[Council Treasury Request] SFY Labs – Age of Chronos: Developing a Strategic Multichain NFT Game on Astar (Milestone 1 of 3)

Governance Community Council
1

hi all,

Despite our disappointment with the overall outcome of our public treasury proposal, we are incredibly happy to see the strong community sentiment we have received. This large AYE figure, some coming from influential people in this ecosystem, provides us with the energy to move forward and build with more focus than ever.

If Astar Degens didn’t miss the deadline, we would have received another 3.2M Astar at possibly a 2x conviction, bringing us to roughly 76M Astar AYE.
However, this still wouldn’t have been enough for the proposal to pass due to the overall turnout for votes in general, and how Super Majority referendum is structured.

1000050262
10000502621080×2412 258 KB

Special thanks to @ilan and his NFT Bridges team for actually reviewing our contracts - their feedback means a lot to us and we are excited for what our teams can achieve together in the future. We have not even scratched the surface on what we can achieve by collaborating.

As a team we wish to look to the future and not dwell on any past outcome. We have only ever asked to be judged on our results. Right now, we have delivered on our Milestone 1 result as promised.

Next we will deliver on Milestone 2, and then 3, as planned and as promosed where then we will have a fully functional blockchain game. Something currently Astar does not have.
Astar also doesn’t have a functioning NFT marketplace - we can solve this and this is in our medium term plans.
We believe our game will increase transactions on the Astar network, and our medium / long term plans will bring value to the Astar token.

We wish to submit a treasury request for review by the council. Even if the vote had somehow won today, we don’t believe it is possible to proceed down this route due to the turnout rate for referendums and the power that NAY votes have.

We believe we have addressed all concerns in discussions already taken place, and this was reflected in the amount of Astar in support of us.

We also wish for any discussions / comments to be in technical nature only - we wish to learn from events that have taken place in the past and change our behavior for the better. This is how all humans with honor should behave and we wish to lead by example in our actions.

Finally, we see great value in the Astar ecosystem and the possible cross chain integrations with Sonieum and the Polkadot eco. There are great teams building here and we wish to collaborate and offer unique solutions no other ecosystem has, making this an attractive place for builders to follow us.

In all the discussions so far - our results and work was never in question.

We have talked enough - As @pitcoin777 said “let the builders build”.

Please feel free to post any questions you may have.

Thank you for your time. @Gaius_sama @Maarten @Mouthmouth68 @you425 @tksarah @SimonB and all the others.

3 Likes
2

Thanks @SFY_Labs - i continue to support your proposal as the work for Milestone 1 is already delivered.

I can’t comment from a technical perspective on reviewing your contracts, but as a refresher I have a few questions on the tangible opportunities on offer.

  1. How can you collaborate and integrate other Astar communities into the game to benefit the Astar eco while also increasing player count?

  2. How will the Astar token be implemented?

I understand this is milestone 1 focused only at this current moment but would be a good to paint a picture for me and the community at this early stage.

Thanks

2 Likes
3

Hi @SFY_Labs

Just like @Dumbell i support the proposal as milestone 1 has been delivered and I’m impatient to see the polished result of your work on Astar.

3 Likes
4

Thank you for the question — it really aligns with our vision for Age of Chronos.

Our goal is to build a game that’s not just a standalone product, but a hub that connects different communities within the Astar ecosystem. Here’s how we plan to achieve that:

  1. Integration of existing NFT collections on Astar:
    We’re already in talks with several active NFT projects on Astar to create in-game utilities tied to partner collections. Holders of certain NFTs will gain access to exclusive skins, power-ups, or special game modes. This approach brings real value to existing collections while encouraging collaboration between communities.

  2. Community-driven missions and tournaments:
    We’ll organize seasonal events and tournaments in collaboration with Astar-native communities, offering rewards and visibility for all involved. These events will promote cross-community engagement, strengthen user retention, and organically grow the player base.

  3. Direct use of the ASTR token:
    ASTR will play a fundamental role in the game economy. It will be required to mint reward NFTs, unlock premium content, and participate in competitive features. This ensures real and sustainable demand for the Astar token, fully aligned with the growth of both the game and the broader ecosystem.

