Astar Foundation Forward: Ambassador Fellowship Revamp

1

Hello Astar Collective members,

As part of our ongoing Astar Foundation Forward initiative, we want to open a conversation about the Astar Ambassador Fellowship (AAF).

The AAF evolved from the Ecosystem Agent Program because we identified areas that needed improvement. That commitment to continuous refinement continues today. We’re bringing this discussion to you because your input will directly shape how community leadership operates moving forward.

I. Current State of the Ambassador Fellowship

The AAF was designed to recognize and reward community members who actively contribute to Astar’s growth through:

  • Content creation
  • Community management
  • Event organization
  • Developer engagement
  • Business development

1.1. What’s Working

The program has delivered consistent value through:

  • Dedicated contributors who have supported Astar through multiple market cycles
  • Clear progression pathways from Community Member to Head Ambassador
  • Structured contribution tracks across multiple specializations

1.2. Where We See Opportunities for Improvement

After an honest internal review, we’ve identified several areas where the program could evolve:

  • Program Renewal: The fellowship has operated with largely the same roster for an extended period. We want to explore how to balance retaining experienced contributors while creating pathways for emerging talent.
  • Contribution Impact: Ambassador engagement levels and contribution impact vary significantly. We’re looking at how to better support all ambassadors in delivering meaningful work.
  • Compensation Structure: The current model was designed during different market conditions. We want to discuss how compensation should align with Astar’s current reality and Foundation Forward’s focus on maximizing value per ASTR allocated.
  • Transparency: The community has limited visibility into ambassador activities and how contributions are evaluated. We’re exploring ways to increase program transparency.
  • Oversight Model: While the ACC reviews quarterly reports, we’re considering how to evolve toward more proactive support and accountability mechanisms.

II. Areas for Community Input

We’d like your thoughts on several key themes. Please share your perspectives, ideas, or concerns on any or all of these areas:

2.1. Compensation Structure

The fellowship needs a compensation model that works for both ambassadors and the ecosystem. We want to understand what matters most to the community.

  • How should ambassador compensation be structured to reflect different levels of contribution and impact?
  • What balance between predictability and performance-based rewards would work best?
  • How should the program adapt compensation during different market conditions?

2.2. Performance Recognition

Currently, the program includes base compensation and performance bonuses. We want to explore the most effective ways to recognize and incentivize high-impact work.

  • What types of contributions should be most valued and rewarded?
  • How can we better recognize exceptional work while maintaining fairness across the program?
  • What metrics or indicators best reflect meaningful ecosystem impact?

2.3. Accountability and Support

We’re exploring how to evolve the current oversight model to better support ambassadors while ensuring consistent contribution quality.

  • What kind of support would help ambassadors be more effective in their roles?
  • How frequently should contribution progress be reviewed?
  • What feedback mechanisms would be most helpful for ambassadors?

2.4. Program Renewal and Growth

Healthy programs need both continuity and fresh perspectives. We want to explore how to achieve this balance.

  • How should new ambassador positions be created and filled?
  • What criteria should determine continued participation in the program?
  • How can the Community Program and Guild system serve as effective pathways to ambassador status?

2.5. Transparency and Tracking

Increasing visibility into program operations benefits both ambassadors and the community.

  • What information about ambassador activities would be most valuable to see publicly?
  • What tools or platforms would best support transparent contribution tracking?
  • How can we balance transparency with reasonable administrative overhead?

III. A Note on Context

We want to be transparent about the broader context. The Astar Foundation Forward initiative focuses on optimizing resources across the ecosystem to ensure long-term sustainability. This includes reviewing all programs, including the AAF, to maximize the value generated per ASTR allocated.

This isn’t about reducing our commitment to community leadership. It’s about working together to ensure the Ambassador Fellowship remains effective, sustainable, and valuable for everyone involved.

Before moving forward, we want to hear from you.

Share your thoughts, ideas, concerns, or suggestions below. This is your program, and your input will shape how it evolves. :dizzy:

4 Likes
Astar Foundation Forward: Collective Commitment to Sustainable Growth
Astar Foundation Forward: Sustainable Growth Through Transparent Action
2

Thank you for the post about AAF!

I think that for this topic in particular, it’s important to hear how it looks to the community, not just from current Agents (Ambassadors). For that reason, I strongly hope for broader participation in the discussion from non-Agents as well.

