Firm Algorand As Shariah Compliant”	https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2019/10/153198-bahrains-shariah-review-bureau-certifies-blockchain-firm-algorand-as-shariah-compliant/	I’m citing Crowd Fund Insider for the fact that the Algorand main network was launched in June 2019. I didn’t find any discussion of Crowd Fund Insider on the notice board. It is not e.g. a well-known mainstream newspaper, but it does have paid staff and is not e.g. a self-published blogging service. The article that I'm citing to appears to be written by a paid staff member and appears (in my view) to be reliable. Crowd Fund Insider is cited in 300+ English-language Wikipedia articles.
9	Forbes article titled "Visa Partners With Ethereum Digital-Dollar Startup That Raised $271 Million”	https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/12/02/visa-partners-with-ethereum-digital-dollar-startup-that-raised-271-million/?sh=2a0b3bbf4b1f	Per the "Perennial Sources" discussion on Forbes, articles from Forbes "contributor" are seen as generally unreliable, while articles from Forbes staff are seen as generally reliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes This article is labeled as being produced by Forbes Staff and so should be seen as reliable.
10	Forbes article titled "Stimulus Checks From A Crypto Exchange; Bitcoin Rebound”	https://www.forbes.com/sites/cryptoconfidential/2020/09/20/stimulus-checks-from-a-crypto-exchange-bitcoin-rebound/?sh=3578ebf078d5	This is also a Forbes staff article. See above. Note: I'm citing this article for the point that USDC is on the Algorand platform. The USDC Wikipedia article already says that USDC is on Algorand, though it (naturally) currently doesn't link to an Algorand page, and it cites to some primary sources. Perhaps the USDC page should be updated. Something to note for the future, anyway.
11	Il Sole 24 Ore article titled "Blockchain at the service of the environment: a public register of air quality" (original Italian title: "Blockchain al servizio dell’ambiente: un registro pubblico di qualità dell’aria")	https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/blockchain-servizio-dell-ambiente-registro-pubblico-qualita-dell-aria-ACz2ciIB	Il Sole 24 Ore is a well-regarded (Italian) mainstream news source.
12	Bloomberg article titled “Crypto Push by Republic Platform Sparked by New Token”	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-24/crypto-push-by-republic-investment-platform-sparked-by-new-token	Bloomberg is a well-regarded mainstream news source.
13	Music Business Worldwide article titled “Ditto Launches Opulous Platform to Help Artists Access Funding Without the Need for Traditional Banks”	https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/ditto-launches-opulous-platform-to-help-artists-access-funding-without-the-need-for-traditional-banks/	I didn’t find any discussion of Music Business Worldwide on the notice board. It is not e.g. a well-known mainstream newspaper, but it does have paid staff and is not e.g. a self-published blogging service. The article that I'm citing to appears to be written by a paid staff member and appears (in my view) to be reliable. Music Business Worldwide does have its own Wikipedia page, and it is cited in 200+ English-language Wikipedia articles.
14	Il Sole 24 Ore article titled "Copyright becomes a digital asset on the blockchain" (original Italian title: "Il diritto d’autore diventa asset digitale su blockchain")	https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/il-diritto-d-autore-diventa-asset-digitale-blockchain-ADwWtTSB	Il Sole 24 Ore is a well-regarded (Italian) mainstream news source.

AspiringArticleWriter (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Change Request: Including Website to Infobox

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

* Specific text to be added: I request adding the Algorand website: https://algorand.co/ to the Infobox.

* Reason for the change: It is the official site of Algorand.

* References supporting change: I took a look at the pages of other cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin, Polkadot, and Solana) and their Infoboxes contain their respective websites. ObsceneOwl (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why this one and not algorandtechnologies.com? This article isn't solely about the Algorand Foundation, nor is it solely about Algorand Technologies. Since there doesn't appear to be a single website for this blockchain, I would like to hear a better explanation for why this is website deserves special treatment.

Please do not re-open this template until a consensus has been formed. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell,

Appreciate the quick response and great point made. If it makes sense, perhaps the article can include both https://algorand.co/ and https://algorandtechnologies.com/. Both are official sites regarding Algorand except, from my understanding, they work in different capacities: where Algorand Technologies (or Algorand Inc.) seems to be in the business of building/maintaining the core of the Algorand blockchain, Algorand Foundation seems to provide educational resources for developers to build on the blockchain.

