ACC Q1 2026 Payment – Issue with Retroactive Application

General
1

Hello @Community_Council @Main_Council

I’m posting here because I don’t agree with how the Q1 2026 ACC payment has been handled.

I’ll be direct: I have no issue with moving to a fixed ASTR payment model. I understand the context and the treasury constraints, so on that point, no problem.

However, what I cannot accept is that this change was applied retroactively to Q1 without being clearly announced or publicly validated.

I took the time to review the initial ACC proposal, the forum discussions, and the referendum. At no point is it stated that this change would apply retroactively to Q1 2026. The vote took place on March 30, at the very end of the quarter. So we’re effectively talking about changing the rules after the work had already been completed.

To be transparent, December and January were very difficult months for me personally. I lost my dog, and at the same time I went through significant tension in my relationship—partly due to the amount of time I was dedicating to my ACC responsibilities. Despite that, I chose to honor my commitments. I did the work and fulfilled my responsibilities. I never received any complaints or negative feedback regarding my work that could explain/justify any reduction in my compensation.

The time I could not spend during that period, whether with my dog or in my relationship, is something I will never get back. It was a real sacrifice. I accepted that sacrifice because there was a clear framework in place: a defined compensation, which would help me cover important expenses, including veterinary costs.

Today, the work is done, the sacrifice is real, but the promised compensation has effectively disappeared. In concrete terms, I upheld my part of the agreement, but ACC did not—and that’s the core issue for me.

After receiving the payment (~$120 in ASTR instead of the $800 I was expecting, considering I left the ACC at the end of the first month of Q1), I reached out to Gaius and then Carlos. I was told that the topic had been discussed internally for months, that everyone was aligned, and that the decision had been collectively validated through the referendum. However, the public discussion only started on February 10, which was after I had already left at the end of January. And while I was still in the ACC channels, I never saw any clear discussion about a confirmed shift to a fixed model, let alone applying it retroactively to Q1. More importantly, none of this is clearly reflected in the public spaces (forum + referendum). So describing this as “transparent” or “established” for Q1 doesn’t match what contributors could actually see.

This raises a fundamental issue: compensation terms can not be changed after the work has been completed without explicit agreement from both side. Whether a decision is “collective” or not does not replace individual consent when it comes to work that has already been performed. If others chose to forgo part of their compensation, that is their decision. But in my case, and given the circumstances explained above, it’s not something I’m in a position to do.

If I had been approached beforehand, I would have been open to discussing it and finding a compromise. But imposing this change, close to 3 months after the fact, without any discussion, is not acceptable. I believe anyone would find it problematic if their salary/compensation/tips (whatever it please you to call it) for past work was significantly reduced after the fact, without prior notice, based on a unilateral decision—even in a difficult context.

I’m not here to create drama. I contributed my time to the ecosystem under a clear framework, with defined compensation. I’m simply asking that commitments be respected on both sides.

I therefore request a revision of the payment so that it reflects the conditions that were in place at the time the work was performed (800$/month based on 30-day EMA).

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Mouthmouth68

3 Likes
2

You are one of the honest ambassadors here, your story was not nice to read but also not surprising. You going public with this must not have been an easy decision, and the lack of response must be disappointing for you.

This is a symptom of a much larger issue for the “strange” relationship Astar has with its ambassadors - some are treated very favourably with payments.

Silence speaks volumes and i purposefully waited before responding to this.

Finally @Mouthmouth68 - i’d urge you to provide any whistle blowing information you might have so we can:

  1. Report to Sony

  2. Go public on X

  3. Purge the “bad” ambassadors

3

Hello @Mouthmouth68,

I reviewed his message, and if what he says is accurate, I believe we should respect his position. Regarding the timing of the compensation rule revision, if there was no clear decision on when the new rules would take effect, and if this was not explicitly stated in any public information, then I think it is reasonable to consider his final active period (January 2026) as outside the scope of the new rules. What are your thoughts on this? > @Community_Council

Additionally, I believe there will be more rule changes in the future. However, since ACC and Ambassador transitions do not always occur at clean or predictable timing, it would be better to define from which point a revision becomes confirmed and which activity period it applies to. This may vary depending on the type of change. For example, some changes might take effect from the date of confirmation onward, while in the case of compensation-related changes, it should be clearly stated from which activity period the new rules apply.

