Astar Foundation Forward: Tokenomics & dApp Staking discussion

Astar
17

Hello everyone, I’m Amil, founder of @Sonevibe.

First, I want to sincerely thank the Astar Foundation and @Maarten for opening this Pandora’s box. It takes courage to admit when something isn’t working. The honesty in this post is refreshing and exactly the kind of transparency we need to move forward.

As an active builder in the ecosystem, I’ve experienced the transition to v3 firsthand. The diagnosis is spot on: v3 felt like over-engineering. The complexity of voting periods, resets, and the tier system created unnecessary friction for users and lethal financial uncertainty for developers. Instead of encouraging participation, it generated fatigue.

However, regarding the two proposed paths, my stance is firm:

Why “Plan B” (Eliminating dApp Staking) is a strategic mistake
dApp Staking is the soul of Astar. It’s our “Unique Value Proposition” (UVP) in a sea of generic L1s and L2s. If we eliminate dApp Staking to become a standard PoS chain, we lose our identity and our most powerful tool for attracting talent.
The problem isn’t the “Build2Earn” concept—it’s the execution and the lack of filters.

The way forward: An Evolved “Plan A” (Simplicity + Meritocracy)
I fully support returning to the simplicity of v2, but we can’t go back to the past without applying the lessons learned. We need a Plan A 2.0 that combines ease of use for holders with maximum demands for builders.

Here is my concrete proposal for this revamp:

  1. Radical Simplicity for the User (UX First)
    Let’s go back to basics: Lock → Nominate → Earn.
    Eliminate voting periods, complex bonuses, and artificial tiers. The average user wants to stake and support the ecosystem without managing their position every 10 days. Easier UX will increase the percentage of locked ASTR, reducing selling pressure.

  2. Strict and Aggressive Curation (The end of Freeriders)
    If we simplify staking (“Stake and Forget”), quality responsibility falls on curation. The Astar Community Council (ACC) and Foundation must have expanded authority to:

  • Establish tough entry criteria (mandatory functional MVP, audits, team verification).
  • Execute active delistings of zombie projects or those that haven’t delivered updates in X months.
  • dApp Staking should be a privilege for those who add value, not a universal right.
  1. Hybrid Incentives: Base + On-Chain Metrics
    To address reward disparities, I propose a hybrid model:
  • Base Reward: Proportional to nominated stake (holder democracy).
  • Performance Boost: An automatic multiplier (for example 1.2x-2x) based on real on-chain metrics (Transaction volume, UAW, Gas consumed).
    This aligns incentives: if you build something people actually use, you earn more. If you only do marketing but no one uses your dApp, you earn the minimum (or get delisted).
  1. Alignment with Tokenomics 3.0
    With the supply cap and decay factor coming, we can afford to keep dApp Staking. We can start with an adjustable reward split (for example 60% Stakers / 40% Devs) to keep APR attractive for holders while the token price stabilizes, then fine-tune via governance as the network matures.

Conclusion
Let’s not kill the feature that makes Astar special. Let’s fix it.
I invite the community and fellow builders to reject the defeatism of Plan B and work together on an optimized v2 model: no friction for users, no mercy for freeriders.

Let’s keep building.

Amil | Founder @Sonevibe

1 Like