No matter how are balance sheet looks like, this allocation is not included and has no influence on that. We do have a healthy Foundation treasury that consists of stablecoins, ASTR, and other assets that are owned by the foundation.
This allocation is not owned by us that’s why it has to pass community voting to proceed.
Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas!
It would be great to have a more clear breakdown proposal of what percentage can be used for what and how it brings value to the ASTR token. Looking forward to discuss this forward here.
why realocating those found for USG should be dismissed right away from this debate for “futur forum posts if other see it valuable” ?
It is valuable here and now to consider and talk about it, not when the decision to burn the token will have been taken…
This proposal is a structurant idea with a long term vision for the dApp staking V3 and would help to solve one of its current shortcoming which currently devalue the attractivity of our ecosystem for new dev and project.
However, you seem to be more interested by ideas such :
Grants for future applications: There is some resistance from projects coming only for dapp staking rewards with unclear rewards they will receive
I do not deny that those ideas will also have a positive impact on the eco, however, they are all promotionnal idea and won’t solve any issue nor long term challenges.
in addition, I proposed to burn the rewards generated by those token to cancel their impact on the inflation when used in USG but we could also use the rewards to finance @defiguy ideas. We would then hit two bird with one stone.
I’ve been reading and understanding the whole Agile coretime thing and everything involved in upgrading to JAM for weeks now, and after reading all this information and the thoughts of the community, I definitely support the 5% burn.
This will bring many, many benefits to the Astar ecosystem, starting with the value of the token.
Agree on some points. However, in crypto, it’s a game of attention and incentives. It’s already difficult to compete with chains that have massive treasuries and strategies like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Aptos, which aim to incentivize users and dApps in the long term. This means that these tokens will not be a one-time payment but distributed over a year or more using vesting, airdrops, and boosted dApp staking every new dApp staking season (around 3-4 months).
Understanding the crypto cycle, there is a high chance that around mid-2025 to Q4 2025, we will enter another bear market, where incentives can be a key factor to maintain retail KPIs at least competitive.
Regarding the lack of incentives for new projects, after the dApp staking v3, many projects in tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, tier 4 lost percentage of income. However, creating a boost for them every new dApp staking season can incentivize continued building on Astar and increase their development. And the payment amount for them will be very close to not only incentivize big dapps.
Everyone knows realistically this proposal is going to pass quite easily no matter what alternatives are discussed in this forum - the short to medium term gains are too good to pass up for the majority of the community.
As touched on above, there are real problems with dApp staking tier system and USG which don’t look like they will be solved any time soon - long term this will harm Astar as many project teams are unhappy and some have already migrated to competitors due to these changes.
Playing Devil’s Advocate, I remember we as a community burned the Shiden treasury back in 2020 / 2021 and the gains at the time were insignificant.
With Polkadot upgrading to Agile Core Time, this allocation is no longer needed. I like the idea of burning it because it aligns our global strategy to reduce inflation with the recent dynamic inflation upgrade. 
For those proposing to allocate these funds to growth, grants and other incentive programs, we already have the on-chain treasury with over 366 million ASTR with the same objectives and goals of contributing to the growth and development of the ecosystem. This treasury is currently under-utilized.
https://astar.subscan.io/account/YQnbw3oWxBnCUarnbePrjFcrSgVPP2jqTZYzWcccmN8fXhd
Adding this allocation for the same purpose as the on-chain treasury will not help create new demand.
In addition, turning this allocation into incentives for projects, stakers or users will also increase the selling pressure on our token.
I’m in favor of burning.
Regarding the 70 million ASTR generated from dApp Staking, I like @Mouthmouth68’s idea to support the UCG program, UCG’s current treasury, aka community treasury, only holds 26 million ASTR.
https://astar.subscan.io/account/ZfEuzYHyfo5TZfAx9fsntdkx2W4gDFLPwUNeqSrJTpQJXDc
Adding 70 million could help support new projects to join the ecosystem and the dApp Staking program without adding selling pressure to our token
I’m very excited to see the community getting so involved in this discussion. All opinions are welcome and appreciated. 
Go Astar, let’s burn 
The Astar Foundation does not own the parachain reserve allocation. It belongs to the network and the Astar community. The Foundation cannot use it as it pleases.
As Maarten said, the foundation has already received 10% of the Genesis supply and holds other assets. In addition, there was a proposal voted on a few years ago to allocate tokens from the treasury to the foundation.
These tokens have not been claimed for the time being because the foundation has no need for them.
The foundation’s assets and reserves are in the good hands of our financial officer @xxphua and are in good health.
Thanks for the precision.
