Gentlemen, it’s time to open a new thread on AstarThe previous thread, “Astar: The State of Our Ecosystem,” has been closed, but I believe it’s time to start a new one. I’m not the only one saying this: the market itself suggests it. None of us can predict the crypto market’s future with certainty: we don’t know if an alt season like the old days is coming, nor whether Bitcoin has reached its peak. Looking back at my investment in Astar, I see many significant developments. Yet, the price remains near its all-time lows.I don’t want this post to be just a complaint about price action, but it’s inevitable to question the quality of the efforts in promoting the Astar brand. The price isn’t just a number: it’s a direct reflection of how the market perceives our project. Blaming the market alone would be reductive and unprofessional: we all know that timing is critical in crypto, but so is a clear and engaging narrative.Many of you—probably all—remember the impact Sota Watanabe’s tweets used to have. I say “probably all” because, apparently, new investors are nowhere to be seen. The Sony joint-venture, a major announcement, seems to have been misunderstood by the market. Perhaps it wasn’t communicated with enough emphasis, or maybe the market wasn’t ready to grasp it. Likely, a bit of both.I don’t want to make this post too long, but I believe this thread should become a space for daily discussion. My question is: does the Astar brand still have appeal? About a year ago, there was talk of possibly changing the ticker, but we were told Astar and Soneium are separate entities. Still, it feels like we need a new narrative to shine a spotlight on our chain.Here’s a thought: isn’t it time to unify Astar and Soneium, at least in terms of perception? I’m not necessarily suggesting turning Astar into a governance token for Soneium, but presenting them as a single, cohesive project—a united force ready to make an impact on the market. A fresh story and a stronger, unified identity could be the key to getting the attention we deserve. We need to focus on how the market sees us, because that’s ultimately what determines our project’s value.
Hello.
What you’re saying is absolutely right.
I believe the answer likely lies in Astar Evolution Phase 2. However, we don’t know when it will be announced, nor do we have a clear idea of what it will entail. Because of that, we’re currently in a situation where it’s somewhat difficult to take action.
Based on past statements, it seems that multiple companies are involved. Sharing any details would likely break existing agreements, so it’s understandable that no information can be disclosed.
Of course, it would be ideal if there were things we could still do under these circumstances—but to be honest, I think it’s quite difficult for Astar alone to significantly elevate its brand. If it were a brand-new chain, maybe, but as one that is now entering its third year, gaining fresh attention is extremely challenging.
While I don’t like the idea of passively waiting, I feel like we have no choice but to wait for Astar Evolution Phase 2.
First of all, thank you for the detailed response. As I mentioned in my previous post, I didn’t want to go on too long, but I believe there are many opportunities to seize, both in terms of outreach and structural changes, to strengthen the Astar brand. Let me clarify that I won’t delve into technical aspects, as they’re outside my expertise.You mentioned Phase 2 of Astar Evolution, and I agree: we’re all eagerly awaiting what it will bring. The public statements, particularly from Sota Watanabe and Maarten Henskens, use strong language that leaves little doubt about the significance of what’s coming, even if details remain unclear. For this reason, I think more could be done to build anticipation without risking overhyping the narrative, given the confidence conveyed by official statements. Creating more buzz, strategically, could be an excellent way to keep the community engaged and attract new investors.Regarding my proposal for a ticker change and a more explicit synergy between Astar and Soneium, I believe it’s an idea worth seriously considering. Sota himself previously hinted at the possibility of a ticker change, and I think a unified brand perception—without ambiguity or subtlety—could have a significant impact. Presenting Astar and Soneium as a single, cohesive ecosystem with ASTR at its core could be the fastest way to build a compelling and attractive narrative that stands out in a competitive market.Moving on to outreach, I believe there’s significant room for improvement. I don’t want to come across as overly critical, but as I’ve mentioned in other threads, I find the current system for evaluating and compensating ambassadors limiting. Paying based on the number of tweets or articles published isn’t enough: we need to reward real impact, such as increased engagement and new users. For example, how many new members have joined our communities in the last three months? In mine, which is among the largest, we’re close to zero. This clearly points to a flaw in the outreach strategy.I propose revising the ambassador compensation system, and