Please consider this.

3 Likes
4

Just to clarify:

The ACC does not issue payments to its own members, so the ACC is not in breach of anything.

Correction: the discussion started internally (while you were still part of the team) and later evolved into a formal proposal within this forum, ultimately being approved by the collective.

You were part of the discussion and even provided your input.

The initial idea was to freeze governance compensations; your input helped shape a better proposal… so yes, you were part of the discussion.

What exactly is not transparent to you? Absolutely all formal discussions took place here in the forum.

You are mistaken; this is how decentralized governance works. Check Polkadot and any other Governance.

I’m not here to argue; these are my personal words, not speaking on behalf of the ACC.

What I find incorrect is that you are trying to fully disassociate yourself from responsibility, knowing that you are in an ecosystem that does not operate like the traditional world. There is no contract, there was no salary.

Of course, fairness is always sought.

The proposal was collaboratively created between the ACC and AFC and was validated through a public referendum. With this in mind, you are free to create a public referendum or request a review from the Main Council if you consider it appropriate.

As mentioned, the ACC does not issue compensation to its own members; this goes against our policy.

1 Like
5

I agree with what you’re saying, @tksarah, and I’m glad you’re raising a completely valid perspective.

This is valuable feedback to improve future operations.

6

I agree with @tksarah .

It is true that since @Mouthmouth68 was involved in discussions within the ACC, this may not have been a decision applied unilaterally. However, I believe the “application period” was not explicitly defined at that time. As a result, it effectively became a retroactive decision without clear agreement. As Mouthmouth68 mentioned, payments are typically calculated based on when they are incurred, so applying changes to rewards from before a governance decision would feel unusual from a conventional work perspective.

In this case, since the application period was not clearly specified before the governance decision was made, I believe there is shared responsibility among all governance participants.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to decide through governance whether the 2026 Q1 rewards should also be applied retroactively. At that time, the discussion should not be limited to ACC but should also include Agent and AFC compensation.

That said, the intent of this decision is to reduce reward amounts from a financial perspective and in consideration of ASTR price conditions. From that standpoint, I do not oppose retroactive application, and I did not raise objections as I personally accepted it (I receive rewards as an Agent and AFC observer).

However, this is because I currently have no intention of converting ASTR into cash. For members who rely on these rewards for living expenses, their perspective could be entirely different.

Governance should proceed with these factors carefully taken into account.

6 Likes
7

As an ACC member who has also been impacted—and will continue to be impacted by this decision not just for one month, but for the full three-month period—I will refrain from making value judgments and instead focus on outlining a few key points:

  • The former Council member participated in internal discussions and was aware of the direction the decision would take.
  • Although the decision went through governance, it was effectively aligned with a direction already set by the Foundation—particularly regarding the reduction and pause of rewards.
  • There was no clear definition at any point regarding the start date of the changes, nor whether they would be applied retroactively. This lack of clarity became a central issue.
  • The core of the discussion now revolves around whether this needed to be explicitly communicated in advance.

Arguments in favor of prior communication:

  • Transparency
  • Allowing members to plan accordingly

Arguments against:

  • The decision was executed on-chain, governed by immutable contracts—what is executed is what stands
  • There is no formal employment or service contract in place; from the beginning, ACC, AFC, and Ambassadors have operated with the understanding that rewards are subject to change and may have immediate effects

Again, I am not making a value judgment here. I see valid points on both sides, and also areas that can be improved moving forward—especially around clarity and communication.

In my view, this is ultimately a matter where the Main Council should provide a clear position, if deemed appropriate.

2 Likes
8

I want to highlight what you mentioned, @you425, as it’s a critical point: “shared responsibility.”

Personally, I was the one leading the conversation on this, gathering input from the community, coordinating with the AFC, the ACC, and the Astar Foundation. I’m aware that there was no explicit statement indicating that this would apply to ongoing compensations (at that point in Q1 2026). I assumed it, since, as you also mentioned, the intent was to protect the treasury.