I honestly do not have a clear idea of who own what between Astar Foundation, the Astar network and the Astar community, and how can be used (a nice inforgraphes to creat by the ambassadors to clarifiy that) thus also my question regarding current financial situation of the astar foundation 
I understand this point, @Gaius_sama. In this case, we can use the 70M ASTR for incentives as @Mouthmouth68 mentioned. But understanding the selling pressure or buying pressure is part of the dynamic of most crypto markets, assuming there will be good buying pressure coming from the demand on our network.
We can break down this 70M ASTR as follows:
Regarding the 366M ASTR on-chain treasury, it can be more focused on institutional growth and bigger partnership deals and maintain the burn action.
Here we see a good initiative.
Easy-to-understand direction. In addition to all this idea given by @defiguy to help with the construction of small Dapps. But I give my consideration to Dapps that suck a lot and deliver little. Here lately we see daily complaints about little funding, but they don’t deliver much, and they aren’t worried about improving.
As already mentioned by many others(@defiguy , @Mouthmouth68 ) to me it makes more sense to focus even more on developers support and manage these tokens to try to get most of the benefits for Astar. I believe it will be a good move to dedicate part of the 350 million tokens to the UCG program excluding extra airdrops for stakers or zkEVM participants.
In my opinion we can split them in this way 100M for the UCG program and 250M to the burn
However, the topic remains very interesting and I would also like to see the opinions of the other members of the core team 
I believe that this proposal is a fantastic move that provides real benefits on many fronts, from the decrease in inflation, to the benefits for stakers and let’s not forget how powerful news of this type can be in terms of marketing and attractiveness of new coiners. We are already seeing it these days on the price of $ASTR. I also find interesting the ideas mentioned above by the other guys of being able to allocate part of the 350 million to community strengthening and development operations such as airdrops with vesting, grants, community games and staking boost…all material that if managed well with marketing it can attract a lot of users.
I am in favor of burning 350M ASTR and transferring 74M ASTR to Community Treasury to be used for UCG.
As for the Burn, it would be more effective against inflation and have a greater marketing impact if it were Burned all at once. It really is slightly less inflationary than, say, 12 separate Burns. (Estimated with an inflation rate of 4.25%)
This opinion of @defiguy is great, but for the second matter I think it should be used from the Treasury, not for this. Treasury will accumulate 5% of inflation. It is better to use this one effectively.
I think the Community Treasury should basically be used for repeatable uses like UCG, and the ASTR accumulated from that should be used for the third opinion.
I’m in favor of UCG like @defiguy and @Gaius_sama mentioned before., also as incentive for those who provide liquidity. But for this I prefer to let’s say 50M goes to UCG.
I dont have any comment with original proposal that @Maarten wrote. It is nice proposal and very much aligned to Astar primary objectives especially Tokenomic 2.0, it benefited almost all stakeholders especially those who build on top of Astar L1 or zkEVM.
I think we should burn $ASTR as originally proposed.
The reason is simply that the market seems to be more exciting that way.
This time I think it is better to focus on impact.
I also think we need a bold strategy, such as burning everything in one go.
With the end of the crowdloan, this token allocation is not required and burn around 5% of the token supply can have a positive impact on the market.
As an ASTR holder, I really like this idea!
From a marketing point of view, maybe it’s better to do a monthly burn rather than burning all tokens in one. This way, each month we can communicate that X% ASTR supply is burned and capitalize/profit from this event each month.
About the Agile Coretime, I am on favor to use funds from on-chain treasury to purchase coretime.
Use Hydra’s DCA feature to diversify the treasury with DOT is a good idea. This way Astar will no be dependant on the DOT market price when the network will need more Coretime.
I also recommend to diversify the treasury with vDOT (yield-bearing / liquid staking token) to protect against DOT inflation.
It seems funds from UCG current treasury is not enough and I like the idea to allocate the 70 million ASTR generated from dApp Staking to support this program.
It’s wise to consider how to use or burn the allocation whose original purpose (= an incentive to secure parachain slots) has become outdated.
I can understand some may want to use that for the good of the community, but it requires strong leadership with clear logistics.
If we can’t see such ideas for a while, then burning them are for sure a solid option that is better than doing nothing.
If we do so, Astar Community should leverage that opportunity wisely. We should corporate not only spreading among the community, we should deliver the impact outside of the community.
I expect some community initiative for this.
Thanks for sharing this information @Maarten.
Big fan of the proposal and agreeing with the others, as it original purpose was for parachain auctions and there are no more, this 5% need to be adressed. I think its good to burn them, as burning such a large supply of the tokenomics will get astar even more visible I think.
But as @you425 mentioned I would wait till its more clear how much core time really costs and make some burn events with the 5% over 5 different stages I think.