I must stress that this revision should have happened long ago. ASTR’s price has been declining for two years: 1,000 dollars in ASTR a year ago is not worth 1,000 dollars in ASTR today. Continuing to pay a fixed dollar equivalent, regardless of results, discourages effort and ignores market realities. While we shouldn’t limit our optimism, with the price near historic lows, it’s hard to imagine it dropping much further. For this reason, I suggest a model with a fixed base compensation in ASTR tokens—deliberately low, given the current situation—not tied to their dollar value, combined with incentives based on tangible results, such as acquiring new users or boosting engagement. Additionally, if ASTR’s price rises, the number of tokens paid should decrease proportionally to maintain balance: for instance, it’s unacceptable to set a base of 10,000 ASTR at $0.025 and keep the same number of tokens if ASTR reaches $1. A flexible system that adjusts the amount of ASTR based on market value would encourage ambassadors to develop creative strategies, going beyond mere promotion to actively contribute to the ecosystem’s growth. Let me be clear: this isn’t a direct criticism of the ambassadors, who do important work. Their role is just the first step. The main issue comes from above, from the leadership of Astar and Startale, who need to change their modus operandi and adopt more decisive strategies and effective communication. Without this change at the top, we won’t achieve meaningful results.Don’t get me wrong: I recognize that the ambassadors’ work goes beyond simple promotion, which is why a fixed base is essential. However, if ASTR’s price falls, it must become a collective motivation to push it back up, involving everyone from the grassroots to the leadership of Astar and Startale. Only with shared commitment can we turn the potential of Astar and Soneium into tangible success for the entire ecosystem.
I agree. While I once considered the ticker change a great idea, now I see it as our lifeline. While we wait for Phase 2…
Let’s be honest: a ticker change could be huge. A unified Astar-Sony ticker would send a massive signal to the market, boosting visibility and credibility. But it’s not simple—contracts, company deals, and internal dynamics are a black box. Maybe it’s coming in phase two, who knows? If it’s not doable now, though, we can’t just wait. There are plenty of ways we can step up, and one big one is fixing the Ambassador program.Right now, Ambassadors they are paid in astral by calculating the equivalent value in dollars so $ASTR’s value doesn’t affect them. Where’s the fire to go all out? No spark, no drive to build hype or grow the ecosystem. My idea: pay them a fixed amount in $ASTR, no dollar conversions. They do more than just promote—community management, answering questions, representing Astar—so a fixed $ASTR payment is fair. But a real company doesn’t pay the same whether results show up or not. Growth isn’t just on Ambassadors; leadership and teamwork are key. Still, they need to be motivated to bring their A-game.Imagine a $ASTR payment that feels small today but grows with the project. The harder Ambassadors push—through posts, events, or engagement—the more hype and users they bring. That drives $ASTR’s value up, boosting their earnings too. It’s a win-win: their work fuels the ecosystem and their own rewards.What do you think? How do we design an $ASTR payment system that’s fair but pushes Ambassadors to create hype and growth? And what else can we do to keep Astar moving, ticker or not?
Hello @Marroz! Since the Ambassador Program is being mentioned repeatedly in your messages, I’d like to jump in and provide some clarity on the matter.
The Ambassador Program (which is actually called the Ecosystem Agent Program) was created with the intention of having a group of people who promote the Astar brand in different parts of the world through various initiatives such as:
- Content creation
- Managing local communities
- Encouraging participation in the ecosystem
- Managing projects built on Astar
- Promoting outreach opportunities for Astar
Since you’re part of the Italian local community, you’ll know that the current team managing that community is among the best. Today’s Ecosystem Agents are committed to achieving these goals.
Now, it’s true that the program needs improvement, and this is something we’re actively working on from both the Astar Foundation and the Astar Community Council.
Regarding compensation, setting a fixed amount of ASTR for ambassadors sounds good in terms of structure and organization, it would make it easier to distribute rewards using a predefined agent template. However, I don’t think it would be fair to the ambassadors given current market conditions. If we set a fixed ASTR amount based on today’s market, it wouldn’t be realistic knowing that the token value could rise or fall in the future.
I still prefer a reward structure based on USD with ASTR equivalents over what you propose. I believe the real solution lies in improving the rewards system itself.
We are constantly working to improve the program, and that effort will continue moving forward.
