Thank you for the info👍
2 Likes
what happens if Astar onboard alot of projects in the future and say we exceed the 230 slots for Dapp Staking? Yeah, I’m an optimist…will we be able to adjust the parameter to accommodate more projects in the future? thanks
3 Likes
oh this means the rate of burn is even higher than what i could calculate from UI. Also its heartening to see @SFY_Labs now is T3 and got a nice bump in daily rewards.
3 Likes
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to comment as the launch of zkEVM approaches. I also have nothing but respect for you and your core team leading the development.
Yes, this is absolutely true - it was proposed over a year ago, and no one opposed it at the time, and neither did I.
However, the parameters were not finalized as of a year ago, and the specific parameters did not come out with the report until last August.
We then looked at the parameters at this time and determined that there was no problem.
However, the parameters were changed this month (of course, I don’t think it’s strange that changes are being made).
Or is it at the time of this posting?
I am ashamed to admit that I only noticed this significant parameter change when I checked the documentation in this post. This is just before v3 is completed implementation in Astar.
Tokenomics has changed a lot with this parameter change, and while it is understandable that it was hastily adjusted to coincide with the launch of zkEVM, I think this is too much of an explanation. One wonders how many community members were able to see the changes. The way the change was made, it was felt that it was made even more difficult to recognize, since detailed numbers had been provided in the past.
This change changes Extra Rewards to Bonus Rewards and also changes the mechanism itself. There were no postings where we could read this information, and we had to read the documentation to grasp it.
Tokenomics 2.0 is explained to the public in blogs as well as reports.
https://astar.network/blog/astar-tokenomics-2.0:-driving-long-term-success-and-39068
However, there is no explanation of this change. Therefore, I hastily prepared an explanatory article for the community. (I had been waiting for Astar to make an official announcement because I was aware that the previous parameters were only temporary.)
Change of Allocation
And this has resulted in a significant change in compensation, especially for dApps. I am posting the image again to make it cheaper to compare.
August 2023
Current(Thank you, Dino)
Rewards were reduced across the board, most notably in Tier 4.
- TIer1: -33%
- Tier2: -17%
- Tier3: -33%
- Tier4: -86%
Yes, I think this is correct. And I don’t think it is strange that this would result in a modification to the parameters presented in August. But this was too extreme. And I didn’t feel there was any room for discussion about this change.
If there had been room for discussion, I would have suggested creating a middle ground between Tier 3 and Tier 4 (i.e., increasing the number of tiers).
I agree with this, but I am not sure how much ASTR should be collected to be no longer at the introductory level. And I don’t think there is a right answer to this.
Yes, I believe that is true. However, the more a project needs help from dApp Staking, the more difficult it should be to earn a user base in its initial state. I recognize dApp Staking as a system that gives developers a kind of basic income to make it easier for them to focus on development. However, I am not sure of the value of its existence when disparities like this one occur.
Of course, even in this situation, I think it has a great effect compared to blockchain, which gives a portion of the gas money back to the smart contract deployer. However, I feel this is a bit different from the significance I felt for dApp Staking (maybe it’s just me).
Thank you for your words of praise!
However, I did not understand the meaning of this comment. It may be a matter of your perception due to my lack of explanation.
In my proposed model, the maximum reward for each Tier is determined based on the number of slots allocated. Therefore, an increase in stake in any of the dApps will not affect the other dApps. In other words, there is no competition for market share as in v2. This is one of the key features of the hybrid model.
In order to get the full amount of rewards allocated to each Tier slot, the ASTR must be staked up to the limit.
The other parts I did not specifically comment on are the parts I basically agree with. I salute you.
Thanks in advance for your implementation of the Tier recalculation and the oracle thing. Thanks again.
I also appreciate the ongoing efforts to adjust parameters and logic based on observations.
However, I think it is undeniable that some aspects of this case were caused by a lack of information sharing (not your fault, but the Foundation’s problem as a whole). On that basis, I have proposed this hybrid model, which I believe can be improved in a way that is as close as possible to the intent of this parameter change.
I am not proposing this based on content that came out over a year ago, I am proposing it based on what was implemented this month and the reaction to it.
Nevertheless, of course, if this is adopted, it would be a major change and would be expensive to develop. Therefore, I would be fine with it if it is acceptable to the community (including developers), including a temporary solution.