That aside, I’ll share my impressions as a current Agent.

First, I see AAF as being in a transitional phase from the existing Ambassador Program 2.0.
At present, Agents operate roughly under the following flow:

  1. Carry out Astar-related activities at one’s own discretion
  2. Create a report every three months
  3. Post it on the Forum
  4. ACC evaluates it
  5. Claim rewards (on-chain)

My understanding is that under AAF, Guild.xyz will become the main platform, where participants earn scores, which then determine their roles and performance-based rewards. However, I have the impression that task management on Guild.xyz (or perhaps the overall operational state of AAF itself) is not working very well. What do you think?

To begin with, it seems that one must accumulate a certain amount of score to obtain a role, but even after linking X, authentication is unstable and it’s difficult to reliably earn score. As a result, it has become hard to reach higher roles (this could be an issue specific to my environment).

I assume that additional tasks are supposed to appear once a role is obtained, but it’s unclear what the current situation is there as well. I feel a significant gap between what’s described in Notion and what I’m experiencing in practice.

Regarding transparency, using a score-based system on Guild.xyz could actually reduce transparency. Since I can’t clearly see how Guild.xyz is functioning in concrete terms right now, it’s hard to say definitively, but compared to that, the current approach—posting reports on the Forum—makes activities more visible. Another important point is how task evaluation (such as content creation) is quantified; it’s unclear what exactly is considered an “outcome,” so the evaluation methodology here is also crucial.

Overall, because I couldn’t really assess the effectiveness of a Guild.xyz–centric management approach, I initially thought I’d just try it and see. But honestly, even now I still don’t fully understand how it’s supposed to work. If things remain as they are, since I’m not participating for the sake of rewards, I may stop reporting altogether once the full transition happens.

That said, AAF does have clear promotion criteria and participation requirements, so if it actually functions as intended, I think that aspect is valuable.

Regarding compensation, it was changed to a dollar-based system in the previous program revision, right?
This has been excellent for Agents in terms of providing stable and predictable rewards. However, when ASTR’s price declines, the amount of ASTR distributed increases, which could further contribute to sell pressure. This might be something that needs adjustment.

Broadly speaking, I see two possible approaches:

  1. Keep dollar-based calculation, but set a cap on the amount of ASTR distributed (and potentially apply a downward adjustment below 100% depending on ASTR’s performance).
  2. If ASTR’s price falls below a certain level, calculate the reward but defer distribution, and then distribute ASTR later once the price recovers (similar to a call option).

Option 1 allows some control over the amount of ASTR distributed, but it would reduce the dollar value actually received, which could hurt motivation.
Option 2 keeps the total amount of ASTR unchanged, but the timing of distribution becomes uncertain. This also creates inefficiency for those who intended to stake rather than sell, since they lose time in the market. Automatically staking the rewards could mitigate this, but that would add significant complexity and may not be desirable.

Either way, one thing is clear: AAF participants would need to make an effort to improve ASTR’s price performance. Whether it’s reasonable to place that level of responsibility on them is another question altogether—but at least on that point, the direction seems consistent.

4 Likes
3

Thank you for adding your valuable comments to the discussion, @you425!

As the administrator of the space on Guild, yes, I have received multiple reports about this, as it seems that Guild has issues in several areas related to account management and connectors. However, since we don’t have a database or a backend, it’s difficult to verify whether the problem is on the user side or on Guild’s side, especially because others are not reporting it. That’s precisely why I’m also requesting feedback regarding the use of this platform.

I agree that it provides more visibility, but personally I would prefer that we find a more efficient way to present reports instead of filling the forum with multiple topics from ambassadors.

What cap would you propose, and why? What parameters would you have in mind when applying those adjustments?

How would you implement this exactly?

My honest question is: should ASTR rewards continue to be a motivation to participate in the ecosystem?

That is, I completely understand that receiving an incentive (a tip) for the time and effort invested is rewarding, I’ve been on that side and I know how gratifying it can be. On the other hand, I also understand that no one participates purely for altruistic reasons.

However, from my perspective, we are viewing this as if it were the core of the entire operation: if there is a reward, I do it; if not, I will probably stop participating in the near future. If we truly believe in the vision, should this still be a concern?

2 Likes
4

Most ambassadors in here write generic ai comments to fulfill a quota and no value added.

