Astar: From dApp Staking to Astar's Financial Hub

Astar
1

Astar’s technological evolution since its inception has been impeccable, creating a top-tier technological infrastructure designed and adapted in an accessible and intuitive way for builders to host on the network and design their dApps. This is clear, and I don’t intend to provide a historical review, as one only needs to visit their website to see the abundance of tools and development kits that have been created.The point is that with the publication of Astar Foundation Forward, an environment has been created that encourages sharing information or thoughts on what other actions are necessary to maintain the economic value of the network without damaging its essence, which is to continue building a network capable of creating economic value for developers and users.

In this writing, I aim to propose a new mission on how a new economic paradigm for the network should be approached. Let’s begin.

Current economic conditions in the altcoins market

It’s no secret to anyone that the crypto market in general is in a depreciative loop; interest has declined, especially in altcoins. ASTR is an alt and suffers from the market’s blows like all alts. In these times, it’s often necessary to make a 180-degree turn to face the prevailing negative economic vicissitudes. That’s why the Astar Foundation Forward initiative has all my respect; they have detected the economic gaps and are on track to resolve them as soon as possible. Below, I will contribute my grain of sand with the intention that the Foundation, users, and builders can observe my point of view on what should be incorporated into our ecosystem to give greater economic impetus to the network and our native token ASTR.

The economic financial Loop in Astar

Astar’s economy is led by dApp Staking; many projects have joined the program, obtaining a bag of ASTR from the inflation generated by staking to carry out their developments on the network. Others have also obtained UCG grants, but the truth is that we don’t have a project that leads as a spearhead on Astar—only half-finished developments that have extracted economic value from the network. For me, dApp Staking has reached its inflection point as an unchecked generator of inflation and not as contributory to the network’s value as it should be and for which it was born. We have been victims of overconfidence; despite existing selection filters, we have been punished, and if it weren’t for the community council, we would be even worse off, as lately they have accelerated the delistings of parasitic projects—if the word fits.

dApp Staking is still a gem that needs to be reformed, right? The idea is good, but the methods to induce its economic value must be changed with a 180-degree turn, as we will see later. It’s nice to criticize constructively, yes, but it’s even more pleasant to offer solutions that provide real value to the network and to dApp Staking. If you ask me right now, I would be very emphatic in asserting that for me, dApp Staking is currently in intensive care.

The Idea of Astar mutating into an Economic Financial Hub

Stablecoins are flooding the market, and there’s a reason for that: projects know that institutions have increased their appetite for stables, as they are the perfect vehicle to bring their liquidity (fiat) into the crypto ecosystem, more precisely into DeFi. The risk in stables is more controlled, and in perfectly balanced and harmonious DeFi ecosystems, great returns can be measured or established for both institutions and retail. This is attractive—imagine Astar going from being just a network for hosting infrastructure to being a “living” and thriving Economic network, by building a dApp that is its star product, hosting various traditional financial products in its UI/UX, such as savings, loans, borrowings, and farming? It would be a 180-degree turn for the network; we would leverage the potential of “USDSC,” which will soon receive tons of fresh liquidity. Why not take that big step? The arrival of USDSC could put us in an unbeatable position to absorb part of that liquidity:

  1. More users would join the ecosystem (it’s not just about establishing spending controls, but also about providing effective and efficient usage feedback, with a star product).

  2. Pairs of various cryptocurrencies and stables with ASTR would be established.

  3. Over time, we might mutate into a great dApp, and the network would sequentially reduce its expenses by levels. L1 networks require large amounts of money to maintain; dApps are less costly to sustain.

  4. A hybrid centralized and decentralized governance would be established:

  • Centralized: For more specific decision-making, such as closing alliances with financial companies, strategies for specialized financial products, design of liquidity pools with their respective APRs and APYs.

  • Decentralized: Voting power on community actions and sending community funds, Account Abstraction to enter the super Economic Hub, among other community actions.

As we can see, the development of an Economic Hub de facto eliminates the dependence on projects (that host on the network and participate in dApp Staking) returning economic value to the network, which often didn’t happen. Something that has become a future and uncertain cannot continue driving the economic value of our ecosystem; uncertainty is not good for projects nor for markets. Astar Foundation Forward has taken the spear, and I’m sure that even if what I write here is not the most viable for Astar right now for various reasons, some thoughts will remain for the future.