If only one site is allowed on the Infobox, I do not think it matters too much which one goes on there because linking either official site is better than not linking anything at all (reduces likelihood of people going to fake sites, I think). Interestingly, on Solana's article, they only linked https://solana.com/ (probably their version of the Inc) not https://solana.org/ (their version of the foundation); however, the contents presented in both of these Solana sites do not match up to that corresponding to Algorand.

Also, when you say "do not re-open this template," you mean to not create another change request... right? I'm still new to all this so if my reply here is not allowed, apologies in advance and please let me know what should have been done. Thanks

ObsceneOwl (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solana.com says, at the bottom of that homepage, that it is 'managed by the Solana Foundation'. Tax arrangements aside, they appear to be the same organization. This doesn't appear to be the case for Algorand.

The template you added was set to 'answered'. You could change {{edit COI|a}} to {{edit COI}} to reactivate this request, but you should only do this once consensus has been formed for a specific change. If you want to propose other changes, start a new section with a new template (but please be succinct out of respect for volunteer editors). Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell,

Thank you for your patience, as I get more in tune on how to properly contribute to Wikipeida. I've taken note on succinctness and also read up on WP:CON. As you clearly noted, Algorand Inc and Algorand Foundation are clearly two separate organizations unlike Solana's situation. As such here is what I propose:

Revision of my request: Both https://algorand.co/ and https://algorandtechnologies.com/ should be included in the Infobox.

Reason: The Inc and Foundation play different but significant roles for Algorand. Including both sites gives the article more context and information. Additionally, there won't be a concern for special treatment of one site over the other. What do you think?

ObsceneOwl (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already suggested that. I don't accept that including two different glossy and promotional websites is appropriate here. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell,

What would you advise? I am sure you are coming from a good place and it would be really helpful if you could provide something more constructive than just saying no to everything I proposed. Its a bit discouraging especially because there seems to be no progress made on this and I have been acting in good faith.

If you believe including both is inappropriate (I have no opinions on that) could you give a recommendation on which one of the two to put then?

ObsceneOwl (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glossing and promotional is subjective descriptions of the sites. Both https://algorand.co/ and https://algorandtechnologies.com/ are official sites is objective. Regardless, I think https://algorand.co/ should be added to the Infobox if both sites cannot be added. Here is why:

I think its worth comparing the sites linked to other articles.

https://algorand.co/ 's header includes: "Get started," "Technology," "Developers," "Entrepreneurs," "Community," "Resources."

https://polkadot.com/ is Polkadot's site linked on its article. Its header includes "Get started," "Platform," "Developers," "Community."

https://solana.com/ is Solana's site linked on its article. Its header includes "Learn," "Developers," "Solutions," Network," "Community"

https://bitcoin.org/en/ is Bitcoin's site linked on its article. Its header includes "Introduction," "Resources," "Innovation," "Participate," "FAQ"

As one can see, the sites contain near equivalent content: "Get started" is "Learn" and "Introduction," "Technology" is "Platform", "Network," and "Innovation," "Entrepreneurs" is "Solutions." There are a couple of things that one sites has that the others don't but that should not make algorand.co unusable/not linkable to the article.

ObsceneOwl (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in encouraging you to promote cryptocurrencies on Wikipedia, so while I don't want to discourage you from editing Wikipedia in general, specifically in that respect I do hope this has been a bit discouraging. I don't really object to adding one link to the infobox, but your approach and arguments have been pretty flawed, and I don't want to mislead you about how Wikipedia works.

Other article have other problems. See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Crypto articles in general have more problems than many other topics. You say it is 'objective' to describe this as an 'official' site, but that isn't a settled issue. It is very, very easy to find unofficial crypto sites with the same buzzwordy headers, so this argument doesn't really make any sense.

I also reject the implication that any of these websites are good as websites. This is not exclusive to Algorand. Crypto sites are mostly bad at providing reliable information, and mostly use off-the-shelf templates, stock mages, and pointless video, so they don't even look interesting. Yes, I know that's subjective, but professionalism still matters with sources and links. Our goal is still to help readers understand these subjects, not to direct them to misleading advertisements. Why are we linking to these sites if all they do is recycle buzzwords and jargon via a glorified corporate blog?