In short, AOC is designed as a connector and value driver across the Astar ecosystem — bringing projects, players, and tokens together into a cohesive, engaging experience.

The will of the community — though small, yet the only one still actively engaged on Astar — has been made clear through the recent public referendum. The SFY team has provided transparent and detailed answers regarding the long-term sustainability of the game.

At this point, as demonstrated through three separate attempts, it is no longer feasible to proceed via public referendum. The low participation rate guarantees that any vote — even with a clear majority in favor — will ultimately fail due to quorum issues.
This is not the fault of SFY, nor of the community itself, but a reflection of a governance system that is, in its current state, not ready to function effectively.

The Council exists precisely to handle situations like this.
Considering the following:

  • the data and transparency provided by SFY,

  • the fact that the milestone is complete and ready,

  • the clearly expressed will of the community,

  • and especially that in the recent past the Council has already approved similar treasury requests, such as the localized event in South America,

…it is difficult to understand why a negative verdict should be given in the case of Age of Chronos.

We respectfully ask the Council to take these facts into account and support a project that is aligned with the ecosystem’s goals and has the backing of its most active members.

Thank you,
SFY LABS

1 Like
5

Actually, this is a horrible proposal and shouldn’t be approved by the council.

I agree that the current public proposal scheme is bad and difficult to pass because of the low turnout (same issue that plagued Polkadot governance before with v1), but it was a public referendum non the less.

Token holders voted, most of them with strong conviction in both directions. The winning side is nay, and all of those who voted in that direction, me included, have their tokens locked. It’s how the system works - the same would have happened for the aye side if their vote was the winning one.

If council would just approve it now, it basically means that nay votes were cast for nothing, and people (me included) who voted nay have their tokens locked for nothing.

The proper way to get this payout approved is via a referendum because it’s what council delegated it to. It wasn’t a vote for “show your support for Age of Chronos” but a public vote to approve treasury spending.

6

That’s not how governance on Astar works @Dino :slightly_smiling_face:

The beauty of efficient governance is that requesters can receive feedback and refine their proposal until they have satisfied voters / decision makers.

The fact that public holders voted nay for long lock up period should not be a factor in a re-submission of any proposal. Holders make their decisions for a lock-up period and need to abide by that decision.

Sfy have refined their proposal to the council while addressing their feedback.

They meet the criteria to re-apply due to the number of Astar being requested.

The number of AYE votes absolutely does show an appetite for this game and what Sfy can achieve.

Refer to this linked post from @Gaius_sama who even invites another proposal attempt in this comment

We’d be happy to see a revised version that includes more information around user engagement, measurable impact, and the strategic benefits for Astar.

2 Likes
7

Thank you both for sharing your perspectives on this important matter. I would like to contribute my view, which is aligned with Dino’s position.

Respecting the Governance System

Once a proposal has been submitted to a public referendum, the results of that vote must stand. The Main Council should not, and cannot, retroactively overturn or re-vote on the outcome, as doing so would undermine the legitimacy of our entire governance system. If the Council were to change the results after token holders had already voted, it would raise the question: what is the purpose of holding a public referendum at all if the Council can later override it?

To illustrate: if the proposal had passed by referendum and the Council then chose to block the treasury payout, I doubt the community would consider that acceptable. The same principle must apply in the opposite case, Council should not approve a request that was rejected by referendum.

Proper Process for Treasury Proposals

The way governance is structured is clear:

  • Council approval first: if approved, the proposal can be funded without further escalation.
  • If rejected by Council, proposers still have the option to take it to a public referendum, which serves as the final decision-making step.
  • If the referendum rejects the proposal, that decision is binding. It does not create a new opportunity for Council to override the vote.

This structure preserves credibility and fairness across the governance process.

On Centralization Concerns

There are already community concerns around whether governance on Astar is overly centralized. While I believe these concerns are often overstated, a Council decision to contradict the results of a referendum would certainly reinforce those criticisms. We should avoid any action that undermines the transparency and neutrality of our governance framework.

Path Forward for Age of Chronos

I understand the frustration of the AoC team and their supporters. However, the correct path is to:

  • Refine and improve the proposal,
  • Demonstrate progress and achievements since the last submission,
  • Potentially collaborate with other ecosystem partners to structure a stronger, broader treasury campaign.