Mention of financial products and technical example

The Economic Hub would be based on the creation of a purely financial dApp that attracts liquidity and value to the network. There would be various vaults, pools, that can be accessible to merchants or investors; at the same time, it should serve as a liquidity entry gate and could even manage third-party assets in an AUM format.

The Hub could be:

  1. Conductor of liquidity and act as Capital Allocator.

  2. Have a Lending - Borrowing section.

  3. Have a Swap section.

  4. Commodities.

  5. Savings.

  6. And of course, have a dApp Staking section. You didn’t expect that, right? But as I said at the beginning, dApp Staking is not in question, but its method is; now it would form part of an ecosystem that doesn’t absolutely depend on it, but one that would feed it, creating a new economic and financial loop within Astar, moving to a new plane of development and economic conviction.

All controlled by vaults and pools that will provide entry to all the necessary liquidity to sustain and feed each financial product.The motto would be “if one fails, another will compensate”.

The best part is that dApp Staking would be more resilient, and all the pressure unloaded from its shoulders would disappear, but always with the original idea of strengthening the bond: Builder, Network, User.

Technical example of how economic value would be added to dApp Staking through the Hub’s products

Imagine the financial hub dApp as a decentralized modular structure, where the main products (savings, lending, borrowing, and commodities) are interconnected through vaults (bóvedas) and liquidity pools. These vaults act as secure reserves for storing and managing assets, while liquidity pools facilitate the exchange and flow of capital between products. In this case, I’ll use the lending section; in other words, imagining a figure as monthly revenue from the lending section and an amount to distribute among the dApp Staking projects:

For this example, we will take the following key figures:

  • 1M Revenue in USDSC (30 days), obtained from the lending section.

  • 30% of the lending Revenue to distribute among 50 dApp Staking projects to provide them with liquidity. It has the particularity that it will be in USDSC and not in ASTR, protecting our native token. This creates a reinvestment mechanism that strengthens the ecosystem.

Textual Illustration (Flow Diagram)

I’ll use a simple ASCII diagram to illustrate the capital flow and the organization. Imagine this as a flow chart where the lending revenue is divided and partially assigned to dApp Staking, which then distributes liquidity to the projects (assuming an equitable distribution for simplicity, as for this example I don’t have specific criteria like project size or performance).

+-------------------+      Revenue: 1M USDSC
|   Lending Section | --------------------------> 70% Retained in Hub (700,000 USDSC)
| (Generated Revenue)|            |
+-------------------+            | 30% Assigned (300,000 USDSC)
                                 v
                      +---------------------+
                      |   dApp Staking      |
                      | (50 Projects)       |
                      +---------------------+
                                 |
                                 | Liquidity Distribution
                                 v
                +-----------------------------------+
                | Hosted Projects (50 in total)     |
                | - Project 1: 6,000 USDSC          |
                | - Project 2: 6,000 USDSC          |
                | ...                                |
                | - Project 50: 6,000 USDSC         |
                +-----------------------------------+

Diagram Explanation

The lending revenue flows into two paths: 70% is retained in the hub for general operations (e.g., vaults and pools of other products).

The 30% is injected into dApp Staking as additional liquidity.

Within dApp Staking, this liquidity is distributed to the 50 projects. For this example, I assumed an equitable allocation (300,000 USDSC / 50 = 6,000 USDSC per project), but it could be adjusted based on metrics like TVL (Total Value Locked) or governance votes.

The hub’s vaults could act as “bridges” to transfer this liquidity securely, and the liquidity pools in dApp Staking would make it available for staking and rewards.

Formula for Capital Allocation

To mathematically illustrate the allocation, let’s define a simple and general formula. I’ll use variables so it’s adaptable, but we’ll apply it directly to the data from the aforementioned example (lending revenue = 1,000,000 USDSC, percentage = 30%, projects = 50).

General Formula:

A_staking = P × R_lending

Where:

• A_staking: Total allocation to dApp Staking (in USDSC).

• ( P ): Percentage allocated (as a decimal, e.g., 0.3 for 30%).

• R_lending: Total revenue from the lending section (in USDSC).

If then distributed equally to the projects:

A_project = A_staking / N

Where:

• A_project: Allocation per project (in USDSC).

• ( N ): Number of hosted projects (50 in this case).

Application with Your Data:

A_staking = 0.3 × 1,000,000 = 300,000 USDSC

A_project = 300,000 / 50 = 6,000 USDSC per project

This formula ensures a proportional and transparent allocation, and can be implemented in smart contracts (such as Solidity), which is the house specialty, to automate the distribution, with monthly triggers based on the accumulated revenue.