Very possible any discords they “manage” are dead, twitter posts and youtube videos are botted.

They should be evaluated just like dApp staking dApps.

There are some good ones but its a minority

Just some honest feedback!

3 Likes
5

I appreciate your honest feedback. As a very active forum member, you have likely already identified this issue.

How do you think we could mitigate this from your point of view?

What metrics would you evaluate from your perspective?

If you can propose concrete actions, that would be ideal :folded_hands:.

6

Hallo community,I’m relieved (and honestly a bit happy) that at the start of 2026 we’re finally tackling topics that are absolutely fundamental to the success of any blockchain. I’m talking about the Astar Ambassador Fellowship (AAF), and I’ll give my opinion as requested — even if someone might already remember it because I’ve said it loud and clear months ago .I just hope my thoughts don’t make me lose even more friends than I already have…I 100% agree with @you (and everyone who thinks like him): the Astar Guilds are an excellent base tool to solidify the community, motivate people to actually “work” for ASTR, and make them feel part of something bigger. They’re doing great on Soneium and Base, I have to admit.

Unfortunately on Astar I still find them clunky and not very user-friendly (I have to say it myself too), but the concept is solid and has huge potential. It just needs better polishing.Regarding the evaluation of agents/ambassadors: I won’t go into the details of individual scores — I have no doubt they’re assigned carefully and rigorously. I also won’t comment on AI-generated replies anymore — it’s a normal tool now, it helps express ideas in non-native languages and it’s part of daily life.That said, I’ve thought a lot about this topic in recent months and I’ve slightly changed some of my previous ideas.I still strongly believe that real interaction matters far more than views or sterile likes. However, in general I now think quantity is more important than I used to believe: if the Guilds worked properly and were sufficiently promoted/sponsored, they could generate exactly that — more real interactions (more people join → more media coverage → statistically more chances of quality and real conversions).My basic view: I see the agent/ambassador as the armed arm of the Foundation

the connecting ring between the community and the core team

a true aggregator and glue

In business terms: a real independent professional (like someone with a VAT number).That’s why I agree with a fixed compensation (to retain people and provide stability) + percentage/performance bonuses based on actual work and real impact.

But careful: engagement must reward above all real user transformation (wallets onboarded, on-chain interactions generated, TVL brought in, dApp usage, etc.). It’s not enough to “knock on 100 doors” if nobody buys the vacuum cleaner. It’s good to knock on as many as possible, but the big rewards should go to whoever closes the sales.To be clear: I do NOT think the price action of ASTR is the agents’ fault. But I do believe that anyone who’s part of a team should feel obligated to give their absolute best so the “company” actually works — even if it means facing criticism or making enemies. Sometimes some of the replies feel a bit nauseating, but anyway…I agree with Juminstock: someone who becomes an agent should do it almost regardless of the pay (out of passion and conviction), while still recognizing that the work deserves to be compensated.

But be very careful about changing everything without thorough evaluation. Remember the monkey rule: before letting go of one branch, make sure you’ve got your other hand on a stable one.

A chain we used to be close to in market cap completely wiped out their agents/ambassadors after growing them together… it only created doubts and uncertainty in their community.

It’s not the same here (our community isn’t strong enough yet, also because it hasn’t been backed by strong historical price action), but anyway, let’s keep that precedent in mind.One last thing that’s really important to me: compensation in ASTR, not in dollars or stables. It motivates the receiver much more, because they become the first person interested in seeing the token grow (win-win).

Let’s be honest: seeing 100k ASTR “thrown around” like that, when just a few months ago we were expecting very different numbers, feels a bit depressing for the community…I have to say that since I pointed it out, the official Astar profile now often mentions agents’ posts, often with interesting deep dives — that’s a good thing. I invite you to do even more: try replying to some of their messages under their own posts too.

I give agents a thousand blames — I’d often like to grab them by the collar — but we can’t put all the blame on them alone. Engagement in crypto is tightly linked to price action: if the price isn’t supporting it, any account talking about a token will struggle enormously to generate decent traffic. So unless you have a method to get back to decent levels (which would be great, eh), I invite the main channel to interact much more with the agents.On top of that, I propose the idea of structuring some kind of team award: even if I don’t know how many agents there are per country, it would solidify relationships between agents and encourage healthy competition.As the discussion moves forward and I hear other opinions, I’ll try to go deeper into other points if needed.