This approach would allow those who voted NAY previously to be convinced of AoC’s value in a future proposal.

Personal Note

While I cannot support a Council revote on this treasury request, I remain interested in following the progress of Age of Chronos as part of the UCG program. It would be helpful for the team to share regular updates and concrete milestones so that both the Council and the wider community can fairly evaluate their progress.

I voted against the initial proposal at the Council stage, but since several months have passed, I am open to reviewing any tangible results the team has achieved in that time. Demonstrating clear development and ecosystem impact will be key to strengthening any future proposal.

Gaius_sama, Main Council :astr:

2 Likes
8

I agree with that, as long as no shortcuts are used. Collect & address feedback, and propose a new referendum.

And @Gaius_sama already covered what my reply to you would be in general - just imagine flipping the situation around, the referendum has passed but council decided to slash your proposal regardless since you haven’t satisfied them with the delivery. The usual symposium of sock puppet accounts would be writing walls of texts bashing everything. And for the first time, with a good reason.

9

I understand the concerns raised, but I would like to clarify that there is no intention to overturn the referendum result. What is being proposed is a new council vote. Recognizing the limitations of the referendum system should not mean considering it binding for future and improved proposals, especially since such a rule has never been established. The referendum and the council are two separate and valid decision-making channels. A council member may well reaffirm their original position, even in light of the referendum result, but this cannot prevent the council from holding a new vote.

Our development team has been at a standstill for two months. While debate and discussion can strengthen the ecosystem, excessive delays risk blocking any progress. We have carefully followed the guidance provided, the public referendum delivered a clear result, yet its structure—as already noted—struggles to reflect the real needs of the community and tends to amplify the influence of a few over the majority.

It is worth mentioning that the council recently approved funding for a localized event in South America with a comparable budget, without applying the same detailed scrutiny now being directed at our proposal. That event’s long-term impact is difficult to measure, and its website is already inactive. We are therefore keen to understand what criteria distinguish one proposal from another. Given that AOC should only evaluate what has been formally presented, and considering that the final dApp already exists on Moonbeam, we believe doubts on its feasibility are misplaced.

The differences are these:

  1. The first milestone has been delivered, and there is concrete work that can be assessed for its economic and technical impact.

  2. The public referendum clearly demonstrated the will of the community and only rewarded the very few votes against.

  3. we proposed our sustainability and go-to-market strategy unlike the first time.

If there is one situation in which the council should be used, it is this. You are not subverting the referendum, since it is not functional in the case of Sfy (because we all know there will always be a small group of people opposed regardless), and because the community’s interests will always be sidelined and therefore a supermajority is unrealistic. You would instead be filling this democratic and governance gap for the very reason the council itself was created. Any amount under one million should guarantee this.

10

Hi @Gaius_sama - i am confused, because this is not possible. If the public referendum passes, the request is paid out on chain. The council has no power to block a public referendum result.

agree that the current public proposal scheme is bad and difficult to pass because of the low turnout (same issue that plagued Polkadot governance before with v1), but it was a public referendum non the less.

As already stated by @Dino above, there was low turnout for this referendum and this is an admitted issue by all parties here.

I believe the 70+ Astar in AYE was a record vote for a proposal not passed.

  • Refine and improve the proposal,

  • Demonstrate progress and achievementssince the last submission,

  • Potentially collaborate with other ecosystem partners to structure a stronger, broader treasury campaign.

This approach would allow those who voted NAY previously to be convinced of AoC’s value in a future proposal.

Sfy labs have delivered on milestone 1 since the initial council treasury request. They have also refined their proposal to address the exact feedback points in this very thread.

There are also preliminary talks with a project to migrate their NFT collection to Astar (which means new users) for the sole reason of having direct utility in the Astar version of the game.

And the game is not even live yet.

**
If the referendum rejects the proposal**, that decision is binding. It does not create a new opportunity for Council to override the vote.

This structure preserves credibility and fairness across the governance process.

As has already been stated - low turnout overpowers NAY votes (especially long term conviction ones) and argubably does not make the public governance process fair.