However, Mouth’s statement that “no one informed him about this” is not accurate. As I explained above, he did participate in the discussion and was aware that this would move forward.

Again, as you pointed out, there is shared responsibility here without exceptions.

9

I found @pitcoin777 summary of the key points to be very reasonable. I also felt that this discussion is extremely valuable and important for future governance decisions beyond just this specific case.

I resonate with @you425 perspective as well. While there are certain assumptions that individuals should understand when participating in a community, the way each person perceives their compensation can differ. Like you425, I also use my community rewards primarily for contributing to Astar’s value and for my own technical exploration. The impact on my personal livelihood is essentially zero. So even if I were in the same situation as Mouth, I would probably just think, “Ah, so that’s how it is,” and move on. But that is only my case.

The point about smart contracts being immutable is particularly important. Therefore, rather than “overturning” the decision itself, would it be possible to consider initiating a governance proposal specifically addressing this issue and letting the community vote on it?

2 Likes
10

Hi @FFR23

Thanks for your support, I appreciate it.

This indeed wasn’t an easy or pleasant thing to bring up publicly, but I felt I had no other option to make the things move.

That being said, I want to be clear on one point: aside from the issue I’ve raised here, my experience working with people in Astar has only been positive. The individuals I interacted with were professional and responsible.

So I don’t have any whistleblowing information to share, and that’s not the purpose of this post. If I had anything of that nature, I would have already acted on it.

My goal here is simply to address a specific issue regarding my compensation and to get a fair resolution. I’d prefer to keep the discussion focused on that.

2 Likes
11

Hi @tksarah

Thanks for taking the time to review this and for your thoughtful response — I really appreciate it.

I agree with your point. For me, the core issue is exactly what you highlighted: the lack of clarity on when the new compensation rules were meant to take effect, especially in the absence of any explicit mention of retroactivity in the public discussions or the referendum.

Given that my active participation ended in January 2026, my understanding was that I was still operating under the initial framework that was in place at that time. That’s why I believe it would be fair to consider that period as outside the scope of the new rules.

I also fully agree with your broader point. Going forward, having clear definitions on when a rule change becomes effective — and which activity period it applies to — would definitely help avoid this kind of situation and ensure better alignment for everyone involved.

Thanks again for your input, it means a lot.

2 Likes
12

Thanks for your response — I’ll try to clarify a few points to avoid any misunderstanding.

First, regarding the wording about “ACC not fulfilling its part,” I understand the technical distinction you’re making about who executes the payment. My point was not about the operational entity sending the funds, but about the framework under which the work was requested and performed. If that wording caused confusion, I’m happy to clarify that.

I think we actually agree on an important point: there was no explicit statement indicating that the change would apply to ongoing compensations during Q1. That’s precisely where my concern comes from.

To explain my position clearly, I’d like to go back to the timeline. While I was still part of the ACC, the discussions I saw were around potentially freezing or delaying payments due to market conditions (as you mentionned). But at no point was there a clear and confirmed direction communicated regarding:

  • a shift to a fixed ASTR compensation model,

  • and more importantly, its application to work already performed in Q1.

The public discussion that led to the actual proposal started on February 10, after my departure. More importantly, neither the forum discussion nor the referendum explicitly state that the change applies retroactively to Q1 2026. That is the core of my concern.

So I disagree is on the notion of “shared responsibility” in this context.

Yes, I participated in discussions — but participation in a general discussion does not equate to agreeing to a specific outcome, especially when key elements such as scope and timing (in this case, retroactive application to Q1) were never clearly defined.

Being aware that “something may move forward” is very different from being informed of — and agreeing to — a specific decision with defined consequences.

You also mention that you assumed it would apply to ongoing compensations in order to protect the treasury. I understand the intention, but that assumption was never made explicit publicly or formally, and that’s exactly the issue.

From my perspective, when I say this was not transparent or established for Q1, I’m referring specifically to that missing piece: the lack of any clear, public, and dated statement indicating that the new model would apply to work already completed.