2 Likes
7

The issue is that they are using it to generate ai slop - it makes reading threads a chore. It’s leading to generic comments with 0% critical thinking.

It’s acceptable if used for translations, but it’s being used to generate the illusion of contributing.

i’d like to see the ambassadors comment in this thread and address these comments first to be honest.

They have the experience of being in the role to suggest improvements to the program.

The silence is telling

If we scrapped the ambassador program tomorrow - what would happen?

3 Likes
8

Yes, I agree that filling the Forum with report topics is not ideal, so I’m also in favor of exploring alternative approaches. In the past, from a similar perspective, I suggested that activity reports for projects listed via dApp Staking should be handled on the Portal, and perhaps we should think along the same lines for Ambassadors as well.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to keep adding new platforms, so one possible option could be to use Discord’s Forum feature and create a dedicated reporting thread for each Ambassador. This could also help with transparency if there is a need for open interaction with Ambassadors.

Since rewards are currently calculated on a USD basis, when the price of ASTR falls, the amount of ASTR distributed inevitably increases. By setting a cap on the ASTR amount, we can limit the quantity distributed.
Alternatively, it might be worth considering abandoning the USD-based calculation altogether and returning to the previous model of setting rewards with a simple 1 ASTR = 1 ASTR mindset.

Honestly, I haven’t thought through the exact parameters, and I don’t think there is a clearly “correct” value anyway.
If we go with setting an ASTR cap as mentioned above, it should be possible to derive it from the amount of ASTR equivalent to around $800 over the past year, using an average value as a reasonable reference point.

For example:

  1. Set a distribution threshold at 1 ASTR > $0.01.
  2. If a given month’s reward is $800 and 1 ASTR = $0.008, the calculated reward would be 100,000 ASTR.
  3. However, since condition 1 is not met, the reward is put on hold.
  4. In the following month, if the reward is again $800 and 1 ASTR = $0.011, the calculated reward would be 72,727 ASTR.
  5. Since condition 1 is met in that month, the recipient receives 172,727 ASTR, combining both the current and previous month’s rewards.

That’s the general idea.
By holding rewards when ASTR’s price is low (i.e., when market conditions are poor) and distributing them when conditions improve, we can reduce negative market impact.
The downside, of course, is increased management and operational complexity.

Yes, I agree with your concern.
One important caveat is that the Ambassador program was designed from the outset as an incentive-based program. Because of that, it’s difficult to predict what kinds of negative effects might arise if those incentives were removed.

It’s possible that removing rewards would cause participation motivated by income to disappear, leaving (or even increasing) only those who truly care about Astar. But to be honest, we won’t know unless we actually reach that situation.

To give some personal context:

I was already contributing to Astar before becoming an Ambassador, and later I was invited into the program. In other words, I didn’t join for monetary reasons. Since becoming an Ambassador, the activities I changed or added are as follows:

  1. Hosting two regular Spaces(X) every month
  2. Providing more proactive community support
  3. Minimizing posts on X that are unrelated to Astar
  4. Declining work for unrelated projects

I made these changes because I receive compensation and hold the Ambassador title—not because the Foundation instructed me to do so (this was entirely my own decision).
If compensation were removed, these would become constraints for me personally, and there’s a high chance I would stop doing them, reverting to roughly the level of activity I had before becoming an Ambassador.

In other words, compensation is not the source of my motivation to contribute to Astar itself, but it is a source that raises the quality and intensity of that contribution.
As for the absolute amount, I’m not particularly focused on it at the moment.

This is purely my personal experience, and I can’t say whether other Ambassadors feel the same way.

3 Likes
9

I’d like to share a quick comment.

Discovering New Talent

I agree with the idea of increasing the turnover of members. As for the approach, it would be similar to the current process, but I suggest keeping recruitment primarily through the Foundation and existing members. In addition, candidates could apply after having at least six months of contribution activity within the Astar Network, followed by a voting process.

Measuring Contribution Impact

This is an extremely difficult area. Using tools to measure impact is one possible direction, but I don’t yet have a solid idea that would work well. If we define impact solely as “whether it increases the value of ASTR within the Astar Network,” then only activities with a large reach would end up receiving high evaluations.

