Hi Dino, this post certainly sheds some light on the entire process and provides more clarity around the logic for decisions made.
During prototype simulations for dApp staking I don’t think it was taken into account that certain incentives (25% staking kickback of rewards back to stakers or whatever it was) would drive the majority of stakers to allocate the majority of staked Astar to a single project.
As a result the bulk of rewards are with a single project while other innovative projects are starved of rewards.
The tier thresholds were too high to jump between tiers.
Having just one project in tier 1 is not an efficient use of rewards for the ecosystem, with it virtually impossible for projects to jump between tiers at present.
The thresholds should have been lowered between each tier - for example 10 million Astar staked should have got a project into tier 3 (at this moment the minimum viable tier for development).
The rewards for Tier 1 are too high and Tier 4 is too low.
Projects should not be punished for not bribing stakers to stake with them.
Syfy Labs are developing a high transaction count RMRK NFT game similar to existing ones on Moonbeam, it could have been a (potentially) flagship project for Astar. Moonbeam see the value in this and have now offered them a performance based grant - they probably won’t be the last innovative team to leave Astar. Even now they provide valuable honest ‘exit interview’ feedback (no doubt these thoughts are shared by other silent projects).
For projects receiving rewards also at this early stage of dApp staking, stricter controls / milestones need to be put in place, to rule out teams not developing to the required standard and any potential bad actors.