Regarding the point about “this is how decentralized governance works,” I think there is an important distinction to make. Decentralized governance allows the community to define and update rules, but it does not inherently justify applying those changes retroactively to work that has already been completed under previously defined conditions.

If that were the case, it would mean that any agreed compensation could theoretically be revised after delivery through a governance process. Even if that’s not the intention here, it would create a situation where contributors have no predictability regarding the terms under which they commit their time and work. I don’t believe that is the standard we want to set, especially if the goal is to build long-term trust and foster commitment.

Finally, I appreciate the suggestion to open a referendum or request a review. That said, I don’t think this is the most appropriate path for this specific situation.

The issue here is not about defining a new rule for the future, but about how an existing change has been applied to a past period. In that context, turning this into a governance vote would shift what is essentially a question of facts and fairness into a broader political process, which is not the most appropriate way to address it.

So my position remains the same: the problem is not that a change was made, but that it was applied retroactively without a clear, explicit, and shared understanding of that scope.

14

Hi @Mouthmouth68

From my side, I can’t speak much about what was previously discussed internally within the ACC, since my appointment happened recently.

My understanding is that payments were processed under the new compensation framework because the actual distribution occurred after the on-chain approval of the updated model, which became effective once approved. This was also part of the broader Astar Foundation Forward initiative aimed at improving treasury sustainability under current market conditions.

That said, I believe you raise a very valid and reasonable concern.

While there may have been an internal timeline regarding the direction of the new compensation model, I believe there was a lack of explicit clarity regarding the implementation period for these changes. The fact that the new model was approved at the end of the first quarter understandably raises questions about whether the work done that quarter should have been affected by the previous framework.

In this sense, I’m aligned with Pitcoin’s perspective that additional clarity from the Main Council would be valuable in this specific case, if deemed appropriate.

I believe this debate highlights an operational improvement that we should certainly adopt in the future, as Tksarah rightly pointed out. In this way, any future changes to systems/programs/initiatives should explicitly define their effective date, the period to which they apply, and whether they are applied retroactively, so that we can avoid situations like this.

1 Like
15

It’s unfortunate that you’re not taking any responsibility, as if you hadn’t been part of the process…there’s not much to do there.

I don’t have any further comments or contributions. As I mentioned, there’s no other way to proceed with this other than a public referendum or a retroactive request to the Main Treasury for a review by the Main Council.

IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY: The Main Council was only the executor of a proposal that was approved by the Collective (this is what I mean by the distribution of compensations).

What I mean is that we can request the Main Council’s opinion, but it’s important to understand their role during the discussions and the execution of the referendum.

1 Like
16

@Juminstock I want to clarify one point, as I think there’s a misunderstanding: this is not about avoiding responsibility.

I fully acknowledge that I was part of the early discussions, which at that time were focused on the possibility of delaying compensation payments due to market conditions, or potentially reducing them. However, being part of general discussions is not the same as being informed of — and agreeing to — a clearly defined decision, especially regarding something as specific as the retroactive application to Q1.

That element was never explicitly stated or formalized, neither in internal ACC discussions (while I was still part of the Telegram channel), nor during the public discussions on the forum, nor in the referendum itself — as you also acknowledged.

So, from my perspective, the issue is not about the change itself, but the absence of a clear and publicly defined scope regarding its application to past work.

Regarding the governance route, I understand that it is an available option. However, I believe this situation is first a matter of clarification and fairness, which could be addressed directly through a Main Council review, as I trust they will approach this with fairness and impartiality.

I would therefore like to request a formal opinion from the @Main_Council on this matter. More specifically:

Was the transition to a fixed ASTR compensation model ever explicitly defined — in internal discussions (while I was still part of the ACC), forum discussions, or the referendum — as applying to work already performed during Q1 2026?

In the absence of any explicit definition of such scope, the only clearly established framework at the time remains the original compensation model, which would reasonably apply to that period.