Even if the ultimate goal is to increase ASTR’s value, there can be multiple contributing factors. For example, when evaluating “content,” factors such as the importance of the content itself, number of views, difficulty level, and contribution to liquidity could all be considered.

Compensation Structure

I don’t deny that incentives help motivate contributors, and I recognize that some members reinvest the ASTR they receive into further contributions. Community perception will matter, but compensation obviously cannot be unlimited, and ideally it should not fluctuate too heavily with market volatility.

This is just an idea, but since integration with Soneium is progressing, perhaps we could set an upper limit such as $500 USDSC.

There will also be cases where agents take on tasks that require significantly more time or effort. In such cases, depending on the workload, providing additional individual incentives would be reasonable.

Transparency

Regardless of the evaluation method, I believe the current reporting style already provides a reasonable level of transparency by clearly explaining “what activities each person has carried out".
Whether Google Docs is the best tool or not, keeping a record in the form of a report is meaningful for me as well.

1 Like
10

I have been part of the Ambassadors team even before the program existed.

I am very concerned about the program’s approach and I am glad that this thread has been opened in order to find a definitive solution.

A fixed monthly fee would be ideal, based on USD rather than ASTR, to eliminate sales pressure. On the other hand, the treasury council could perhaps continue to look for ways to generate liquidity to cover the network’s basic expenses, including ambassador rewards, adapting to market conditions.

Likewise, “incentives” in blockchain are the spirit of any network, which is why there are points programs and other ways to reward users.

As an Ambassador, I do not intend to justify whether we have acted right or wrong, but I can say that there are great people here who have worked for years (When Astar was PLASM) .

I am glad that this thread has been posted. The important thing here is to find a balanced solution between contributions and rewards. Finally, I would not know how to gauge whether ambassadors would continue their work if the incentives disappeared.

I can only add that incentives drive you to be better, and competition always raises the quality of content.

2 Likes
11

Vangardem’s comments gave me a new level of insight and awareness.

When it comes to token-based incentives, I now feel even more strongly that they may indeed be an essential element in the open world of blockchain. I resonated deeply with the idea that tokens are not merely “motivation tools” or “compensation for labor,” but something far more meaningful.

In the physical world, “tokens” are positioned within behavioral science as one form of motivation. But in the blockchain world, tokens do much more—they help shape culture, bring people together, strengthen relationships, and even influence how communities form opinions and reach consensus.

Because of that, as this program evolves, I believe incentives—token rewards—should continue to be used meaningfully, even though the exact “amounts” may be something worth discussing.

To be honest, I have high expectations for the future of blockchain technology and business use cases, especially around Astar Network and Soneium. As an engineer, I’m genuinely excited by new discoveries and possibilities.

That’s why—even if rewards were to disappear—I would continue contributing just as I always have. This is not some idealistic “Japanese-style modesty.” It’s simply because my involvement with Astar has never been driven by rewards.

I understand what motivates my own actions. For me, it is about supporting others—and I strongly want to continue supporting everyone who is passionately building and contributing to the Astar Network.

2 Likes
12

I’m saying it straight: either you put a serious stop to this distorted dynamic, or you make a clear and unified decision once and for all.

It’s absurd and unacceptable to watch the price of Astar collapse while, at the exact same time, rewards in $ASTR increase precisely because the price is dropping. This gap has become enormous, unjustified, and damaging to everyone.Find me one single valid reason why any agent or team should go all out to push the price up today: they’ll only do it once their pockets are already full of cheap tokens.

We all need to share ONE single goal: that the price doesn’t drop TODAY — not that it moons in a few years when someone has millions of ASTR sitting around. There is zero real incentive to fix things as long as the system keeps widening the massive divide between real investors and those collecting guaranteed rewards.The mechanism is fundamentally broken: rewards should scale when the price rises, not hand out more $ASTR exactly when everything tanks and real investors are bleeding heavily.

This situation is no longer sustainable. Because the community — or whatever is left of it — will not stay silent much longer

3 Likes
13

I agree. It is right that those who receive compensation should receive a reasonable reward. I don’t think the amount is large. However, everyone knows the current value of ASTR. If someone is not angry in this situation, they probably gave up already, or haven’t bought ASTR from an exchange.

I’ve been staying quiet on the forum because my English isn’t great, but if I hadn’t seen Marroz’s post, I would have given up right then and there. I’ve held ASTR for over a year, but honestly, now I’m just looking for a way out through BURNDROP. Even though I’m using the Startale app and Soneium, I still have no idea what ASTR is actually used for.