As we can see, we only take 30% of the 1M USDSC revenue obtained from a single section of the Hub—it’s ambitious, isn’t it? But it could be initiated in layers or levels of development; the remaining 70% of the revenue could be used for buy back and burn of ASTR, which also serves as an effective deflationary mechanism, but I won’t delve into that right now.

Note: the revenue can be monthly, bimonthly, quarterly, or every 6 months, depending on market conditions. For the example, I based it on figures that could be generated in one month; I didn’t include the 30 days in the formula because for now I didn’t see it as relevant for illustrating the main example, which in reality might be a short period.

I have been observing the general ecosystem for a long time, and also a long time as an Astar agent, and this is my vision of how the network should address the new times—it is my personal vision and based on methods that would completely change the face of Astar’s main functions, renewing the spirit by mutating into a more economically sustainable network. That’s all.

zkVan.

7 Likes
2

I support this. The official team should strategically integrate and develop a secure, flagship product to bootstrap liquidity. Integrating robust cross-chain bridge functionality is crucial to onboard external capital and attract a broader user base more efficiently.

2 Likes
3

If the mountain won’t come to Muhammad, then Muhammad will go to the mountain…I don’t have the technical skills to say whether your proposal is feasible or not, but it undoubtedly deserves careful consideration. If nothing else, because you’ve highlighted some uncomfortable but damn true aspects.I’m curious to see how the discussion evolves and I hope it develops in the best possible way. I’m really glad that an agent has opened up, tackled, and proposed a topic like this—for me, at least on a superficial level, it seems like an absolute badass idea.Thanks!"

3 Likes
4

Thank you for the new proposal.

I agree that general-purpose chains are reaching their limits, and that a strategic shift for Astar makes sense. However, there are several points that need careful consideration:

  • If the platform itself develops applications, competitors effectively have no chance to compete, which would crowd out other projects. In other words, the platform would lose its neutrality as a platform provider.
  • This would also raise the barrier to entry for new projects in the same category.
  • There is a fundamental question of who develops and who maintains these applications — which ultimately translates into who is responsible.

The first and second points are essentially matters of our own “decision” or pivot, and could be resolved through governance.
However, the third point is a much deeper and more fundamental issue.

I also have a few questions regarding the handling of dApp Staking:

  • In this proposal, dApp rewards are changed from ASTR to USDSC — will rewards for stakers remain in ASTR?
  • Also, dApps currently seem to receive USDSC rewards evenly, but wouldn’t it be better to keep this vote-based, as it is now?

This may not be something we need to solve immediately, but there is also the fundamental challenge of how to attract users (and TVL) in the first place.

Overall, I see this proposal as positive in direction, but the hurdles to overcome are quite high.
Let’s continue the discussion.

1 Like
5

Hi @Vangardem ,

I just want to say that I genuinely appreciate this topic. I think it’s very constructive and valuable to bring new ideas to the table that aim to create concrete benefits for the ecosystem.

I agree that, in the current context, the optimization of resources that the Astar Foundation is carrying forward through the Astar Foundation Forward program is extremely important. It clearly shows the team’s intention to improve and focus on the long-term sustainability of the project.

I also agree with you that, at its current stage, the dApp Staking structure — which is one of the core pillars of Astar — deserves a serious review and optimization. We now have some years of data and operational history, and I think it’s fair to say that the portion of inflation allocated to dApp Staking, and more specifically to dApp rewards for developers, has not fully met the original expectations. In particular, it hasn’t resulted in the sustained growth of teams delivering fully developed products with clear utility and active adoption across the network.

I believe it makes sense to start reasoning about a more optimized and strategic use of the dApp Staking inflation, with more selective focus areas. In this sense, your idea of creating an official financial hub for the ecosystem could be an interesting and intelligent way to deploy part of the resources derived from inflation.

Thanks again for sharing your vision :beating_heart:

1 Like
6

Thank you for taking the time to read my vision on how the use of Astar could be expanded. You have really hit on a very important word: “efficiency.” I would also add “capital.” We must move in the direction of making “capital more efficient” for our ecosystem. I am sure that the foundation will take into consideration some of the points raised in this post.

7

As agents, we are committed to the community. We have a mission to contribute work and ideas that drive the network forward, even if they make people uncomfortable. It is our duty to offer constructive criticism for the good of the network. The Astar Foundation and team have my utmost admiration. It is not easy to take on this role; it requires a lot of fortitude to withstand the ravages of the market and overcome logistical obstacles.