17

Hello @Maarten @Gaius_sama @0xRamz @bLd759 @cyphernk @xxphua

I would like to follow up regarding my previous request for clarification concerning the retroactive application of the ACC compensation changes to Q1 2026.

As this matter directly relates to governance clarity, contributor expectations, and trust in publicly defined frameworks, I believe a formal opinion from the Main Council would be both appropriate and valuable for the ecosystem.

I therefore respectfully reiterate my request for the @Main_Council’s position on this matter.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

3 Likes
18

Hi @Mouthmouth68,

Thank you for your patience while this was reviewed properly.

I want to start by being clear on one thing: the procedural concern you raised is legitimate. Ref #54 did not explicitly define its effective date or the activity period to which it applied. Several contributors in this thread said the same, and it was acknowledged directly. That gap is real, and your raising it has produced a concrete improvement, which I will come to below.

After your follow-up, the Main Council did not treat this as a single-person question. We brought it back to the ACC and worked through the full range of possible resolutions, not only your case: a uniform correction applying the original framework to everyone who served in January 2026, a broader correction covering all of Q1, and leaving the onchain result in place. We wanted to find a path that was fair, consistent across every contributor, and defensible to the Collective.

On the outcome, and why this sits with the ACC. The ambiguity you identified originated at the referendum stage. Ref #54 was proposed and managed by the ACC, and the compensation it governs falls under the ACC’s mandate. Any corrective payment would therefore appropriately be drawn from the Community Treasury that the ACC manages. Keeping it there locates the matter where it arose, and avoids turning a specific scope question into a broader treasury precedent that could be invoked in unrelated cases later. Because both the mandate and the funding source sit with the ACC, the decision is theirs to make.

Having considered each of the options above, the ACC’s settled position is that the result executed onchain through Ref #54 stands, and that no retroactive correction will be made, for any contributor, including continuing members. The reasoning is that an approved and executed referendum is treated as the final source of truth, applied equally to everyone rather than to any individual case.

I know this is not the answer you were hoping for, and I want to be straight with you rather than dress it up.

What does change, and what your case directly caused: the Main Council, ACC, and AFC are committing that every future compensation framework change will specify its effective date and application period explicitly, from the outset. The ambiguity that affected your January will not recur. That is a real governance fix, and it exists because you raised this.

Finally, if you believe the Collective intended a different scope than the one applied, that route remains fully open to you, and it does not depend on the Main Council or the ACC. You can submit a treasury proposal for your requested amount together with a referendum to approve it. If the ASTR token holders vote it through, the treasury payment executes automatically onchain. The onchain result is the source of truth here, so the Collective is the body with standing to decide this, and the mechanism puts that decision entirely in its hands, not ours.

Thank you again for your service on the ACC through 2025 and January 2026, and for raising a concern that has made the process clearer for everyone who comes after you.

Gaius_sama :astr:

Astar Foundation & Main Council

4 Likes
19

Hi @Mouthmouth68, adding to what Gaius_sama has shared above, and confirming this as the ACC’s position.

Over the past two weeks, we discussed this internally as a full council. The conversation touched multiple angles: the timeline ambiguity in Ref #54, the different corrective paths available, and whether and how the Community Treasury should be involved. We also coordinated with the Main Council to make sure whatever path we chose was consistent and well-grounded.

After working through each option, the ACC reached a consensus not to proceed with any corrective measure for any contributor, including past and active members. The core issue was that any individual correction would mean treating your case as an exception because of your departure date, which is something we were not comfortable doing, and any blanket correction covering all affected contributors would require drawing from the Community Treasury, which ACC discussed and ultimately did not consider the right course of action here.

So the result executed onchain through Ref #54 stands. That is the ACC’s settled position, aligned with the Main Council.

As Gaius noted, if you feel the Collective should decide differently, you are fully empowered to bring this to a public referendum. The onchain mechanism puts that decision exactly where it belongs.

Thank you for your patience throughout this process, and for the service you gave to the ACC.

cc @Community_Council

3 Likes
20

@Gaius_sama @Juminstock @Community_Council @Main_Council

Thank you for taking the time to review the matter and provide a formal response.