3 Likes
14

Encouraged by Marroz, I’ll post as well.ヽ(´ー`)ノ

Even though Astar Agent rewards have surpassed 200,000 ASTR, the community remains silent—does that mean the community is satisfied with this situation?
I really don’t think so.

With token values declining, an attitude focused on protecting only one’s own vested interests feels like pouring oil on the fire of Astar holders’ anger.

Has this agent system actually helped the Astar community?
It’s true that I have received help, but I also feel alienated and lose motivation.

It should not be a stipulated requirement that existing bodies such as the Community Council be involved in AAF personnel selection.
Ambassadors should be supported by systems such as guild systems and should emerge through selection by the community.

Rather than being imposed from the top in a centralized way, community-driven governance is what is needed, and I believe support mechanisms like guild systems exist precisely to enable that. :wink:

1 Like
15

Ambassador Fellowship Discussion: Community Feedback & Proposed Next Steps

Astar Collective,

After reviewing the feedback shared in this thread, I want to summarize the key concerns raised and present a proposed framework for the next phase of the Astar Ambassador Fellowship. Your input has been direct and valuable, and I want to address it with the same honesty.

I. What I’m Hearing From You

The community has raised important concerns that we need to take seriously:

Compensation-Price Disconnect: There’s frustration about rewards in ASTR increasing precisely when the token price drops. As Marroz put it directly: “The mechanism is fundamentally broken: rewards should scale when the price rises, not hand out more ASTR exactly when everything tanks.”

Accountability Questions: Some community members feel disconnected from what ambassadors are actually delivering. With rewards surpassing 200,000 ASTR, there’s a legitimate expectation for visible, measurable impact.

Governance Concerns: AstarPunks raised an important point about centralized appointment versus community-driven selection. The sentiment is clear: the community wants more voice in how leadership roles are filled and evaluated.

II. Proposed Framework: Task-Based Ambassador Model

Based on this feedback and internal brainstorming, here’s a proposal for restructuring the Ambassador Fellowship. This is not final, I’m presenting it for discussion and refinement.

1. Task-Based Contribution System

Create a public Notion dashboard integrated with Linear or GitHub for task management where ambassadors claim and complete specific deliverables. No more vague “contributions”, every task has clear requirements, deadlines, and rewards.

Tasks would be organized by category:

  • Content Creation
  • Community Management
  • Event Organization
  • Developer Engagement
  • Business Development

Each category would have tasks of varying difficulty and corresponding ASTR rewards based on complexity and impact.

2. ACC-Managed Task Assignment

The ACC would oversee task creation, assignment, and reward distribution as the governance body responsible for Ambassador Fellowship operations. This maintains oversight while creating transparency into exactly what work is being compensated.

3. Increased Review Frequency

Following the model being implemented for UCG: if an ambassador doesn’t report or fails to meet minimum participation criteria within 2 months, they enter a probationary status with a defined period to improve or transition out.

4. Expand Regional Representation

Increase ambassador positions to 15 regional slots, prioritizing regions currently underrepresented. This number could be adjusted through Astar Governance if the Astar Collective requires it, with the ACC serving as executor of the decision.

5. Compensation Restructuring

Tiered compensation based on role and responsibility:

  • Ambassador: Up to 300 USD/month equivalent
  • Mid Ambassador: Up to 500 USD/month equivalent

Payments in ASTR using the 30-day EMA. Base payment is contingent on completing minimum required tasks with acceptable quality.

6. Replace Bonuses with Additional Tasks

Instead of discretionary bonus rewards, create optional tasks with additional ASTR rewards. Ambassadors who want to earn more can take on more work, from simple tasks like creating X posts to complex deliverables like event organization or BD operations.