It was not possible for Sfy labs to win the public referendum in its current format due to low turnout. Nearly 100M Astar would have been needed.

Because of the power NAY votes have - it is only fair that projects seeking AYE votes can apply for a proposal request multiple times.

There are already community concerns around whether governance on Astar is overly centralized.

This isn’t about centralisation - in fact I would argue if the council does not review this request this would prove that centralisation does exist.

Some core team holders voted NAY with large conviction on the public referendum, and now it is being stated for the first time that the council shouldn’t review because of the public referendum result. So the community has been powerless in the process thus far. (70M Astar is a record for AYE, and it is extremely difficult to overturn very late high conviction nay voters)

In my opinion - the council exists for this exact scenario - especially due to the infancy of Astar governance and the low turnout issue.

We now have a public referendum with large support - that the council now has the opportunity to review with no bias and an opportunity to review its positive impact on the Astar network and token.

Its not even guaranteed which way the council will vote - but in this process they can provide further feedback for Sfy to use in their development efforts.

11

Because there is 2 day delay for enactment. In case it passes, council can still basically reject your proposal within that time period.

––

It was possible, and you were close.

I wrote in another thread, that if a few of your supporters voted with higher conviction, your proposal would have passed. That’s a fact.

12

By the way, there is no rule prohibiting both a council vote and a referendum. It is not written anywhere. If such a rule exists, please show us. As members of the council, you may of course decide to cast a negative vote again (we would like to know each member’s vote and reasons, but only once), yet it would still be hypocritical to claim there are serious governance issues while at the same time disregarding the community vote.

Our proposal set a record, and this is not SFY’s fault. We would also like to stress once again: the council has never—and we repeat, never—applied the same measures to other proposals as it has to SFY. We have already provided an example before; it would be worthwhile to make a comparison and see the differences between the two requests.

What we see is completely different treatment. We would like an explanation.

This is the proposal I’m referring to. Website is offline.

13

I assume you are referring to Sponsorship and Activation at Cripto Latin Fest Buildathon However, this was approved by the Community Council, not the Main Council, so it is not an appropriate point of comparison.

Should I understand that no progress has been made over the past two months solely due to treasury proposal discussions? This is concerning, especially given that AoC is part of the UCG program and has committed milestones under that framework. If development has stalled, this should be reviewed by @Community_Council in relation to UCG obligations.

Technically, the council does have the ability to slash a treasury proposal before the payout period. However, this mechanism is an exceptional safeguard and not intended as a regular governance tool.

This is indeed the type of information we would like to evaluate. However, what has been provided so far are statements, screenshots, and forum discussions. For proper assessment, we require verifiable deliverables such as on-chain activity, a public GitHub repository, or technical documentation. These are essential for transparent evaluation of progress.

This is a bold statement. It should be acknowledged that some core team members also voted AYE with large conviction. If their votes are valid when in support, they are equally valid when opposed. Core contributors, like all community members, have the right to participate in governance proportionally to their stake.

I encourage you to revisit the Astar governance documentation, where the role of the Main Council is clearly outlined. Importantly, the council cannot be compelled to re-vote a proposal simply because the community or a proposer wishes it. Governance outcomes must be respected consistently, whether or not they align with individual preferences.

Please clarify which treasury proposals you are referring to. As I have already demonstrated, the comparison you made was inaccurate, as it involved a Community Council proposal rather than a Main Council decision. Furthermore, your treasury request was the first of its kind. structured as a milestone-based payment for developing a new product on Astar. By definition, it required a different level of scrutiny. If you believe another treasury proposal was treated differently under similar conditions, please provide that example for review.

You may present as many arguments as you wish to justify a re-vote, but my position as a council member remains clear: the Main Council cannot override an already approved referendum.

This proposal is exactly the same as the one submitted three months ago and already voted on twice through public referendum, approving the AoC treasury request of $10k for milestone 1. What is now being asked is factually identical, only framed with different arguments and reasoning based on the referendum outcome. Therefore, once again, the Main Council cannot re-vote this treasury proposal.

2 Likes
14

The proposal is linked above, but I’ll post it again here: https://astar.subsquare.io/community-treasury/proposals/34.

