dApp Staking - Astar Foundation Proposal & Next steps

Astar
27

I think it is a good idea to make this kind of adjustments, many users complain that the APR of Astar is very low so many times they prefer to speculate with the ASTR token instead of staking, a fixed base close to 11% per year seems an excellent idea, avoiding APR fluctuations is important because its downward variation every time the staking increases creates uncertainty in users, so they prefer not to use dApp Staking, I think it is a good vision to change these parameters, it will create more confidence in the long term, well seen.

1 Like
28

Hi, I don’t like it.

A 0.6% reduction in inflation is not a solution. It is not the problem that led astar to be worth 3 cents after 4 years of investments by holders like me.

It is yet another attempt to shift the blame onto irrelevant things.

Before talking about dappstaking inflation, we should talk about how it is managed. If after 2 years you don’t have projects that you would promote as innovative, you astar must accept that the system does not bring you any benefit.

So the fact that people currently earn simply by making proposals and never completing their work is in itself an insult to those who invested in astar.

When you talk about team control, the use of governance in a real way and not among a few users, then I might even welcome such a proposal.

Since this is a proposal that doesn’t move anything at all, I would like to know if this is all we holders have to expect from the meeting that astar, startale and soneium had.
I hope there is more. If not, I would be very disappointed.

2 Likes
32

In this thread, let’s focus on improving our ideal tokenomics based on our situation and our lesson.

When it comes to use cases or collaborations, there will always be a counterparty involved—which means that no matter how much we want to shift things, there are limits to what the community alone can influence.

If you’d like to discuss what we want to build or what’s possible, I’d love for that to continue in another thread.

We want to improve things step by step, starting with what we can make difference.

Also, this isn’t just about reducing inflation—the idea is to make DApp Staking more adjustable in line with the ecosystem’s real conditions, leading to a more sustainable protocol.

At its core, tokenomics should be guided by a desire to move toward the ideal state.

2 Likes
33

@shnshkw thanks for sharing, the idea that the fixed part of the staking rewards will be reduced and the variable part will be increased is an action that would certainly help $ASTR to make it more stable and sustainable, especially to reduce inflation in the long run. This should avoid swings in the APR and make the rewards more predictable over time.

I would like to see some numbers based on the current situation. For example, with the current staking rate, what would the new APR be compared to the current one?
Or at least see some data where we could have some comparisons based on before and after the change

2 Likes
34

I personally believe that reviewing the parameters of dApp Staking is a meaningful and important initiative.

However, since the program has now been running for over three years, I believe that an objective evaluation of how dApp Staking has contributed to the Astar ecosystem—both quantitatively and qualitatively—is absolutely essential.

In order to move forward with any meaningful discussion, the disclosure of the analysis and evaluation results is indispensable.
Without clear data and insights into its actual impact, any adjustments to the parameters risk being made in the dark.

Given the considerable human and financial resources that have been invested into dApp Staking, if its contributions are not commensurate, I believe a more fundamental discussion is warranted—not just on parameter tuning, but on the program’s direction and structure itself.

I raise this question with the sincere intention of fostering a fact-based and constructive dialogue.

1 Like
35

Thanks for the proposal.
I think it makes sense to adjust those two parameters as you mentioned.

By the way, what are your thoughts on the developer side parameters (tier related)?

36

The current Astar staking rate is around 20%, which results in an inflation rate of 4.56%.

(Note: Some users forget to claim rewards , so the actual inflation rate is likely lower .)

If we assume the staking rate stays at 20% , the inflation rate after parameter adjustment would be 3.93% .

I strongly believe that a system where fewer tokens are emitted when staking amount is low (i.e., more tokens are circulating on the market. So emission should be lower.) is more appropriate.

By increasing the AdjustableStakersPart , we make emissions automatically adjust based on staking rate , exactly as intended.

Let me repeat this clearly:

When staking reaches the ideal 50% , the rewards received by stakers will remain the same before and after this change.

In such a case, token liquidity in the market is low, so a higher emission rate can be easily absorbed.

We can have fundamental discussions about the nature of dApp staking, but discussion alone won’t change anything.

Let’s start by executing what we can —the focus now should be solely on the parameter change .

I’d like to push this through governance as quickly as possible .

Regarding dApp Developers and Tiers , from the perspective of tokenomics optimization , this is currently a low-impact topic due to the overall low staking rate .

Since the rewards allocated to dApps are small, the impact of tweaking these aspects is also small—for now.

However, once this parameter adjustment is done and staking rate increases through community engagement and marketing, the topic may become more impactful and worth revisiting.

3 Likes
37

This is exactly what I think.
A more deflationary proposal is not negative, it is positive on the price side. However, it cannot be said that this is one of the current problems of astar. For the current figures it is not. Of course, if we had halved the total inflation it would have had a big impact (I speak absurdly, I know it is not possible) but for these figures it is a simple expedient, to issue a little less, just like when the tiers were introduced. This is the meaning of my message, it is not a condemnation of the proposal.

Then, since it is something connected to dapp staking, it would be important to talk about the tiers, the governance, the control of dapps… but you would tell me that it is not related to the thread in question and that we need to open others.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with this way of doing things, taking only a piece of the problem by disconnecting it from something else I do not think it solves much, we should address everything and make it better.

