Exactly. By playing with two identities, he’s blatantly deceiving people and treating them like fools. Using ‘Leo’ as a nickname to pass himself off as Italian isn’t just dishonest, it’s a calculated move to manipulate perceptions for his own benefit. This kind of behavior shows a complete lack of respect for the community and everything it stands for.
Allowing someone like him to remain a candidate after all of this? It’s essentially endorsing these underhanded tactics and destroying the trust that holds the ecosystem together. It’s a slap in the face to everyone genuinely working to build something transparent and sustainable.
Extremely well said, when Neurolanche eventually implodes under the weight of all the lies it will hurt the Astar ecosystem because as it seems they allowed him to become too far entrenched in the system.
When Neurolanche inevitably collapses under the weight of its deception, it won’t just harm itself, it’ll cast a shadow over the entire Astar and Soneium ecosystems. Allowing someone like him to embed so deeply into these systems sends the wrong message and undermines the credibility we’ve all worked hard to build.
That’s why it’s critical to address this now, before it’s too late. The community deserves better, and we need to ensure transparency and accountability remain at the forefront.
@Leo Let’s talk about the fact that whenever there is a downward movement on $ASTR, a green dildo appears out of nowhere on $NEURO? It’s becoming hard to ignore the pattern
I think we are exaggerating here in terms of accusations and responsibilities, pointing the finger at the team saying it is their fault is not a correct way to communicate.
Here we are talking about the possible candidate who is not suitable and in my opinion the new system aims to limit the possible damage. Even if he were elected as a member of the council (let’s be frank, because he has the ability to direct the vote having the tokens) there would be 5 other members of the council and having 1/6 of the governance power is of no use at all. It would only be a waste of time and resources in my opinion, not to mention the fact that in any case in the current state it is a hybrid model where only certain actions (not the management of everything) are delegated to the members of the Community council. The core team will always have a higher voting power.
As for the candidacy, however, I believe that the forum is an open platform and anyone can propose themselves for those roles so blaming the team that allowed them to do so loses the sense of freedom of speech.
On the other hand I support your doubts and would prefer to have concrete answers rather than invitations for calls, private chats or confusing documentation from Leo.
I sincerely hope that we will not end up in a battle between whales but that the focus of this topic can better resolve the future of Astar governance
Whether it’s a pleasant truth or not, the fact remains that when the team had more direct control and power, they did nothing to stop this person. On the contrary, they allowed him to run unchecked, enabling him to amass the treasury he now wields to influence votes. So, while pointing fingers may not solve anything, the blame undeniably lies with the foundation.
By failing to veto his candidacy, and because he has the tokens to secure election, he will gain a position that will undoubtedly be exploited to its fullest. He will drain every last ounce of legitimacy from that role to bolster the credibility of his project and in the process damage Astar even further.
How can the rest of the council not see that?
In this here thread Introducing the Community Council says the council will be able to manage assets and support projects within the ecosystem how long do you think it will take him to try and divert funds to neurolanche?
of course it is the fault of the core team - to think otherwise is amateur (and in line with how Astar is being run to date).
They created all of these ambassador programs out of laziness and without due diligence for who is being elected. The majority of ambassadors have an ego and appear to be just plainly stupid from the quality of their post writing in here.
@sota took a public picture with @Leo in Turkey a few months ago - this is precisely when i stopped visiting here as it was clear Leo had the support of the core team. A public picture is an endorsement to the wider audience.
If I, and a select few individuals, can clearly see the corruption then so can the core team.
@Leo symbolizes everything that is wrong with Astar, and if it wasn’t him running his scam, it would be somebody else in his place. The system in place, and negligence of the core team, combined with extremely poor choices of elected ambassadors (while allowing them to act as corrupt politicians essentially for the dApps they represent) allows for grifters like @Leo to thrive. He is on record for stating the only reason he is initially here is because of dApp staking.
Astar’s immatureness will be exposed when collaborating with a professional counterparty in Sony. At this point, Astar deserves to go down when Neurolanche eventually implodes…I mean, surely someone from the core team has even tested NL’s products? Their games, Ai chat bots - it’s not ground breaking in the slightest and actually pretty bad quality.
