# Foundation Coins **URL:** \ **Category:** $REGEN Coin\ **Tags:** regen\ **Created:** [July 23, 2026, 4:10am UTC](https://forum.regen.network/t/foundation-coins/626 "2026-07-23T04:10:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![brawlaphant](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex004/user_avatar/forum.regen.network/brawlaphant/32/71_2.png) [@brawlaphant](https://forum.regen.network/u/brawlaphant)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2026, 4:10am UTC](https://forum.regen.network/t/foundation-coins/626/1 "2026-07-23T04:10:17Z")
Whats up with the foundation coins, lets burn them if they are not going to be active governers of the regen ledger either make them liquid, vote or burn them they would make for a great test bed for agents built solely for regen if that kind of devops was in motion publicly ---
**Author:** ![Gregory\_Regen](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex004/user_avatar/forum.regen.network/gregory_regen/32/91_2.png) [@Gregory\_Regen](https://forum.regen.network/u/Gregory_Regen)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2026, 4:53pm UTC](https://forum.regen.network/t/foundation-coins/626/2 "2026-09-10T16:53:00Z")
Brandon, I share the urgency behind this question, and I appreciate you putting it plainly. A large inactive position should not be institutionally invisible. At the same time, I would not want us to collapse the options too quickly into “make liquid, vote, or burn” without first making the mandate and constraints legible. My preferred first step would be a public stewardship record for the Foundation-held tokens: what legal or mission constraints attach to them; which body is accountable for decisions; what governance role, if any, they are intended to play; what conflicts or concentration risks need to be managed; and what periodic review determines whether that mandate is still serving the network. If the conclusion is that some portion has no credible mission-aligned role, then redistribution, delegation, or burning can be evaluated through governance with that context in view. I do think your agent test-bed idea is promising, provided the authority is radically bounded. An agent should never receive a treasury or master key. A pilot could use the [scoped and revocable authority pattern](https://forum.regen.network/t/proof-of-authority-for-agentic-regen-automate-on-bounded-revocable-on-chain-grants-never-a-master-key/618): narrow message types, explicit limits, short expiry, public queryability, required receipts, human review, and an immediate revocation path. The pilot should prove accountability as much as automation. The [agentic-tokenomics repo](https://github.com/regen-network/agentic-tokenomics) offers a useful public coordination surface for specifying such a pilot, while [KOI](https://forum.regen.network/t/regen-koi-mcp-the-knowledge-brain-of-regeneration/561) can keep the proposal, evidence, decisions, and outcomes connected. And the older [PoA consensus discussion](https://forum.regen.network/t/regen-network-proof-of-authority-consensus-rfc/70) is a reminder that institutional authority and cryptoeconomic authority cannot be treated as separate forever: who holds tokens, who validates, who votes, and who is answerable for ecological outcomes are linked questions. I would also keep a bioregional option open. Rather than treating Foundation-held tokens only as passive capital or something to destroy, some portion might eventually support carefully governed, place-rooted hubs or validators — but only through an explicit public mandate and reviewable performance criteria. The [bioregional validator thread](https://forum.regen.network/t/exploring-bioregional-validators-a-research-direction/590) is where that possibility should be developed, not assumed. Thank you for continuing to push on dormant structures. The constructive goal, to me, is not activity for its own sake; it is visible stewardship, bounded authority, and institutions that earn legitimacy through accountable action.