Hi
, I know the Italian community well, and they know me just as well. I can assure you—and they can confirm—that I’m not speaking out of regionalism or to protect my own little patch. My criticisms stem from a constructive intent for the entire ecosystem, from the biggest to the smallest players. My intellectual honesty allows me to express sincere opinions, without letting the respect I have for people and the work they do influence my judgment.Therefore, the current remuneration system doesn’t work. I acknowledge the effort of the Ecosystem Agents, especially within our Italian community, which goes beyond mere promotion: they manage communities, answer questions, and represent Astar with dedication. The issue, however, is structural. Paying a fixed dollar equivalent, with ASTR in a steady decline for over a year and a half, creates distortions. Today, Ambassadors request approximately 150,000 ASTR every three months (equivalent in dollars), but the Foundation disburses around 90,000 ASTR. With ASTR’s value eroding, thousands of tokens are being distributed without tangible results. Let’s be honest: if we continue with a system that doesn’t incentivize growth, we risk handing out thousands of ASTR pointlessly while the ecosystem remains stagnant. Imagine instead a positive scenario: if ASTR rose to 10 cents in six months thanks to shared effort, wouldn’t it be better for those tokens to reflect real success?I propose a remuneration in pure ASTR, without dollar conversion. For example, 10,000 ASTR per month would be a fair base, considering we’re at historic lows. It’s also a mea culpa: we can’t keep blaming the market alone—we need to take some responsibility. 10,000 ASTR is already a significant amount, given that ASTR’s current value is far from past levels. This base covers core tasks—community management, support—which must also have clearly defined metrics. For any initiative that boosts engagement (with concrete proof: real interactions, not just views), there should be a bonus in ASTR, increasing incrementally from 1,000 to 1,000, based on parameters to be studied, until a date to be determined. The common goal—Ambassadors included—must be clear: to grow the ecosystem and, consequently, the price of ASTR.This system is more equitable and motivating. Paying the same dollar amount when things go poorly doesn’t inspire anyone. It’s neither fair nor beneficial for the community or the workers: I can’t reward unsatisfactory engagement levels. With a base in ASTR and bonuses tied to tangible results (new users, interactions), Ambassadors will be driven to create real value. It’s a matter of integrity: if I launch a program to promote and raise awareness for ASTR, I must put those who join in a position to feel motivated. Paying the same regardless of performance simply isn’t right.
I’m not sure if you’re fully familiar with the Astar Ecosystem Agent Program, but I kindly encourage you to take a moment to read through all the details here:
Astar Ecosystem Agent Program 2.5 - #2 by tksarah
What you’re suggesting, in summary, is already being done.
There are specific parameters that each Council member evaluates individually, and feedback is provided to the Agents.
The monthly reward is fixed at $800, with a potential $200 bonus if the Agent performs any additional activities that justify it. It doesn’t matter whether an Agent requests $100 or $1,000,000 — they are free to request any amount, but the program parameters are clearly defined.
The final reward is based on the average score of all Council members, calculated against the $800 cap. In the end, the proposal submitted on-chain by the Agents reflects the amount that the Council considers fair for their contribution — based on the established evaluation parameters.
I can assure you that no Agent receives 100% of the amount — the evaluation is strict and performance-based.
Within the evaluation parameters, each item is scored from 0 to 100.
The sum of all parameter scores determines the percentage of the reward the Agent will receive.
That statement is completely off-base.
All work carried out by Ecosystem Agents is evaluated based on performance, time commitment, and dedication to the ecosystem.
You are, of course, entitled to your personal opinion, and constructive suggestions for improvement are always welcome — but baseless claims will not be taken into account.
Regarding payment in $ or ASTR, this was also discussed internally by the Council, and the current decision is to maintain the existing structure.
Just for comparison, members of the AFC and ACC are required to contribute at least 2 hours per day.
Our Ecosystem Agents often dedicate 4 to 5+ hours daily to supporting and growing the Astar ecosystem.
And in terms of cost, the community treasury is more than capable of covering compensation for our 13–14 Agents (if they deserve it) while still growing month over month.
Total Community Treasury Balance: 116,576,707.33 ASTR > 110M currently staked
If we were to completely remove the Agent Program, the impact on the treasury — and on the token price — would be literally zero.
So that narrative simply doesn’t hold up.
That statement is completely off-base.
It’s also important to note that any parameter with poor performance is not scored at all — meaning Agents are only evaluated on activities they’ve actually carried out.
However, the Astar Community Council (ACC) does not have that prerogative — our role is strictly to define conduct, evaluate performance, and assess rewards within the Agent Program.