It feels like we are just playing with words, because nowhere in the rules does it say that the community council cannot approve our proposal. Nobody has asked to invalidate the referendum! The core team was decisive, and let us be clear: you centralized the vote. Without your votes, either in favor or against, the proposal would have passed. So the final point, beyond the nice words we are all trying to use right now, is that the core team blocked funding for SFY. That’s what happened—with the supermajority and this governance “illusion,” this is exactly what took place.

Now the same influence is being used to block a vote from the only body created precisely to address low turnout with low requirements, by defining a link between referendum and council that is written nowhere and defined nowhere in the rules. Please, we have found nothing—show us where it is written that a proposal cannot be submitted to the council after a referendum, with modifications to it.

In our view, Dino has always pushed for the public referendum because he knew it was the way to block any of our initiatives, because fundamentally he hates us. There is no number of Astar votes that can surpass this—he is trolling the small active community in Astar, and the other core team members, instead of calling him out for inappropriate behavior (not against us, but against the community), prefer to stay silent.

Today, in our opinion, beyond the kind words you have shown toward us and our processes, you are enabling this bad behavior and the arrogance of a few against the majority. We regret this, because we thought we had reached an understanding on how we should behave and interact here. You have said several times that we improved our way of participating, but not getting angry about these issues is truly impossible.

The core team decided from day one that SFY could not receive funds, no matter what was proposed, and this is exactly what has resulted from all these processes: decentralized decisions, interpretations of rules and roles, and complete inconsistency in the demands made to one team compared to another.

This is exactly what has caused this place to become empty over time.

Nope it’s not!

Do you remember why it was rejected? For a reason that was never highlighted for any other dapp: the go-to-market strategy.
Did you ask this during the proposal phase of the Latin festival? Did you ask exactly how many new people it would bring?
Have you noticed that the website is already offline after just 10 days?
For us, you even counted every single cent in our pockets and found an elegant way to make us go through the referendum, which was sabotaged by two people—because that’s exactly what it was.

We wrote and highlighted how to address the only issue that was contested against us.
We presented the sustainability plan, convinced other people who, like you, had voted against us, and already created a collaboration plan with three different dapps. These are huge changes. And you even received a message of support from the only dapp developing NFTs on Astar, namely Ilan from NFT Bridge. It’s likely that our collaboration could lead to an NFT marketplace.

You, Gaius, will be able to support your idea again considering all the reasons—we won’t be angry about that—but you cannot forbid, by regulation, the voting on a new proposal.

You have always been strict with us regarding the actions we decided to take; we took them, stayed silent, and even avoided responding. What did we get in return? A pat on the shoulder. Meanwhile, a core team member is using their power to sabotage us.

15

I agree, the proposal was rejected for the second time, and that’s fair: no higher authority should overturn the community’s decision, even if participation was, to say the least, lackluster. That said, I’m convinced the SFY team would have been better off not participating in this charade.Regarding the criticisms of poor decentralization, which some dismiss as “exaggerated”: what criticisms are we even talking about? A 0.3% quorum is frankly embarrassing. Such low participation makes the system ripe for manipulation—hardly decentralized! This fact alone speaks volumes: there’s no real decentralization, little attention to the issues, and above all, zero willingness to change things.I notice some like to play with alternative scenarios, fantasizing about how things might have gone with a different outcome. I have the distinct impression that, if a proposal passed that your little clique didn’t like, you’d find a way to push through changes to suit your own agenda. But let’s stick to the facts: the proposal was rejected, period, to the delight of the few who voted among the scant participants.Dino, I’m still struggling to see what your actual contribution to this blockchain is. I only know a handful of people, conveniently the ones enough to sink the proposal. And do you know what they said? Beyond superficial reasons, they admitted that a key motive was dislike or resentment toward the team, based on past behaviors they found offensive. The problem is glaringly obvious: if you don’t align with the ruling clique, your comment gets deleted, you’re excluded, your proposal doesn’t pass, and the rules stay untouched, ensuring a decent quorum remains a pipe dream. Please, at least show a shred of consistency and intellectual honesty!Now you’re asking the team to make fundamental new advancements to resubmit the proposal. Honestly, as an external investor with zero personal stake in whether the proposal passes or not, try putting yourself in their shoes: how long would it take you to tell everyone to get lost? I’m amazed at their persistence in trying again when the will of the few who decide is so clear. Still going on about conviction? Dino, reread what I’ve written: sometimes I struggle to believe you’re an adult. The problem is upstream—it’s not about conviction.It baffles me that you position yourselves as arbiters of every issue while doing nothing to make the system fairer or more inclusive. Denying the problem gets us nowhere. The day will come when the “puppets,” fed up with being strung along, will demand accountability for this stagnation. Because it’s to the community, not a select few, that you owe answers. And you’ll need to explain why nothing is being done to raise that pathetic 0.3% quorum.

