DApp Staking 2.0

What about making the amount configurable by dApp creator? Some might want to chase whales, while others small fish.

Reward unlock could be vote-able by stakers.
Ie. let’s say the team claim that checkpoint is reached, some countdown starts (ie. week) and stakers can vote to not unlock the reward, if it turns out the checkpoint wasn’t achieved.

1 Like

Possible to do but technically more complex. We need to take it step by step

First, split the dapps into 2 sections. One is fully integrated and the other is onboarding.

After that, we can take the next step to enhance. Voting needs governance which will take time to develop.

In the future, having governance to decide on which dapp qualify for the dapp store listing can also be done.

There are already some websites that track TVL or fees on popular apps and rank them. For example:


I agree. I think that Dapps should give kickback in their own token (or NFT) not in SDN or Astar. That is how good apps would be separated from bad apps and that would be fair game. Volume of staked tokens would be desereved by quality of project not by amount of SDN they give for kickback.


A lot of great ideas here. I mostly agree with Sota’s proposition but it can still be improved by reading this thead.

One idea I have not seen yet though. Instead of stakers staking individually for each project, you should built a vault. Everyone stakes in a giant vault that allocates SDN to each dAPP based on a formula taking into account metrics like TVL, # transactions, #users, …
All users receive compounding staking rewards based on their ratio of the vault.

This solution eliminates all manipulations related to kickbacks from the DEVs side and offer seamless compounding to nominators. Besides, all stakers will received the same APY. A small percentage could be kicked back to the treasury to make up for lost transactions (manual restaking).

Once governance kicks off we should be able to vote to adjust those different parameters when needed.

To sum up, withdraw individual choice for a more long term oriented, algorithmically driven, community approach.

This approach also for a real decentralization as any app could list in the store but only those who meet some minimum requirements would get rewards. Same goes for spamming, visibility will be relative to the dapp score.

These scores could also be used to set up different tiers.
For instance:
Tier 1: monthly averages: $1M TVL, 1000 daily users, 5000 daily transactions
Tier 2: monthly averages: $10M TVL, 10000 daily users, 50000 daily transactions
Tier 3: monthly averages: $100M TVL, 100000 daily users, 500000 daily transactions
and so on.
If a dapp meets tier1 criteria for the month, let’s say 10% of the accrued rewards can be claimed. Tier 2: 50% and Tier 3: 100% (just an example, it should be more granular).

Dapp developers who need funds to build should apply for a grant voted by the community based on the project pitch and committed milestones.

As for staking being a mean to support a particular Dapp, with this approach, the only way to support a protocol/project would be to actually use it :wink:


Would like to follow on this…

Will there be any changes to limit Dapps who is doing free riding ?

Seems like for the price movements there is an entity that constantly have fresh sdn to sell.

I hope Dapps developer is trying just to get into the Dapps staking to get free money…


Is there any proof that dApp developer is selling SDN tokens? And it is okay dApp developers sell tokens because this is the original intention. Bitcoin minders and Ethereum miners also sell BTC and ETH.

I know the selling pressure is strong. I think this pressure comes from lockdrop token holders.


Definitely I got no proof on that as I’m not sure how to investigate the movement…

But looking at how the price action goes. Every 3 or 4 days… there will be slightly more sell pressure… and aftershock… its back to ranging again. And 3 or 4 days the sell pressure increase… and after which… its back to ranging…

Definitely selling is ok for Dapps developers… but at this moment when there isn’t a buying pressure, the price will keep going down… and new investors will be more cautions in coming in.

1 Like

Is there any diagram that proofs your assumption? It would be great if you could teach me the evidence. I think our community decisions should not be based on assumptions. We need numbers to change the current mechanism.

The less buying pressure is because of the small number of dApps at this moment. This is going to be a long journey and we need to invite more dApps and increase TVL.


Let me see if I can provide numbers. But of cos… this is my own assumption. But I couldn’t think of any other reason why such a price movement. And definitely I’ve also considered times where btc is on the down turn, and I’ve excluded those events as price of alts would definitely follow BTC.

I do agree with you on the current situation in regards to lower number of Dapps. … thus in another thread… was suggesting… the following break down of rewards.

  1. 25% dapps developers
  2. 25% treasury
  3. 50% nominator.