The responsibility for recruitment, interviews, and the selection of new participants in the program lies entirely with the Astar Foundation.
Finally, all suggestions for improvement are welcome.
The Agent Program 2.5 was launched earlier this year and brought significant changes.
It’s not a static initiative — it will continue to evolve based on feedback from the community and the Foundation’s needs.
At the end of the year, we’ll be able to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses more clearly, and we strongly encourage community members like you to share your thoughts and opinions.
It’s worth noting that the transition to Program 2.5 led some former Agents to leave — and that’s perfectly fine.
We want people who are aligned with the cultural values and mission of the Astar Foundation, not bounty hunters simply chasing rewards.
Thank you for the response. I appreciate the details, but allow me to address each point, as some statements deserve clarification.On the Remuneration Structure
You state that the monthly reward is fixed at 800 dollars, with a potential bonus of 200 dollars based on parameters evaluated by the Council. I understand the system: each agent can request any amount, but the average score from the Council determines the final compensation, never at 100%. However, with ASTR declining for over a year, this dollar-based approach erodes the real value for the community. If an agent receives 800 USD today (approximately 32,000 ASTR at a rate of 0.025 USD), in six months, with the same amount in dollars, it could equate to 80,000 ASTR if the price crashes to 0.01 USD—or 8,000 if it rises to 0.1 USD. Consider a concrete example: if 800 USD equals 32,000 ASTR today and tomorrow, with a crash to 0.01 USD, it would require 80,000 ASTR for the same salary, making it clear that the current system is unsustainable. My proposal for a base in ASTR (e.g., 10,000 ASTR per month) with bonuses for tangible results remains fairer: it ties compensation to the ecosystem’s success (which should be the primary goal, or am I wrong?), not to a disconnected dollar value.On Performance and Results
You refute the claim that thousands of ASTR are distributed without tangible results, emphasizing that agents’ work is assessed based on performance, time, and dedication. I respect the effort of those dedicating 4-5 hours a day, but the numbers speak for themselves: how many unpaid external users have joined in the last 30 days? I’m not interested in likes exchanged among you or inflated impressions—those are irrelevant. If the parameters are so rigorous (0-100 for each element), concrete evidence is needed, not just words. And since ASTR has been declining for over a year, the market itself shows that thousands of ASTR have been distributed without tangible outcomes, regardless of whether your evaluation is accurate or not. My statement cannot be deemed unfounded, as the facts speak.On Dollar vs. ASTR Payment
You say the Council discussed internally and prefers to maintain the current system. I understand that the treasury covers the costs of the 13-14 agents and that eliminating them wouldn’t impact the token price, but this doesn’t justify inaction. If the program doesn’t move the market, what’s its purpose? Paying in dollars when ASTR drops doesn’t inspire: a motivated agent should earn more if ASTR grows. Be cautious about labeling my statements as completely erroneous and unfounded; this crosses the line of respect for personal opinions based on market observations. I’d rather not take on a role that isn’t mine, linking to useless pages explaining the rules to follow.On Roles and Responsibility
I acknowledge that the ACC or the Foundation have distinct roles, but I urge you decisively to focus on solutions, not bureaucratic divisions. The issue isn’t who does what, but that the current system fails to motivate. I call for a collective effort to improve it, not justifications based on acronyms.I await concrete data on how this program, as structured by you, can motivate agents to achieve the common goal that the entire community should share—namely, the all-encompassing growth of ASTR—and I do so with the hope of an open and respectful dialogue.
@Marroz Beyond the rewards, which has been the only topic mentioned in this thread over the last four messages, what other issues have you identified within the program? What other parts of the current structure do you think need to be changed and/or improved? What would you include that we’re not currently implementing?
Hey everyone,
This is my first time jumping into a forum discussion, though I’ve been quietly following Astar for quite a while. I supported the original launch of Astar as a parachain on Polkadot years ago, and it’s been amazing to watch how far the project has come.
That said, I’m only now starting to get involved in community conversations, and I want to thank you all—especially @Marroz, @Juminstock and others—for the depth and honesty of this discussion. It’s helped me better understand the current dynamics of the ecosystem and the challenges we’re facing.
While I don’t feel fully qualified (yet) to comment on all the details of the Ambassador/Agent program, I do want to say that the idea of aligning incentives more closely with ASTR’s long-term success makes intuitive sense to me. I’ve seen too many communities burn out or stagnate when contributors don’t feel connected to the token’s growth.