1 Like
16

Let’s not overdo it, though—let’s discuss this civilly. I understand the frustration, we feel it too, but these kinds of responses won’t help; in fact, they could make us look like we’re in the wrong. Please, Marroz, let’s not give any more reasons for SFY’s work to be classified as poor. I’m asking you this.

In this whole situation, only one behavior seemed honest to us, and that was Maarten’s. He first supported what the majority backed, to fix governance gaps with his vote; then he removed his vote when it was no longer needed (perhaps because he didn’t fully agree); and then he put it back when it was necessary—but without overturning the final decision, unfortunately. This shows that a core team member worked and used their voting power in accordance with what the community wanted. We noticed this and believe it is a fair way to act. (This applies to both “yes” and “no” votes.)

I understand that you, Marroz, are a disappointed member of the community, but at the same time, I’m telling you that we all need to work together for things to change.

So please, let’s remain calm in our responses and avoid escalation.

Thank you.:folded_hands:

17

Gaius, returning to the discussion: we are clearly referring to the community council, the same one that voted on the proposal attached above. @Mouthmouth68 has already expressed the support.

18

You are referring to a proposal voted on by the Community Council for a Community Treasury request and comparing it to your Treasury proposal voted on by the Main Council. These are two distinct processes and should not be conflated:

  • Community Treasury Proposals → voted on by the Community Council
  • On-chain Treasury Proposals → voted on by the Main Council or through a public referendum

Your proposal is requesting funds from the Onchain treasury and therefore voted by the Main Council. Main Council was not involved in the Latin Festival proposal vote. I hope this distinction is clear now.

As I have already stated, my position remains unchanged. I will not open a new council motion for a treasury proposal that has already been voted on. You are free to approach another council member to request a motion, but it will not come from me. This request is simply not receivable, period.

Since our views continue to diverge and no progress has been made over the past months, I will refrain from providing further comments or support on this matter.

Good luck moving forward.

2 Likes
19

Thank you @Gaius_sama — your right to vote is fully respected, just as Dino has every right to vote no.

We also believe we have the right to express our view that, despite following all the required steps, the core team — not the broader community — may have used its influence in the vote to block the will of the community, succeeding by a very narrow margin.

This is a serious matter, especially within a system that has already been subject to various criticisms and is known to have some structural flaws.

At SFY, we believe this proposal is fundamentally different from previous ones. We also believe that a council member, who considers not only procedural formality but also the broader good of the community, might have chosen to vote differently.

That said, we fully acknowledge that your position is legitimate and uncontestable, and we stand by our own perspective. It’s also important to remember that differing opinions are entirely valid — no rules have been broken. What we’re trying to understand is whether this proposal should be seen as different, and how crucial it is to uphold the will of the community. At the moment, this aspect seems underrepresented.

Given that you won’t be voting as part of the main council, we would like to understand the steps required to move forward through the community council instead.

Since the referendum was ultimately blocked not by the community itself, but essentially by the votes of two core team members, we’d like to explore the possibility of proceeding with a community council vote — as was done for the festival mentioned earlier.

This alternative wasn’t presented to us at the beginning — could you please clarify why? And more importantly, can we now proceed with this option?

Thank you.

20

@Gaius_sama 2 clarifications required so that Sfy can strategise the step forward and put this current topic to bed

  1. What is the criteria for projects to apply via community council application?
  2. If Sfy were to include an additional team in their treasury request - a team that will be developing a smart contract to move their collection to Astar for direct utility in the AOC game - would this be a significant enough change to warrant re-application?

Thanks

1 Like