It’s personally a great shame for me to see as Astar showed so much promise and had so much hype and i spent a great deal of time in the community here and in Discord. I still remember when Astar Degens launched…Everything is just fizzling out and there is no real innovation - just scammers and grifting projects thriving.
It’s no surprise we have no real users and a wake up call is badly needed before we reach the point of no return and fall off a cliff.
It saddens me deeply to agree with you on every point, it truly does.
Astar was the unicorn of the DOT ecosystem, with such a promising beginning and immense potential. Yet here we are now, a place where grifters can brazenly declare, “I scammed you all, and now I’m in a position to influence the ecosystem’s decisions as a whole, thanks to the power you handed me. Here’s a screenshot of my wealth look at how much Astar I took from you.”
These are just my comments to all those who now suddenly decided to make more noise again. It’s always easy to blame the protocol. While from day 1 the voice of the community, has been taken into consideration, not by your words but through actions. As of today. NO actions has been taken from community to initiative or to act based on all the comments.
Words are easy, but actions are difficult.
Blaming others is easy, but taking responsibility is difficult.
The protocol, or ‘core team’ how it’s preferred has been offering places to act. If not the offchain governance we had build or now the onchain governance. Your voice and votes are ready if you take responsibility for how you assess certain things listed above.
While the community’s voice is crucial and actions often speak louder than words, we must also recognize that diplomacy alone doesn’t always yield results. History both in governance and the real world shows us that conflicts arise when collaboration fails or when systems allow for manipulation. This isn’t about blaming others but about addressing systemic flaws that stifle innovation and undermine trust.
It’s not purely political when votes can be influenced by shaping narratives to convince people that something is innovative, even when evidence suggests otherwise. This creates an illusion of progress while sidestepping transparency and accountability. Governance should empower critical thinking, encourage transparency, and ensure fairness not reward those who are simply the loudest or most persuasive in their campaigns.
Constructive criticism exists not to tear down but to build up by identifying and addressing gaps that might otherwise be overlooked. If governance is to work for the collective, then ensuring fairness and avoiding manipulation is paramount. Only by fostering real trust and encouraging genuine innovation can we create an ecosystem that thrives for everyone involved.
However, when politics fail, when collaboration breaks down, and when all other avenues for resolution are exhausted, stronger measures must be considered to restore order and integrity. Sometimes, implementing a metaphorical “martial law” is necessary not to suppress voices, but to reset the system, eliminate manipulation, and put everything back on track. A failing system demands decisive action to protect the collective good and ensure that innovation and fairness are not sacrificed for personal or political gain.
So when Sony ask and investigate why a scammer was able to infiltrate to the highest levels in Astar you will blame the community? This type of response is exactly why Astar is where it is.
Faruk posted a screenshot of 20 million Astar and you think we can fight that? The corruption is too strong for a handful of individuals to be able to make any meaningful change - all we can do is sound the alarm to the people in charge. But it seems like you already know, and don’t care
I really feel you have the wrong perception. Leo is really not in the highest levels in Astar. He is not even in our Agent channel or part of our Slack connections. Leo is building his projects with his team and our team or ‘core-team’ has absolutely no affiliation with his company or project. I really hope you change that perception, Sony can ask us and I’m confident to show evidence he is not in the highest layers in Astar.
If Leo decided to post his screenshot of 20M, off course you can fight this. Create the proposal to delist them from dApp Staking if you feel they don’t deserve these rewards. You can also do politics to fight this. If you think I don’t care you are wrong, at least I’m here replying and taking actions with our governance by supporting those lead by example! See some dApps taking responsibility, see AstarHood delisting and getting support, … I vote with my personal wallet on all proposals that are fair for the better of Astar.
Seems everything I will say or do is not enough. If you think it’s all unfair, I’m fine but I will continue working and building further on Astar. Hope it one day can meet your expectations to feel the support.
As final note, I would like to ask to keep this thread related to this topic.