I also really resonate with the call for a more unified narrative around Astar and Soneium. As an outsider looking in, the messaging sometimes feels fragmented—and that can be a barrier to onboarding new users or keeping early supporters engaged.
I’ll keep listening and learning, but I just wanted to step in and say thanks for the transparency in this thread. It makes me feel more confident about participating and, hopefully, contributing more in the near future.
Let’s keep building.
@Juminstock
, I’m pleased that the conversation has opened up, though I was honestly hoping for much broader participation. That said, allow me to clarify some points that, from your message, seem to have been misunderstood.The issue isn’t about the amount of remuneration; I couldn’t care less how much an Ambassador earns. Had I been interested, I could have applied to join some time ago, but for now, I’ve never expressed the slightest desire to become one. The critique—if we can call it that—is directed at the payment method, in dollars, and how it fails to motivate anyone to deliver results for the entire community. Paradoxically, it benefits Ambassadors more to work now, given we’re at the lows, compared to a potential future where ASTR might reach 10 cents. With that in mind, I believe the lack of motivation from what is, in effect, the megaphone, the armed wing, and the very extension—not just of the whole community but also of the Foundation itself—is far from a minor problem.I’d like to highlight other concerning issues. Communication is lacking: a glaring example is the announcement about the Soneium sequencer revenues, where Startale promised to reinvest the profits by buying ASTR on the market—a potentially explosive piece of news, one that could have energized the community and sent a strong signal to the market, a golden opportunity to boost the ecosystem. Yet, after that announcement, there has been no update, no concrete follow-up, no transparency on the outcomes of that initiative. It has simply faded into oblivion, leaving the community without answers and squandering a chance that could have made a real difference. This silence is symptomatic of a broader issue.The ACS ended a few weeks ago, yet DeFi on Soneium remains stagnant: the TVL of Soneium has decreased since ACS, a clear sign of dwindling participation. I’ve called the survey on shifting the focus to dApp Staking pointless, as I believe that without direct incentives—not necessarily money—the people, the users, see staking as a “set it and forget it” exercise. I say “not necessarily money” because Soneium has been distributing badges of questionable utility for months, yet people, at least for now—clearly, this can’t go on forever—seem to appreciate them. I’d prefer to stop here and hear the opinions of many more people.On that note, I’d like to close with a thought: we opened this thread also because the market seems to be on the rise, and it would be wise to seize these opportunities. Personally, I’ve always hoped, almost prayed, for a ticker change aligned with the Astar-Soneium synergy, because I believe it’s the easiest path (for us common mortals, of course) to create a credible new narrative in a short time.I look forward to your thoughts and hope this exchange continues constructively
Hi, regarding the Ambassador program, beyond what I’ve already mentioned (rewards paid in ASTR and a focus on real interactions rather than impressions), I don’t have any major objections. However, I’d like to suggest a few ideas to make the program even more engaging:Division by nationality: Create groups of Ambassadors by country, with a portion of the rewards allocated to an “internal fund” for each group. This could be used for local initiatives or contests on X, encouraging regional participation.
Team-based bonuses: Introduce shared rewards at the group level to recognize collective efforts, as it’s challenging to measure individual contributions to integrating new users into the ecosystem, such as on Telegram.
Competition between nations: Organize a sort of “championship” with prizes to foster healthy competition and strengthen the sense of community among Ambassadors from different countries.
Removal of the reward cap: With ASTR’s price at its lows, the maximum cap on bonus rewards must be eliminated. Currently, this cap discourages Ambassadors from pushing beyond their goals, reducing motivation to excel. A temporal limit (monthly or quarterly, as preferred) is sufficient to regulate activity without stifling enthusiasm.
As for the rest, I have no doubts about the seriousness of the program, the role of Ambassadors, or the criteria for evaluating rewards and selecting participants. Thanks for the opportunity to share these ideas!
I agree with every single word.
Hey everyone!
One thing I’ve been missing — and I’ve seen others mention it here as well — is a more unified narrative between Astar and Soneium. For newcomers, and even for people who’ve been following the project for a while, it can be a bit confusing to understand how the two networks actually connect. Sometimes it feels like they’re two separate projects, when in reality they should be telling one cohesive story.