7. Main Platforms

Ambassadors will operate primarily through:

  • Astar Discord
  • Astar Forum
  • Ambassador Telegram
  • Astar X Communities
  • Astar Notion Workspace

8. Clear Onboarding Pathway

For community members who want to become ambassadors:

  • Join Discord and claim “Ambassador Aspirant” role
  • Complete onboarding tasks through the Astar Ambassador Academy
  • Submit contribution reports in Discord using dedicated topic channels
  • Complete a minimum 3-month trial period (must be a full period, joining mid-cohort requires waiting for the next cycle)
  • Cohorts open every quarter
  • Upon trial completion, participate in a final evaluation call with the ACC

Screenshot 2026-01-20 at 17.19.43
Screenshot 2026-01-20 at 17.19.431318×1592 303 KB

Acceptance into the program depends on:

  • Regional representation needs
  • Quality of contributions during trial period
  • Demonstrated dedication to the Astar Collective

9. Reactivate Developer Track

Bring back developer-focused ambassador contributions: project creation, tooling development, documentation updates, and technical content.

III. What This Addresses

  • Price-Compensation Disconnect: EMA-based payments and task-based rewards create more predictable treasury outflows
  • Accountability: Every ASTR paid ties to a specific, verifiable deliverable
  • Transparency: Public dashboard shows exactly what each ambassador is working on and delivering
  • Community Voice: Clear pathway for new members, regional expansion, and quarterly cohorts
  • Impact Focus: Rewards scale with contribution quantity and quality, not tenure

IV. Open Questions for Discussion

  1. What task categories or specific deliverables would you prioritize?
  2. Is the proposed compensation structure the right balance, or should we adjust differently?
  3. How should regional slots be allocated? Which regions need more representation?
  4. What metrics best demonstrate ambassador impact to the community?
  5. Should trial periods be shorter or longer than 3 months?

V. Next Steps

This is a proposal, not a decision. I want to hear your thoughts before we move forward with any implementation. The goal is to create an Ambassador Fellowship that the community trusts, that rewards real impact, and that opens doors for new contributors.

Keep the feedback coming. :raising_hands:

3 Likes
16

Thank you for taking the time to organize everything despite your busy schedule. I would like to share a few thoughts based on my experience.

Regarding the “task‑based” approach:

I believe it is wise to use tools to manage and visualize contributions. I also agree that the ACC should take on a supervisory and management role.

What concerns me, however, is the additional cost this may place on ambassadors — and here I mean behavioral or operational cost. For example, when creating content, the current process is very simple. That said, I understand that the evaluation of outcomes and impact is currently ambiguous and not sufficiently visible.

With the new system design, I am concerned that the additional operational cost — the extra “steps” required from ambassadors — may increase. While I understand these steps are necessary, I believe it is important to keep this added burden as small as possible.

Regarding the “probation period”:

I believe a minimum probation period of 6 months would be appropriate. There are three reasons for this:

  1. Based on what I have observed — including my own experience — most ambassadors continue contributing for at least six months after deciding “I want to become an ambassador,” before receiving official approval.
  2. Ambassadors typically have at least one primary job outside of their contributions to the Astar community. In Japan, a three‑month probation period is common in employment, but community contribution is essentially a secondary activity, so I believe a longer period is necessary.
  3. Ambassadors need sustained motivation and ongoing contributions. Even if someone has strong enthusiasm at the beginning, it is important to determine whether they can maintain that momentum over time.

Regarding regional slots

This is a difficult issue. Ideally, having ambassadors distributed globally would help expand the ecosystem. However, each region has its own unique circumstances, so it’s not as simple as saying, “There are no (or few) ambassadors in this region, so let’s increase the number.” Recruiting ambassadors in underrepresented regions likely requires tailored efforts and specific initiatives. At this point, I don’t yet have concrete ideas for how to approach this.

Regarding reward amounts

Speaking personally, I intend to continue contributing even if the reward were set to zero. However, if the reward system is going to remain in place, I think it would be meaningful to compare the reward structures used in other chains’ communities and governance models. If the current reward amounts have already been set with such benchmarks in mind, then they may be sufficient as they are.

1 Like
17

I’m not having this discussion here for my own benefit, so as long as the community ultimately agrees on a system, I’m fine with that. Based on whatever is decided, I’ll then think about how I should act. There’s no need to make decisions out of consideration for the views of current Agents.

At a high level, I think the direction Carlos proposed is reasonable.

Content creation is the most straightforward category, but with the increasing use of AI, the barrier has become relatively low. For that reason, it’s debatable whether content creation should truly be the top priority. It may be better to focus on areas that are harder to evaluate through AI usage, such as community support or events.

That said, those categories are also extremely difficult to quantify.