The viability of this vision is not quantifiable for me at this time, but in theory it should work, since the greatest challenge for the ecosystem in general is the acquisition and retention of liquidity. These are two important things, and although they are very similar, they are handled differently. It is like the front door (acquisition) and what is inside the house (retention). Once you have the house, you must have it well furnished. This is a very simple analogy that comes to mind right now to simplify the problems that projects in general, not just Astar, are suffering from.

If a mechanism is created that can keep the furniture in the house in good condition, I am sure that we will then gain ground on issues such as inflation and the efficient inflow of capital.

Thank you, you are always very active, and that motivates us.

1 Like
8

Oh, I was waiting for your comment, as were the other agents.

Creating an internal dApp that manages financial products would increase liquidity, so that hosted projects could take advantage of it, not only from dApp Staking, but also from new users who would arrive as a result of that new liquidity. At this point, both capital efficiency and users, whether institutional or retail, are of interest.

“An application with good liquidity is attractive.” What is the point of having a network to host projects that have no real dynamics within it, i.e., that lack liquidity because they do not have a sufficient number of users? This is the turning point I mentioned about dApp Staking. We have the space and the tools, but the method of managing the dynamics of the network and the projects deserves new economic products that drive all the projects that want to host on Astar.

I mention ATOM, which created an economic model based on its L1 network that would feed the projects that joined its ecosystem, but the user base shrunk significantly and, as a result, the profits from fees ended up being insignificant and the inflationary model (issuing new tokens - liquidity extraction) unsustainable for the project, condemning it to self-destruction. This has happened not only with ATOM, but with many projects. The point is that we need to create an innovative model.

Participants would continue to receive rewards in ASTR. With the adjustment made by the introduction of new products, the APR/APY rates for Astar participants could become attractive, leading to more ASTR being staked. At the same time, as the token appreciates in value, participation would increase. This is what theory dictates: users participate when they feel comfortable with:

  1. A decent APR or APY.

  2. The value of the token stabilizing, making it attractive.

Projects would receive UDSCS, but could exchange it for Astar, and those “USDSC would return to the Treasury.” This is too important to maintain economic balance within dApp Staking. The rest would respond to strategies designed for each product, revenue, and TVL.

The voting issue would remain intact, except that now the reward dynamics would be based on our native ASTR token and a stable USDSC currency.

The challenges are great, I agree, but when there is “will,” anything is possible.

2 Likes
9

Thank you for coming. Your comments are always valuable. The central theme of this “vision” is to seek long-term solutions to strengthen the economic system, as you rightly said.

Astar Foundation Forward has also hit the nail on the head in identifying which aspects of the network’s dynamics need to be “strengthened” or “neutralized.” The fact is that it is very easy to sit here and write, which is why I admire the work of everyone: the councils, the foundation, and the team, because despite the extreme market conditions, they are still standing, looking for solutions. If this were not the case, the situation would be worse. Finally, thank you for sharing my vision. I really appreciate it. You are also doing a great job.

10

As a developer, my view is that if Astar provides reliable liquidity and cross-chain bridges, I believe capital, users, market-making bots, arbitrage bots, trading bots, and even more developers will flock to Astar. This is because competition is too intense on other popular chains, and wherever there’s liquidity, there are abundant profit opportunities.

2 Likes
11

Yes, I fully agree.
This is essentially a classic chicken-and-egg problem: users do not gather where there is little liquidity, and liquidity does not gather where there are no users. For that reason, I am strongly in favor of pivoting the project’s model itself in order to break this deadlock. Realistically, this may be the only viable option.

That said, while it is good to think about this in a positive light, it is also necessary to analyze it based on real-world examples.
Looking at closer cases, platforms like Acala and Parallel, which launched their own applications while operating as EVM-compatible chains, have not succeeded (there are likely Polkadot-specific contextual issues as well).
As a successful example, there is Hyperliquid. However, because its core applications are a Spot and Perp DEX, it is extremely difficult for competing DEXs to grow on top of it. As a result, the top 10 in TVL tend to be concentrated in areas outside of DEXs, such as lending and LSDs. That said, in the case of Hyperliquid, many applications that extend the main order-book trading functionality (such as Based Cloud) have emerged. If applications that build on top of that core gain traction, this becomes a major strength. In other words, rather than competing directly, the more plausible path may be to create DeFi infrastructure that is worth using as one piece of “DeFi Lego.”

Ideally, it could be interesting to build cross-chain DeFi infrastructure using technologies like XCMP or CCIP.