I think this is a key point if we really want to scale and bring more people into the ecosystem. Clear and consistent communication makes all the difference — both for those who want to use the tech and for those who want to build on top of it.
And maybe now is the right moment to consider a deeper change, including the token itself. A refresh, a rebrand — something that marks this new phase and helps align everything: the product, the community, and the long-term vision.
Of course, it’s not an easy decision, but the fact that we’re even having this open conversation is already a great sign.
Thank you all for sharing your perspectives.
I’d like to add my own thoughts on the Agent Program (formerly the Ambassador Program)—which may overlap with some of the points @pitcoin777 raised earlier.
First, I believe it’s realistic and appropriate that the rewards have a set upper limit and are defined in USD, especially considering the current state of the crypto market. Globally speaking, there are still relatively few market participants, and volatility is high. If, as you suggested, the rewards were fixed in ASTR tokens, wouldn’t there be significant pushback if ASTR’s value rose 100x or 1000x in the future, and the same amount of tokens were still paid out? A model where rewards are paid in individual tokens would be more suitable after crypto becomes more globally stable and widely adopted.
As for how the reward amounts are determined, the Community Council has updated the program to emphasize “quality over quantity,” especially in newer iterations. Council members aren’t monitoring each agent’s activities on a daily basis, so 100% strict evaluations are not feasible—but based on submitted reports, multiple council members assess the quality of each agent’s contributions and their impact on the ecosystem. This collective review helps eliminate extreme bias from final evaluations.
Lastly, your proposal may require extensive debate and consideration. If implemented hastily, it could lead to an increase in agents whose primary goal is simply earning rewards.
Fundamentally, agents in the program are not equivalent to corporate employees. That’s why I believe reward-based motivation shouldn’t be the primary driver. In the previous iteration of the program, agents who met certain criteria received additional rewards as “bonuses,” and I believe that level of incentive is sufficient to encourage engagement.
If you take a look at the link Pit referenced, you’ll see that agents don’t participate to “earn rewards.” They contribute because they want to apply their knowledge, skills, and experience to support the Astar and Soneium ecosystems. Of course, their efforts may eventually influence the value of ASTR, but within the broader market, each agent’s individual impact might be quite small. Still, agents consistently produce content and share information on an ongoing basis. If rewards were their primary goal, they likely would have given up on ASTR and left the program a long time ago. Perhaps such agents existed in the past—but at least today, I believe those who continue to be active are driven by deeper intentions.
Moreover, current agents are spread across the globe, and even when working from the same location, they don’t compete with each other. Instead, collaboration and mutual support are common. Personally, I find this environment very comfortable. To me, it holds greater significance and value than anything derived merely from ASTR-based rewards.
@tksarah
, hi, and thank you for sharing your perspective, which I must admit stands in stark contrast to mine. I’ll try to explain my reasoning clearly.On USD vs ASTR Rewards
I understand your concern: fixing rewards in USD provides stability in a volatile market, and you’re right to point out that a payment in ASTR could become unsustainable if the token’s value increased by 100 or 1,000 times. However, I regret to note that this scenario hasn’t seemed to worry us over the past eighteen months, during which the token has lost nearly 100% of its value from its all-time high. If ASTR’s price were to rise, the Foundation’s coffers would benefit, and distributing a set amount of ASTR today would equate to distributing the same amount tomorrow, but with potentially much greater economic value. It’s a problem I hope we’d all be thrilled to face. On the flip side, if ASTR drops further, more tokens would be distributed to maintain the agreed-upon dollar amount, exacerbating dilution without encouraging improvement. Cryptocurrencies are volatile, true, and we all willingly embrace this “game” with its pros and cons—some with capital, some with time and skills, some with both.Role and Responsibility of Ambassadors
If ASTR were to achieve positive performance, part of the credit would go to the Ambassadors, just as part of the responsibility lies with them for the token’s significant decline. In that case, they’d deserve a commensurate reward. At the moment, however, this doesn’t seem to have been a concern, given the downward trend. Regarding “deeper intentions,” there’s none more profound than seeing the project we’ve invested in thrive. I’d love to hear the agents’ direct opinions: out of 13 or 14, I haven’t seen anything yet. You’re right that they aren’t employees, and I agree—they shouldn’t be treated as such. Yet, the current program does exactly that. I don’t know where you live, but where I’m from, work and remuneration are experienced differently. If I described this role to someone unfamiliar with crypto, they’d say an Ambassador, with a fixed “paycheck” for a minimum of tasks and time committed, plus a quarter in potential bonuses for hitting certain milestones, is effectively a salaried employee. I see it as a professional, an external collaborator with a VAT number—not a worker on a production line.On Competition
I fear you may have misunderstood my take on competition. I don’t see it as a negative, but as a driver of improvement: it helps us push our limits and excel. It doesn’t preclude friendships or cooperation; on the contrary, it can strengthen them. A collaborative environment is valuable, and as an investor, I can relate to that sentiment. However, in the long run, we shouldn’t rely solely on emotional attachment. Without false hypocrisy, we’re all here for one reason: to see our investment grow. And with all due respect, if I see requests exceeding or hovering close to the allowed cap, only to find that your evaluation never grants the full 100% requested, a little interest (and I’d say it’s a sacred right) in one’s wallet is inevitable.I’m open to discussion and invite others to contribute. I look forward to your thoughts and those of the community.