The concern being raised is that when compensation is set on a USD basis, the amount of ASTR distributed increases as ASTR’s price declines. One possible approach is to set the overall cap in USD, while defining task-level rewards in terms of ASTR amounts. The reverse could also work.
If ASTR’s price rises significantly, the ASTR amounts or caps can be revisited and adjusted again.

Since the Astar Discord has region-specific channels, it might make sense to base decisions on the level of activity there. I do think diversification is good, but assigning Ambassadors to regions with little relevance would only add unnecessary costs, so some degree of focus is needed.

That said, if people make an effort to become Ambassadors in a given region and that leads to more active local communities, increasing the number of Ambassadors there would be a positive outcome.

Honestly, holding periodic votes might be the simplest and clearest approach.

I think three months is plenty.

2 Likes
18

I agree.
This approach would allow to better direct the work and focus ambassador activities on specific tasks that the team actually needs.

In the current model, each ambassador operates with rather generic tasks, and everyone ends up completing activities without a clear focus — for example, creating content without a real strategic direction. This can sometimes lead to activities being carried out mainly to “fill numbers” and complete the quarterly report in order to be compensated, rather than to maximize real impact.

With this new approach, instead, the ACC (or the team responsible for task management) can define and create only tasks that are truly fundamental and high-value. Additionally, internal teams — such as the ACC, the AFC, or even the Foundation — could assign bonus or ad-hoc tasks during specific periods or initiatives where external support is genuinely needed.

Regarding the appointment of new ambassadors

I also think there could be a step where the community has a more direct voice in approving new ambassadors through an off-chain referendum, similar to what was done in the past for ACC members. This could be a strong way to give more importance to the community, especially because the community itself has first-hand and real feedback on an individual’s actual contribution and behavior as a potential ambassador.

Regarding regional slots allocation

I believe priority should be given to regions that are currently not covered by native ambassadors. In addition, communities with a larger and more active user base likely have a greater need for local ambassadors, due to the higher volume of coordination, support, and engagement required. A combination of coverage gaps and community size/activity could be a fair and practical approach.

On metrics that best demonstrate ambassador impact

In my opinion one of the strongest indicators is community feedback itself. It might be difficult to design or implement, but if each community had a way to evaluate the work of their ambassadors — even through a simple voting or rating mechanism (like a school report card :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:) — it could provide a very meaningful signal of real impact. Just a personal idea, but I think community perception is often more accurate than purely quantitative metrics.

On trial period duration

Before being accepted as an ambassador I personally contributed as a regular community member for more than 9 months. For this reason, I believe that — especially to avoid “mercenary” behavior during periods of FOMO or strong bull markets — a minimum of 3–4 months of real and consistent contribution should be mandatory before someone can enter the program. This helps ensure long-term commitment and genuine alignment with the ecosystem, rather than short-term incentives.

1 Like
19

I believe a more structured, task-based approach would help standardize agent contributions and significantly improve transparency and the evaluation of individual performance. A clearer framework would also make expectations more explicit for everyone involved.

In this context, I think the Foundation should be intentional about the type of onboarding it prioritizes, particularly with regard to the profile of agents entering the program. While language diversity can be valuable, it may not always be the most effective approach. In some cases, prioritizing highly engaged, globally oriented agents could generate more impact than focusing on highly segmented language niches. Over-niching a product that is already specialized risks fragmenting the collective sense of purpose.

Overall, I’m genuinely optimistic about the future of the program and believe these adjustments could help strengthen its long-term effectiveness.

1 Like
20

I’m happy that the foundation is fixing several areas, including the ambassador program. I absolutely support a periodic review by the ACC (a sort of reassessment every few months). Regarding tracking contributions, I’m also in favor of a public dashboard, perhaps on GitHub, because currently I’d be against moving the entire ambassador program to Guild, as using it every day presents various synchronization issues (as we already noticed at the beginning when we launched it).

Regarding the 15 regional slots, I’m not convinced. I don’t think it makes sense to set a fixed number. We should increase the number of agents where there’s a shortage and where activity is growing.

Regarding the timeframe for becoming an Ambassador, I think three/four months should be the minimum, subject to proper evaluation by the ACC. Remember, every agent is a moderator on Discord with the possibilites to assist users, including with tickets, and in that context, users can share sensitive information. It’s very important not to attract “mercenaries” because we risk giving roles to untrustworthy people.

1 Like