If you prefer talking more about how Foundation or the protocol is not doing the right things, it’s best to start a new thread. This one is related to Leo’s application as being part of Community Council. You can follow all progress here:
You can’t expect the community to fix what the core team did, you unleashed this on the Astar ecosystem not us, people believed his lies because he was an ambassador and had the support of a bunch of other ambassadors that were on his payroll.
Anyway this gets us nowhere and is meaningless now, what happened happened and Faruk is in a position to control the outcome of votes, he will get elected and he will abuse his powers and everyone will probably wash their hands.
At least promise you will try to keep him contained, i dont expect an answer to that but if you do care about the ecosystem you guys are building you will have to keep him in check and scrutinize every proposal he brings to the table and have contingencies for the inevitable implosion of his project that he will try to save with the Astar treasury.
I see a lot of unsatisfactory comments about this Community Council Application of Leo. From my perspective, it’s on @Leo to answer all the questions from the community and not just direct them to the whitepaper or any kind of documentation where other unnecessary details are indicated. Questions are valid to make sure we vote the right person for this position.
On the other hand, the rest of the community members like @Logos@FFR23@WakeUp should consider to keep the topic in line of the conversations. Otherwise you can take actions on-chain by submitting a proposal (as mentioned by @Maarten) if the specific individual or project subjectively doesn’t satisfy you or the whole ecosystem as you think.
@Pat, it’s hard to just let things slide when they’re clearly off track, and I feel like it needs to be stopped before it gets worse.
Honestly, as someone who supports Astar and Soneium, I’m confused by Leo’s decision to release he’s token on Optimism. It just doesn’t add up. On top of that, farming $ASTR on dApp staking to buy Envato assets for marketing on Twitter, plus using pre-made assets that cost between $10 and $50 for his mobile game from other marketplaces… that doesn’t exactly scream innovation to me.
He is just farming money and trying to create a false sense of success, potentially misleading others. I think it’s important to be transparent about what’s really going on.
One big question I have is: where is all the money going? I’d love to see the financial model, proof of expenses, business plan, etc., and of course, answers to the questions above about his so-called AI innovation.
He didn’t even take the time to replace the placeholder text from the Envato assets he bought. It’s really disappointing.
To be clear, taking a picture with Leo doesn’t mean I am officially supporting his project. I try to visit as many places as possible, and if our community members are there, I am always happy to meet and talk with them. I am trying to meet as many people as possible to receive feedback, exchange opinions, and learn more from others.
The council will be elected by voting, not by dictatorship. If you think Leo is not eligible, vote for others. This is the way you can show your opinion.
I haven’t made up my mind about Leo, I’ll read better and make it up, I’m just intervening to ask, if in your opinion in an environment where every dapp shares ties with ambassadors who are mostly people who are on average wealthier in terms of astars held, a vote on subsquare can be defined as a democratic vote.
There is a distance between the users, the 8 billion astars in circulation and the individual dapps (they don’t vote and aren’t interested in development, ASTAR CORE is the “dapp” with the most tokens in stake and it’s not clear why), do you think anyone would bother to vote against Leo or any other agent? How do you define this procedure as a democratic vote? It’s the most obvious application of plutocracy at all levels. Astar is not yet big and truly decentralized to have this privilege. Maybe it will get there, thinking that it is is a joke. It’s better to grow until then by closing off speculation, carrying out control actions with a strict regulation. Until then, answers like yours Sota are a joke, look at the progress of dapp development, after 2 years who would you introduce to Sony without hesitation?
I wouldn’t normally comment on this because it’s just corporate non speak, but seeing that Faruk liked it feels downright insulting.
Optics aside and let’s not pretend to be naïve about how optics work. I want to ask you a more philosophical question.
Right now, Faruk is in third place, but we know he holds at least 20 million Astar. At the current participation level, that’s enough to swing the vote.
When the community has so far voted Faruk into third place (regardless of low participation, those who cared enough have voted), if Faruk uses his Astar either directly or through other wallets to disguise his influence is it truly democratic for a single individual to sway the outcome and take the position, especially when the majority of the voting community clearly didn’t want him elected?