This might be slightly off-topic from the original thread, but since you’re the thread starter and leading the discussion, I think it’s fine to proceed as is.
I’ve been active as an Agent for about three years now, and to be honest, I don’t mind whether the rewards are based on USD value or token amount. If the community feels that token-based rewards are more appropriate, I’m fine with that.
However, just to provide some background: in the early days, the rewards were token-based. I’m not sure how the number of tokens was determined at the time, but as a result, the early Agents (then called Ambassadors) received a fairly large amount in dollar terms. Since such high USD rewards weren’t really necessary, the reward structure was reviewed and switched to USD-based rewards starting last year.
(It is possible that my memory is incorrect.)
Both approaches have pros and cons, so I’ll follow the community’s decision. In any case, I have no plans to sell my ASTR anytime soon—I’ll just use them in dApp Staking to increase my voting power.
It’s always nice to see discussions and exchanges that serve to improve Astar.
Personally, I believe that ultimately, a payment system based exclusively on tokens is more interesting because it would incentivize Ambassadors to promote and grow the ecosystem. We can’t rule out the possibility that, hypothetically, when ASTR reaches $1, the tokens available for request might not remain the same. This brings us to the current situation, which I think is fair: a maximum cap on tokens in dollar value. I remember there’s a cap on the amount of tokens Community Council members can receive, regardless of the price in dollars (if I’m not mistaken, it was 80,000 if the price was too low but @Gaius_sama can refresh my memory).
The solution that intrigues me most is the so-called SubDAO. It would be interesting to see listed dApps divided by regional communities (the Italian SubDAO in my case). This would allow for more responsibility but also access to more targeted fund management. Regional Ambassadors certainly know who to ask for paid promotions, given that they know the KOLs in those areas.
The “regional” treasury could be used in many other situations, such as campaigns with other projects, trading challenges, airdrops, and even seed funding to create a dApp.
Ideas? Advice? Opinions? I look forward to hearing from you.
@you425 hi, and thank you for stepping up on this topic—the discussion is gaining traction, and I’m pleased to see that the thread, though not focused on a specific theme, is becoming a space for raising issues, doubts, ideas, suggestions, or requests for clarification about the state of our ecosystem. Several points have already been touched upon, and at the moment, the one that seems to spark the most interest relates to distributions.I’m relieved to see that the agents, including an ambassador like you, are not opposed to my proposal for token-based rewards. This reinforces the idea that your colleagues harbor no hostility toward this concept. I assure you it’s not a stance “against you”—on the contrary, I see it as an opportunity. Sure, at these current prices, it might seem penalizing in the short term, but in the long run, trusting in ASTR’s success (and I’m certain you have as much faith in it as I do), it could prove far more satisfying. And, without shame in saying it, also more lucrative. The idea is that if ASTR grows, the value of the rewards will reflect the collective efforts, rewarding those who have contributed to its success.Building on what I said earlier, the thread doesn’t focus on a single issue; however, my opening post raised other concerns that have so far been explored only marginally—or rather, some of these have already been discussed in the past, but you know, sometimes time and circumstances can change. I agree that the decision should reflect the community’s consensus. Your commitment to dApp staking to increase your voting power is a positive sign of trust in the project, and I appreciate your openness.I invite others to share their ideas on this and the other topics raised, including those initial concerns that deserve a fresh look in light of the current circumstances. I look forward to your thoughts and those of the community!