However, as I mentioned previously, my main concern is still: “Who builds it, who maintains it, and who takes responsibility?”
At the moment, I expect that the Astar Foundation (Startale) would need to take the lead under such an initiative. Alternatively, it could be possible for Astar DAO to allocate funds, create a Sub DAO, and form a dedicated development team.
This may not be something that needs to be decided right now, but without clarity on this point, the effort will likely stall in the end.

I see, that makes sense. So regarding emissions, this would be something adjusted on the developer side.
That said, developer rewards make up a relatively small portion of Astar’s overall inflation. If the goal is to address inflation itself, it might make sense to also reduce ASTR emissions to stakers and, for example, switch Bonus Rewards to USDSC.
In that case, as Astar grows, the bonuses would increase as well, which would encourage more active ecosystem participation from the community.
Since inflation will gradually decrease over time, it is also conceivable that, in the long run, staking rewards could be partially compensated in USDSC.

3 Likes
12

I agree with the proposal! In my opinion, the point is precisely this: Astar hasn’t yet made a real change of direction that could have an economic impact, and it should. We’re approaching the Burndrop, and it could become a very strong catalyst in the short/medium term, but it remains (currently) a single event. If it goes well, it creates attention and momentum, but then continuity is needed.

What’s missing is a clear “post-event” trajectory: narratives and mechanisms that maintain demand and utility over time (even if we don’t know the details of Phase 2). In practice, transforming a peak into a sustainable cycle, with measurable value capture and incentives that reward those who bring real value, not just inflation.

2026 will be an important year for Astar; we must make the right moves to take the place we deserve. :glowing_star:

13

Good discussion and very well framed overall.

What resonates most is the need for continuity: one-off catalysts (even strong ones like Burndrop) create momentum, but without a durable financial core they fade. Astar acting as a financial hub / DeFi primitive layer, rather than just a host for dApps feels like a credible way to break the liquidity–user deadlock you described.

I also agree that success likely comes from building foundational infrastructure (“DeFi Lego”), not apps that crowd out ecosystem builders. If paired with clearer ownership (Foundation- or DAO-led) and a gradual shift from pure ASTR inflation toward revenue- or stablecoin-linked rewards, this could turn short-term attention into a sustainable value loop.

1 Like
15

The issue with dApps such as Acala or Parallel is that they were affected by specific problems. Acala suffered an exploit, and I believe Parallel did too.

On the other hand, they were dApps with peer-based products using tokens from the DOT ecosystem. There was no depth in the order book, and they were very limited in terms of functions and financial products.

Furthermore, they operated similarly to a DEX. which is fine, but operating only a DEX limits you, because you can have an operational DEX, but how do you attract liquidity? A DEX is a complement within something bigger; it is not the solution to the problem. I can prepare a technical document explaining each section, each product, and the appropriate mechanisms to attract liquidity based on a strategy that creates a sustainable economic loop, but I think that would be if it were necessary to create it.

Hyperliquid has created an ecosystem based solely on trading, which is not a bad thing, but what happens if, after a while, that base of traders no longer finds it so attractive? Its infrastructure will surely collapse, and as a result, its economy based on trading fees (which is very weak, as fees cannot sustain a network on their own) and on settlements to users by its MMs. It’s not bad as a business, but in the long term, it’s unsustainable. For example, HYPE’s valuation is very exaggeratedly high compared to its TVL; HYPE currently has only a third of its supply in circulation, with a market cap of $8.12B at the time of writing, with a TVL that is half its market cap at $4.1B; This in itself is already a red flag, suggesting that it is overvalued and may present liquidity risks.

image
image1892×857 165 KB

The fact is that, as you rightly said, DEXs are DEXs on their own. If they don’t design a sustainable economic model like UniSwap, for example, but UniSwap has been forced to expand its product range and was fortunate enough to be the first and managed to capture a huge user base thanks to its UI/UX. In my opinion, it has no competition. The point is that UniSwap did not remain solely a DEX; it has mutated into an Economic Hub.

In conclusion, the concept of a “Pure and Simple DEX” does not meet the expectations for economically sustaining an ecosystem. I agree with you.

That would be great and very necessary.

Absolutely, the development of new products is in the hands of the foundation, which would take on the development. There is little we can do if they intervene in development matters. Let’s hope they pay attention to everything that has been said, because we have debated with real data and criteria.

16

Let’s hope that 2026 will be Astar’s best year yet.

