Astar dApp Staking v3 Dynamic Tier Thresholds review proposal

Astar Network (Polkadot)
21

Brother this is very unfortunate. I hope we can solve this soon, you worked extremely hard to get Tier 1.

1 Like
22

Hi @Dino

since threshold are now dynamic, would it be possible to add ASAP on the dApp staking dashboard of Astar Portal the “current” value of each Tier threshold ?

this is an important information for projects and stakers as it tell which dApp is at risk to be demonted to lower Tier and thus which one should be the focus of additional support and how much is needed to provide relative security.

this join my previous recommandation to modify Bonus limitaiton presented in this post dApps Staking v3 - proposal - #142 by Mouthmouth68 on which i completly disagree with your answer as if we want a dynamic and involved community, we need to provide a dynamic and flexible tools and environment for them to do so. However, the current system just make thing similar to before I.e “stake and forget” with the addition of a “untill next voting period” (which is 4 month i.e. an eternity in crypto especialy within a dynamic system)

This in NOT how i want to support my favorit dApps and project and again, i don’t want to be penalized for being ACTIF and SUPPORTIF of my favorit projects and astar environment when they need it

1 Like
23

For thresholds, I believe it will be available soon on the portal.

For the bonus limitation, I’m not sure with what part you completely disagree with me :slightly_smiling_face: .I explained why the system exists & acknowledged we’ll look into improving it in the future. I do agree this needs to evolve, based on the situation you explained, but the decision who to stake on should still carry some weight.

24

Thanks @DustinLee for tagging me in to catch up on this topic.

I understand this and think based on fairness across the whole Ecosystem it would be more supportive to the projects if threshold tiers were lowered. I think everyone seems to be saying this as well so it does seem like a collective perspective.

2 Likes
25

  1. we must operate in a truly decentralized manner.
    The list and delist of the projects is entrusted to a limited number of people who we have come to know in recent months, positive and negative people, about whom there would be a lot to talk about. This small number does not reflect the support received when voting and staking any dapp. They should be in the process, but they shouldn’t just be the process. We will be delisted and the vote of 200 people will be less important than the vote given by people who have nothing to do with us. So start to establish that the change of rules in dappstaking must be proposed and correctly voted on by the community and not by the “elected”. Centralizing measures are necessary in the early stages of the project’s growth, this is undeniable, I think the time has come to grow and choose the path of decentralization.

  2. The new system designed on the tiers is impossible to fix in our opinion. There will always be injustices, even very serious ones (inform yourself about our situation), lowering them doesn’t change anything. The truth is that a mess is happening and perhaps it would be time to question the rules and the work of those who worked on them.

2 Likes
26

Hi @Dino,

thanks for the answer. I hope that this update will be released soon.

When I say that i completly disagree with your answer, I’m talking about when you mention that “The bonus is supposed to incentivize stakers to stake on a project they believe is worthy supporting for at least a period”.

According to initial discussion of V3 the bonus was aiming to incentivize ACTIVE stakers over “STAKE&FORGET” ones. I understand that the team decided to give it a total different meaning i.e. “gives weight to the decision” and “reward commitment” but it only result in forcing the ACTIVE stakers to fall under the “STAKE&FORGET” category, with the difference being that staker are forced to FORGET untill next voting period if they don’t want to lose the bonus they have been promized for being an “ACTIVE” staker.

I can agree to the weight part to a certain extend and this is why i was mentionning a cool down period but we should encourage activity and dynamise of the staker community over this weight. After all what’s most important for us? to support our dApps accordingly in order to give them the capacity to focus on building during at least B2E period and produce successful and attractive dApp for Astar Eco or forcing them to constantly dedicate precious and limited resources to promote themself 24/7 in an endless & sensless race for staker ?

3 Likes
27

exactly, another fail of this system.
The facts are these: During the voting period all the dapps in the system were HYPER-CONCENTRATED on marketing. Tweets and spam 24 hours a day. As soon as that was over the dapps all went dormant again. Our dapp is in the delisting phase, and the development proposal has changed for 1 month, yet the stakers are still there, and so are their stars.
Essentially nothing has changed, other than a reset every 4 months.

2 Likes
28

Actually no, this didn’t change.
The period rotation ensures that stakers need to come back periodically to decide who they will stake on again (or just restake on the old dApp). This ensures it’s not stake & forget as before. I wrote that there were some accounts who staked and hadn’t claimed any of their rewards for 2 years.

The part about decision carrying weight was also always here. Without that, stakers could just jump from one dApp to another, without any consequence. dApp A offers a good kickback - jump there, dApp B offers a better kickback - jump there. Decision should carry some weight and should incentivize stakers to stick with their dApp to bring stability to their total staked amount.

Building a community, attracting stakers, and doing so consistently is important. I wouldn’t say promotion is needed 24/7 since as you said already in the previous chapter, people still stake & forget, only for a shorter period.