Anyway, I have added the commercial link to the infobox. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, there's somewhat of a power struggle between the Algorand Foundation (algorand.co) and Algorand, Inc. (algorand.com).

Algorand's founder and Algorand's official GitHub both link to algorand.com, which focuses more on the technology itself, and services like launching a "permissioned chain" which would not consume or increase demand for ALGO tokens.

It appears Algorand, Inc. (algorand.com) owns the Algorand licenses, patents and it would seem trademarks as well.

In contrast, the Algorand Foundation (algorand.co) website focuses more on marketing ALGO tokens to retail investors. It advertises "unimaginable scale" and sponsored "real world" applications, which investors understand consume and increase demand for ALGO tokens specifically.

So there's a risk that choosing Algorand.co over Algorand.com might be choosing to promote ALGO the unregistered security over Algorand the technology. Auditoshi (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auditoshi,

Fair assessment, I was unaware of the struggles between the two. It does sound like algorand.com would be the better link to include.

And to Grayfell,

I see that you've already updated said link to the .com one, so thanks! For the record, I never intended to promote any cryptocurrencies; I hope the input I've made were neutral even if you disagree or if I used the wrong sources (apologies there). I happened to start editing Algorand because it was something I recently looked into (yes I also recently bought some tokens on Coinbase, added already COI tag) so it was fresh on my mind. You've been tremendously helpful by pointing me to the various policies I missed prior to starting my Wikipedia editing journey, so thank you.

ObsceneOwl (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ObsceneOwl,

I'm glad we all agree algorand.com is a better link Auditoshi (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful background info, thanks. That was a mistake on my part. I meant to link '.com' instead.

My experience has been that reliable, independent sources do not treat 'the technology' and the cryptocurrency as being intrinsically separate. If reliable sources discuss this power struggle, I would like to see them. "Permissioned chain" seems like a retronym for decentralized database technology which had already existed for decades before bitcoin came along. I notice that the .com site doesn't say, or even hint at, any use-cases for its permissioned chain service, while the .co one just insipidly touts money-making schemes. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear the background info was helpful. Thanks for updating the link to '.com' too.

"Conflict" might be a better description than "power struggle". While I can't find an article from a reliable source discussing the conflict, here are a couple more signs:

- The founder's latest speech (15m 35s) about blockchains, uploaded by Algorand Technologies, does not mention Algorand.

- The founder did not attend the Decipher conference in 2024. He attended every previous Decipher conference. The Algorand Foundation hosts these conferences.

After the SEC alleged ALGO was an unregistered security, the Algorand Foundation essentially doubled down on selling them to investors, whereas Algorand, Inc. rebranded itself to Algorand Technologies and tried offering blockchain technology solutions instead. As you pointed out though, they seem like solutions in search of problems. Auditoshi (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algorand isn't "quantum-secure"

Algorand accounts are vulnerable to post-quantum hackers.

The blockchain uses the Falcon digital signature scheme to create snapshots of the blockchain every 256 rounds (around 12 minutes on average). As of today, the article uses this to imply Algorand itself is quantum-secure.

Algorand claims these snapshots would be quantum-secure, but there's no evidence these snapshots would do anything to impede post-quantum hackers from emptying Algorand accounts and selling the stolen crypto assets on exchanges.

In fact, Algorand's entire proof of stake consensus mechanism can be compromised by post-quantum hackers, since it depends on the assumption that a high percentage of actively staked ALGOs are from honest (and uncompromised) accounts. Auditoshi (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. There are a lot of problems with this claim, but the most basic is that the cited source is not reliable in this context. If a reliable, independent source makes this claim, we could consider summarizing that source, but even then, WP:FRINGE issues abound. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Algorand Foundation's CEO an independent source?

The "Design, Performance" section's source is an interview with the Algorand Foundation's CEO.

In the interview, the CEO makes claims like: "we can do 10,000 transactions per second"

The Wikipedia article then presents these claims as facts: "The Algorand network can facilitate 10,000 transactions per second" Auditoshi (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer, Francisca Dominguez Zubicoa, has been a Branded Content Coordinator since February '24.

Here's how she describes her job on LinkedIn (translated): "Management of the generation of sponsored content (interviews, reports, webinars, success stories, partner zones)" Auditoshi (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other Links

Article Change Request: Including Website to Infobox

Algorand isn't "quantum-secure"

Is the Algorand Foundation's CEO an independent source?