My concern was never about the validity of Ref #54 itself, nor about the Collective’s authority to change the compensation model.

The question I raised from the very beginning was much narrower:

Where was it explicitly defined that Ref #54 would apply retroactively to work already performed during Q1 2026?

After several weeks of discussion, I believe we now have a clear answer: nowhere.

The Main Council has acknowledged that Ref #54 did not explicitly define its effective date or application period, and that this ambiguity was significant enough to justify procedural changes going forward. This is precisely the issue I raised.

What I cannot reconcile is that the ambiguity is now recognized, the process is acknowledged as having lacked a clearly defined scope, and corrective measures are considered necessary for the future, yet the consequences of that ambiguity are left entirely unaddressed for those affected by it.

Throughout this discussion, considerable emphasis has been placed on the fact that Ref #54 was approved and executed on-chain. However, that has never been the point of disagreement.

The referendum’s validity is not being questioned.

The question has always been whether its retroactive application to Q1 2026 was ever explicitly defined. To date, no reference, statement, discussion excerpt, or referendum text has been presented demonstrating that it was.

As a result, the retroactive application appears to have been based not on an explicitly defined scope, but on an interpretation that was later adopted and enforced.

In such circumstances, it remains my view that the only clearly established compensation framework applicable to Q1 2026 contribution was the one that existed when that work was performed.

I also respectfully disagree with the suggestion that this matter should now be resolved through another referendum.

The issue was never whether the Collective had the authority to make this change. The issue was whether the scope of that change was ever clearly defined. Now that the ambiguity has been formally acknowledged, asking affected contributors to launch a new referendum in order to recover compensation that was originally promised effectively shifts the burden of correcting that ambiguity onto those affected by it.

Beyond my own situation, I believe this outcome raises a broader concern.

Contributors, partners, and service providers necessarily rely on clearly defined frameworks when deciding whether to dedicate their time, resources, or expertise to the ecosystem. When a compensation framework is later interpreted in a way that was never explicitly defined, and no corrective action is taken even after that ambiguity is acknowledged, it inevitably raises questions about predictability and confidence in future commitments.

In my view, this is ultimately more significant than my individual case.

Ultimately, the Main Council and the ACC have now acknowledged that:

  • the application period of Ref #54 was not explicitly defined;
  • the ambiguity was significant enough to warrant procedural changes going forward;
  • no explicit reference exists defining the retroactive scope that was ultimately applied.

Despite this, the decision has been made to maintain the outcome produced by that ambiguity rather than correct it.

Personally, I do not believe this outcome reflects the level of accountability that contributors should reasonably expect from either the ACC or the Main Council. When acknowledged ambiguities directly affect contributors, oversight should exist to resolve them fairly, not simply to acknowledge them and move on.

21

Hi @Mouthmouth68 ,

First of all, thank you for taking the time to clearly share your perspective throughout this discussion. Even though we may not all agree on the final outcome, I believe your feedback helped bring attention to an important governance issue and encouraged valuable conversations around clarity, implementation, and accountability.

From my perspective as an ACC member, I understand the concerns that were raised regarding the ambiguity surrounding the implementation of Ref #54. During our internal discussions, we explored different possible approaches and carefully evaluated the implications of each option.

However, our assessment was not focused solely on an individual case. We looked at the broader picture and considered how the implementation of the new reward model affected all governance bodies and contributors subject to the same changes. After weighing the available options, I ultimately supported the decision that was reached because I believe consistency in the application of governance decisions is an important principle for the ecosystem.

While opinions may differ regarding the outcome, I think there is broad agreement that this discussion revealed an area where our governance processes can improve. The acknowledgment of that ambiguity and the commitment to provide greater clarity around future implementation timelines are, in my view, meaningful outcomes from this process.

With the decision now concluded by both the Main Council and the ACC, I hope we can take the lessons learned from this discussion and use them to strengthen governance moving forward.

While I understand that this was not the outcome you were hoping for, the decision was reached after careful consideration of the broader implications for all governance participants. Thanks again for raising your concerns and for your contributions during your time on the ACC. :astr:

2 Likes