General comment, unrelated to anyone specifically or this thread in particular

Lots of discussions recently, and I’m referring to the constructive ones, seem to laser focus on one thing alone - dApp rewards. Rest of the system is mostly ignored in the proposals.

I will make a summary of some of the older posts I made to explain how certain decisions work together in the system. Hope to do it sometimes next week.

2 Likes
29

Dapps build, promote themselves, interact with many more users than are writing on this forum. Then suddenly the promised financial support disappears completely in many cases. What should they worry about other than missing rewards? How beautiful is this system and maybe applaud you too?
Do you understand that this is not the way to do things, especially after what ASTAR has proposed over the months?
The staking dapp v3:
-It is NOT meritocratic

  • It does NOT help development if you don’t have 300 million astars staked
  • DOES NOT guarantee the right mood among developers and in the ecosystem
  • DO NOT CHANGE the stake and forget it. Over the 4 month period nothing changes. And it is enough time to discourage those who arrive later and find themselves not receiving staking astars just because users don’t want to lose bonuses (even if the dapp they bet on is a scam)
  • DESTROYS UCG

Every time there needs to be a substantial adjustment or change, everything is discussed and approved among a few people.

Where is the involvement of all parties involved? Community-Developers-Core Team

If the Astar team is honest, it tells everyone how it is, that is, that dapp staking no longer exists.
If the objectives are other, such as those of preserving the tokenomic, do it publicly, it is useless to attract with false promises only to pretend to have a system that in the end turns out to be much less decisive than other classic systems such as “GRANT”.

Since v3 took over I would be curious to know the numbers of proposals created, from what we see there has been a drastic drop there too.

Can you name a positive factor of the new dapp staking other than increased token burn? Is it right to download a better tokenomic totally on the dappstaking narrative? If so, why does it continue to exist in these terms? How long will it last if you only allow very large teams or teams with great knowledge the possibility of self-financing? Think about this a bit.
It all starts from the distribution of rewards and tier settings that you or a few have personally designed, without taking into account the reality and the numbers that the dapps had, and what the application of this idea would have entailed.

3 Likes
30

Thank you @Dino for your feedback, but I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

  • Astar dApp Staking v3 rewards builders that are supported by the community staking their ASTR tokens for a certain period of time. If the rewards were based on engagement or use of dApps, then, the rewards would be calculated based on the number of transactions, or similar metric

  • The projects earn more the higher the Tier classification is, with a small increment based on the price of ASTR. Tier classification has a much higher impact on the rewards than ASTR price

The purpose of my proposal was to clarify how the Tier Thresholds were set and if they are/could be dynamically adjusted.

My recommendation to Astar Core Team is for you/them to review Astar Tokenomics Assessment (link above) and the recommendations of MVP Workshop.

Unfortunately, 50% of ASTR tokens that were staked on the 11th February are currently locked and not staked (21% currently versus 42% back then). That is a critical deviation from all the simulations run by MVP Workshop (see page 26 onwards), that is having a significant impact on the rewards distributed to builders (as dApps are classified in lower Tiers).

As Developers, stakers and users of Astar and Astar zkEVM ourselves, we want Astar Network to be the best blockchain for all stakeholders involved as part of the community.

We appreciate your feedback @Dino and all the support received from the community so far!

2 Likes
31

That’s ok, but I’d like you to emphasize which part exactly.

Yes, I agree with this. And that’s the engagement metric we have.
Counting number of transactions/smart contract calls, gas spent, etc. brings a whole world of new problems, and will put different kinds of dApps into favor (e.g. DeFi dApp vs DAO dApp). This has been discussed before so I won’t repeat the old arguments here.

I believe you might be misunderstanding the report & modeling behind it. The MVP team took the current on-chain numbers, and did a model based on those. It’s not expected we’ll match those numbers, especially not in the simulation provided in the end of report. I mean, is ASTR price increasing?

Those are mathematical models, just tools to simulate a potential case. How this behaves in real life is another thing.

Thresholds adjust to ASTR price because number of slots changes with the price, and network draws some form of stability from high TVS (or TVL). So to have a system which just reduces threshold while still giving out big rewards makes no sense. If Astar isn’t “thriving” (high price and high TVS), it doesn’t make sense for network actors to earn huge amounts.

And please remember that tier rewards adjust to ASTR price - so even in the case when ASTR price drops, the tier price drop doesn’t follow the same curve, it’s less. And this is compensated by reducing slot numbers & increasing ASTR rewards.

The gist of your proposal, at least how I see it is:

  • reduce thresholds
  • give out more rewards

To repeat my question from another thread - what do developers & dApps & Astar team do to increase TVS?

We’ll re-asses thresholds in near future, I already said we’ll reconsider parameters once the first period ends. No ETA here.

For giving out more rewards, the additional ranking system within the tier is on its way which will see increase in developer rewards, based on staked amount within the tier.