In any case, given the current state of dappstaking, that is, it is a system that contributes almost nothing to the ecosystem, applying this proposal does not change much… so what can I say to you? Let’s try

At most, there will be fewer interested developers

38

I fully agree on the importance of taking action, and I also understand that discussion without execution leads nowhere.

However, in both project management and business in general, the PDCA (Plan–Do–Check–Act) cycle is widely recognized as a fundamental framework.
From that perspective, before implementing changes to the system, it is a basic and common-sense process to objectively evaluate its performance so far and design the next steps based on that analysis.

If, in fact, no structured evaluation has been conducted over the past three years regarding how dApp Staking has contributed to or impacted the Astar ecosystem as a whole, then it is all the more reason why a holistic assessment should be carried out before making any surface-level adjustments.

Continuing to experiment is a positive stance in itself, but without proper evaluation and analysis, it becomes difficult to judge whether such attempts are truly leading to meaningful improvements.
Making changes without reviewing the outcomes is equivalent to repeating only the “Do” phase of the PDCA cycle, which cannot lead to sustainable progress.

Furthermore, if proper analysis and evaluation were conducted, the current proposal could be further refined and made more effective.
Conversely, if we proceed without such evaluation, there is a real risk that we may need to revisit the same parameter changes again in the future — ultimately wasting time and resources across the entire Astar organization.

PDCA is a basic principle of business. Conducting an objective evaluation and sharing the results of the current system’s effectiveness is an essential starting point for any constructive discussion, including the current proposal.

3 Likes
39

As you can see in the initial thread a structured evaluation has been happening across 2023 and 2024, you can see the timeline here:

dApp Staking v3 has made significant adjustment towards how dApp Staking is structured today where we made an adjustable framework to improve based on market conditions. This is what Astar Foundation is now proposing.

I would recommend to check and understand the whole evaluation that has been done last year and why those improvement has been made. This whole process has been transparently shared with community and feedback given implemented in it’s system.

If you would further look in previous discussions, Astar Collective has the responsibility to change the direction. Astar Foundation is only one stakeholder in this Collective and we are proposing the direction Shun shared. Other stakeholders get full support of Astar Foundation to further improve current dApp Staking and we have a treasury to support those initiatives but it’s also up to them to proposal and work on it. If all hopes are only put in Astar Foundation hands, we will take this responsibility and move things forward, so any constructive reassesment of our approach is highly appreciated.

Any other group that feel better business can be conducted, we are open to support and put the brains together.

41

The technical design and structural improvements introduced in dApp Staking v3 have been carefully and thoughtfully implemented. I recognize the significant efforts made in areas such as phased reward structures, the tier system, and dynamic slot allocation linked to token price. The fact that the entire process was well-documented and openly shared with the community is also highly commendable.

At the same time, regardless of how well-designed the system is, I believe it is equally important to evaluate how much impact it has actually had on the broader ecosystem. Specifically, the extent to which dApp Staking v3 has contributed to quantitative indicators such as the number of users, active stakers, registered and active dApps, total value locked (TVL), token price, distribution of staking behavior, and developer retention has not yet been sufficiently assessed or made visible.

System design and the outcomes it generates should be evaluated independently.
In that regard, I believe conducting an objective and data-driven assessment of the results and challenges that have emerged since the launch of dApp Staking v3 is essential for meaningful decision-making going forward.

Based on such an evaluation, we may also discover additional areas for improvement or complementary adjustments that could make the current proposal even more effective.

1 Like
42

Thanks @shnshkw. By adjusting the BaseStakersPart and AdjustableStakersPart, we ensure that as staking adoption increases, the APR remains relatively stable and competitive, strengthening ASTR’s intrinsic value. This ensures the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem and motivates stakers to maintain their commitment to the network, fostering a healthy and attractive environment for developers and investors.

The implementation of these improvements will position ASTR competitively in the market, ensuring sustainable and stable staking rewards that align with industry standards.

I am excited to move forward together in this evolution!

43

For reference, I simulated and created a graph.
The figures are different from the actual figures because they are calculated using the maximum inflation rate without considering burns, but basically, the trend is as shown here.

image
image719×900 82.8 KB

10 Likes
44

It is very good that you have been assigned to jetonomic research at the Astar Foundation. The idea of reducing inflation and optimization through such fine-tuning without cost is a good one. I think positively.

1 Like
45

Thnak you for your work, these graphs are pretty good!

2 Likes
46

Thanks for the graphic, it is very illustrative!

1 Like
47

I believe this is a good idea, reduce the inflation, encourage more staking, if possible, I hope the inflation can be reduced more, and right now, I think another thing we may need to consider is the sonieum side, right now, a lot of users moved their Astar to Soneium chain, would the dApp staking also be integrated with soneium chain

1 Like
48

Thank you very much for the graphics!

1 Like
51

Announcement:
An external proposal has been created by the Main Council.

4 Likes
52

Thanks!

Yes, the referendum has started. Please engage and vote there. Thanks!

Again, this should be only about updating the variables.

3 Likes