Burndrop is only one part of the plan to transform Astar’s economy, but as you say, it is specific and does not develop a real basis for resolving the issue of liquidity entering the ecosystem. It may be a necessary solution that, if implemented alongside many other solutions, will be more effective.

Burndrop may occupy a temporary space, but applied several times over time, I am sure it will ultimately be effective as a deflationary mechanism. Then Buy Back could be added, but this would depend on capturing enough liquidity to do so. That is why I have broken down all of the above. We need a genesis of liquidity and a “timeless” product that does not depend on market conditions, or at least is not affected by them as much.

Thank you for following the thread and contributing your valuable opinion. Without it, I would not be able to define the space-time of the system I have proposed: “Timeless.”

1 Like
17

Hi Matt, rather than hosting dApps, we should first focus on creating liquidity for the ecosystem. After that, we can finance projects, which would be measured based on the value they contribute, as has been done in the past.

The race for Web3 is intense. What works today may not work tomorrow. We can’t fall behind; we must move forward, creating new sustainable solutions that provide economic relief to the ecosystem. I’m sure our community will appreciate it.

Thank you for joining us. Your contribution is valuable.

1 Like
18

Community,zkVan’s proposal could be the right vision: transforming Astar into a true Economic Financial Hub, with USDSC at the center, real revenue from lending/swap/farming/savings, and a sustainable loop that reduces dependence on dApp Staking inflation.But to make it work in a brutal market, we need a concrete, centralized, and aggressive plan – no half-measures or endless experiments.Concrete suggestions to implement the financial hubMain and reference DeFi Hub
Initially developed and managed exclusively by the Foundation: includes lending, borrowing, swap, savings, farming, native USDSC integration and future yen stablecoin.
Premium UI, rigorous audits, rapid updates.It doesn’t just fill a gap: it creates a central product that is completely missing on Astar today.

Radical reform of dApp Staking

Automatic and strict delisting for projects that do not generate real value or significant usage, based on objective on-chain metrics such as TVL, volume, active users.

Maximum limit of 3 dApps per category to concentrate liquidity and rewards.

Emissions freed from delisting go directly to the treasury/Foundation for initial hub financing and liquidity attraction.

Initial financing and sustainability

Redirecting resources solves the chicken-and-egg problem: immediate funds for incentives, USDSC marketing, partnerships.

The substantial resources that the Foundation would obtain from this reform would not only be used to develop and maintain the hub or to provide initial incentives, but also and especially for aggressive ASTR buybacks, burns, large-scale marketing, institutional partnerships, and everything needed to give visibility and economic sustainability to the network.

The hub can start gradually, but with resources guaranteed by those who believe in the overall project.

Governance

Temporary centralization: the Foundation maintains full control until concrete milestones of significant TVL or defined timeframe.

No DAO right away because, in the early stages of a still fragile ecosystem with low TVL, decentralized governance often leads to decision-making paralysis, slow voting or dominated by a few, and loss of momentum against more agile competitors. DAOs work well only on mature products, with high TVL, stable revenue, and a consolidated community – here they would only slow everything down.

Astar, although not a new coin or a brand-new ecosystem, is ugly to say but today it is as if it were: we have to accept that dApp Staking was a very good idea on paper, but it has brought no concrete results, indeed it has damaged the project with uncontrolled inflation and wasted resources, so much so that we now find ourselves wondering what to do and how to do it. This is not the time to waste energy discussing insignificant proposals: we need a central body, clear-cut decisions, and professionalism to restart. Today we are a car without an engine – decentralizing now would only mean driving it into the wall.

ASTR used to vote on hub parameters such as APR and fees, and obviously to pay gas on L1.

Gradual transition to a hybrid council only after consolidated results with high TVL and stable revenue.

Hub revenue allocation

50-60% to the Foundation/operations, including aggressive ASTR buyback & burn.

20-30% to selected core dApps.

10-20% distributed meritocratically based on on-chain KPIs.

An important doubt: with the very recent MOU for a regulated yen stablecoin in Q2 2026, plus initiatives on RWA, tokenized stocks, and onchain trading platform… isn’t a similar financial hub already being worked on, but more oriented toward Soneium or the enterprise world? In that case, will the Foundation have the strength and intention to push such an ambitious project on Astar? The potential “competition” would come from there, not from third-party dApps that today simply have no impact.Very low DeFi TVL, dApp Staking that has produced no significant results after years: we need decisive action now, before the decentralization roadmap mid-2026 finds us still stuck at square one.

2 Likes