2 Likes
33

Hello Dino, for me, Astar Network is a sacred space.

We have a significant advantage in the field of dApp staking. TVL (Total Value Locked) has a major impact here. This is because projects receive support while also promoting the ASTr token.

For example, the reason why Neurolanche has the highest TVL is that while using Astar Network, we also heavily marketed ASTR to users. Therefore, as a community, we own millions of ASTR.

However, I want to draw attention to something here. Thanks to new networks like Astar ZkEvm, projects can contribute to the network through transactions (txs).

Currently, we have more TVL than Yoki. The biggest reason for this is that we are using Account Abstraction. The concepts we refer to as txs generate Ethereum fees for our network.

What I want to discuss here is the importance of TVL only affecting the Tier systems. Why don’t we use these transaction calculations as an indicator?

As an ambassador, I am curious about this. How do you think it would benefit our network and projects?

2 Likes
34

Hello dear Dino, the number of stakers shown on Dune is around 4600, while on the Portal it is around 3150. This discrepancy is present across all dApps. I am wondering if this is a bug.

IMG_1479
IMG_1479901×1280 72.2 KB

3 Likes
35

I agree, more decentralisation would be good.

I was sorry to hear about the proposal to delist you @SFY_Labs. I looked to vote nay, but I heard about it too late, and it had already passed. I think it is quite unjust that this can happen. If you reapply, please ping me on Telegram @doinglifewell, and I will support you in being relisted, like ArthSwap was.

I haven’t seen any posts or forum discussions from new dApps like Quickswap, who are just here to show face. Your level of community engagement is high; even if it might be considered negative, it is necessary for the community to find its equilibrium.

Even after what could have felt like betrayal, you are still here, so I take my hat off to you.

Pure chaos…

2 Likes
36

Hello Leo, (This is the same thing I wrote in Agent’s TG.)

In conclusion, I am not sure whether it is a bug or not. I simply realized that the sources of the data being fetched are different.

I noticed a discrepancy in the number of dApps stakers when I was gathering statistical information using the API provided by Astar, so I conducted an investigation. From this, I have probably understood the two sources of information.

  1. The information displayed on the Astar Portal is likely obtained from ‘https://api.astar.network/api/v3/astar/dapps-staking/chaindapps’.

  2. On the other hand, the ‘Staker Count DistributionAstar dApp info’ on Dune is likely a graph of the aggregated information from ‘https://api.astar.network/api/v3/astar/dapps-staking/stakerslist/’.

I would like to know which one is accurate. I feel that the second one is more accurate, The reason is that when you sum up the staking amounts of each staker in 2, it matches the total amount staked in those dApps.

The difference in the data sources that I predict could be whether it includes only Substrate addresses, or also includes EVM addresses (which are actually converted to Substrate), etc.

If anyone who has created the Dune dashboard, or is familiar with the API that serves as the source of information, could comment, I would appreciate it.
Do you know @Dino ?

2 Likes
37

Thank you @Doinglifewell We will not apply with this project again.
We’ll be participating in Moonbeam’s Lunar Gaming festival next few months and rewarding people from that network with a lot of free value. Because that’s right.

If in the future someone from the community or the core team is interested in our work and wants an astar version of it, they will have to pay us much more than what is now granted with this wrong system.
We have suffered a lot and been ignored for 3 months, while scammers are rewarded.

We no longer accept this, if there is something we don’t lack it is the courage and honesty to say things as they really are.
We have always been very collaborative with everyone, our actions speak for us. Everything we said is written is the pure truth and the community will benefit from it in some way, we are convinced of this.

2 Likes
38

Thanks for the info, in fact we had also seen a discrepancy using our tool, think that our dapp earned 66 astar x it was for more than 2 months remaining below the “critical” threshold of 15 million.
We remained at 14,970 million astar for a long time. It would be interesting to understand if due to technical errors we were already above…
We will also have our dev do an investigation as soon as possible.

2 Likes
39

These things were discussed during the initial proposal if I’m not mistaken.
Including such a metric would favor dApps which generate high traffic, like DEXs, and would discourage dApps which don’t (e.g. DAOs).
This would also promote transaction spam, and metric would have to be adjusted for that in some way (e.g. if you spend 10000 ASTR on Tx fees, and that allows you to enter a tier where you earn 11000 ASTR per day, it’s a problem).

I’m not going to make a point of what is fair or not, but the future is open to different kinds of metrics. It doesn’t just have to be one, it can be a composite of different approaches. However, this is not something in the roadmap at the moment, at least not for the core team.

For the question about Dune, the team is aware of this and is investigating. Probably one or the other has some bug in the indexing.

However, if there’s a bug there, it does not influence tier allocation on-chain. If portal says you have 0 ASTR staked, but on-chain you have 100000 ASTR staked, rewards are calculated according to what’s on-chain (probably stating the obvious but I’d rather make it clear).

4 Likes