But when more dapps is on board. We can go back to

  1. 50% dapps developers
  2. 50 nominator

When even more dapps is on board… we can go back to the initial planned

  1. 80% dapps developers
  2. 20% nominator.

Reason why I suggest to include the treasury it’s due to the fact where I do not want nominators getting too much rewards where they became the ones to sell the rewards.

I think we need treasury to manage our community and keep our flexibility. Removing treasury doesn’t look like a good plan for me. As you suggested, we adjusted our block reward allocation once. now, 25% of the block reward goes to nominators and 25% for developers now.

Reason why I suggest to include the treasury it’s due to the fact where I do not want nominators getting too much rewards where they became the ones to sell the rewards.

Could you please rephrase this?


Sorry… I misphased… what I meant was to give more to treasury. As right now it’s 50(dapps dev) : 50(nominator)

So in totality it should be

62.5% treasury
25% nominator
12.5% dapps developers.

Once it hit a certain number if dapps. Then it should be.

50% treasury
25% nominator
25% dapps developers.

The next tier will be back to the original intention of

50% treasury
40% dapps developers
10% nominators.

The main idea it’s to limit dapps developers rewards as of now… since there are too little dapps.

But I’m pretty sure the team can come out with the figures… its not a hard and fast rule.

Just hope we can find the source of the price pressure so that Astar won’t have such issue.

Ultimately I’m a believer of astar and shiden.

1 Like

The original block reward distribution is:

40%: Treasury
10%: Collators
40%: Dapp operators
10%: Dapp nominators

An adjustment was made last month:
40%: Treasury
10%: Collators
25%: Dapp operators
25%: Dapp nominators

But even after the adjustment, the price drop is still going at the same rate. Looks like it is something else. Crypto market can be very wild and we can’t control people from selling neither do we want to add more liqudity to absorb the sell presssure. This may be even a fake sell pressure created by a bunch of whales so that they can accumulate from weak hands. This happens all the time.

But, to me it is likely due to the vesting of tokens. Tokens get released and people sell to secure profit. Take a look at all other parachain charts. All of them are on a downtrend. KAR, MOVR, KMA, BNC, KILT, and these projects don’t even come with dapp staking. Not the first time I see charts like this, when tokens are vested.

Looking at the crowdloan ROI, Shiden is still on a positive side.

123 SDN per KSM

$173 / $400(KSM price at the time of Stage 1 crowdloan)

This is 43%. Which is twice as good as staking KSM itself and better than many other parachains ROI.

At after 5 months, I think 40% of the crowdloan rewards have been released. If you were to sell all 40% now, you can already get back 0.25 KSM.

From a crowdloaner’s point of view, I have nothing to complain. Only those who bought from the exchanges are at loss if they are still holding. But this is parts and parcel for being in crypto. Winning or losing is normal. Hence, everyone should manage their own risk.


No choice but to hodl, which isn’t bad considering passive dApp stake rewards. Would be great if the team could have a session re-affirming Shiden roadmap, next steps, etc.

1 Like

Your math is incorrect. Crowdloans lost 67% of the value of their KSM on top of the opportunity cost and they may never get back what they lost even after vesting ends.

You are also incorrect when you say compared to any other parachain. Moonriver for example gave you 14 MOVR per One KSM at the peak of price of MOVR that was 1000% gain return on each KSM contributed. Now after a major dump. It is still at 500% from the crowd loan.

You are either intentionally misleading, or ignorantly misinformed. Both of which as an ambassador is not good thing.

Please be real, speak with facts and correct math. Your approach is exactly why we have an issue in the first place that you don’t seem to think exists.

1 Like

1 KSM = 1 KSM

If you sell whatever unlocked SDN now you can get 0.25 KSM.

0.25 KSM + 1 KSM = 1.25 KSM

This is already better than staking KSM, which gives you ard 20% APY.

My math is correct. I do not intentionally try to mislead others.

Others can decide on the math, what about your point of being the best ROI parachain ? Do you have an explanation for that, even though it’s clearly incorrect.

Did I say the best parachain ROI?

I said, better than most others.

That just weakens your point comparing to the worst performers is not something good.

Comparing with the best performers is a strong point.

It’s like saying even though Turkish lira value is down when compared to the others it’s better. (Others like the Zimbabwean dollar, Venezuelan Bolívar, etc…)

It does not mean anything. It’s a theme that has been here around shiden, do the minimum, compare with the worst and then blame the community when the results are weak.