8 Likes
I’ve re-read what you wrote and believe I understand what I missed before.
We discussed such approach internally long time ago, but decided to go with the tiers as they are today since it’s a simpler system (for on-chain logic, simpler is better), and makes clear distinction between the dApps.
However, what I’d suggest you do is extract your proposal into a separate thread to avoid other topics & digression surrounding it.
I’m part of the foundation so I also see this as my shortcoming.
Sorry for repeating what I already wrote in this topic, but I know the whole dApp staking 3 and Tokenomics 2.0 is a difficult topic due to the complexity - both horizontally and vertically.
I still believe that all information was shared with the community. Perhaps the timing was not ideal, but since we’re an Web3, blockchain, open source project, it was imperative for the team (including myself) to share this information, not to keep anything private. And I assure you that information was shared once it was completely locked in.
I do acknowledge it could have been done better, no doubt about it.
4 Likes
@Dino after reading the whole discussion since SFY first post, I think Astar team would be wise to not consider SFY disatisfaction as an isolated case as I can warrant you they are definitely not the only unhappy with V3 current parameters but perhapse just the only one who got the balls to voice it out lood among dApp.
Just to give you a small back story before writting what i want to say, note that I’m not a dApp dev but only a dedicated Astar network anthousiat and dApp staker since Day 1. Since Astar Network is live, I’ve invested a significant amount of time and money in this ecosystem as I truly believe that dApp staking is a magnificent system corresponding to my values and is, with its EVM compatibility and low fee, one of the best if it’s not THE best attractive feature of Astar Network. After all, what’s differentiat a BC from another, except for the tech, is its Dev and User community. To attract and retain the later you definitly need an inovative and dedicated Dev pool to creat interesting and successfull dApp. As you know it doesn’t take only ideas but also manpower, time and money to creat dApp. However, how many beautifull and revolutionaty idea are still stored in desk drawers by lack of monetary support or time just because people lack the time to developp them as they have to work, sometime just to pay their day to day bills. And this is exactly what dApp staking was solving : giving an opportunity for those idea to take live by supporting their dev in the early to mid term phase of their life.
As a early version, dApp V2 had its default which lead to high amount of Astr locked forever on a few dApp completly unbalancing dApp support. If you remember, i’ve been part of the few that took part of the debat around your initial V3 idea. this was a bold and fair idea aiming to give a chance to those new projects while trying to keep User community active.
while V3 definitly “force” the later objectif to happen (and not “encourage” them as it was initialy envisioned) the former part is, as it is, a definit failure IMO.
When i read your comment bellow
i could see that the “supportive” narative, that Astar Nework dApp staking once was, has significantly changed, and sadely not for the better as for now, if you are not an already recognize project (though a wealthy backer or a community), dApp staking system will only thow you a handfull of peanuts, which is more insulting than supporting. Some will say that it’s better than nothing and it’s still a help. it’s true but unless you are living in a country from the tier world you won’t do much with 300$/month and many would answer that they do not want charity.
Keep in mind that a successfull dApp do not only benfit to the dev team but also to the entier ecosystem too as it brings renown, users and liquidity to this ecosystem.
You mentionned that in V3 dApp are expected to stake their own Astr on their dApp to boost their Tier and revenu. I find this comment quite narrow minded as small projects do not necessarily have the luxury to keep their staking rewards since, as mentioned by our SFY friends, they have their own expenses to cover. This is even more true for early mid tier project who starting to increase their team.
I can understand that early projects (i.e. Tier 4 projects) need to prove themself worthy of receiving a concequent financial support to prevent a flood of abusers to come in but it is first, the responsability of the dApp selection screening process to identify and exclude those one before they can access the dApp staking programm. Remember also that time&community will ultimately exclude bad team and/or useless dApp by stopping staking on them. And with restaking system mechanism, it will happen quite fast.
I thus do not understand why such a loosy support is given to early stage projects while they are the one who need the most support and can be extremely promizing for the eco (the unpolished gems).
Luckily, the V3 is still early and domages can still be mitigated by adjusting V3 parameters before too much dommage is created to Tier 4 dApp. Even after reading your arguments, I strongly beleive that if you want to make it successfull for everybody, what is proposed by @you425 should be your target :
- dynamic rewards according to amount staked within a tier :
as highlighted by other, it make no sens that a dApp who manage to get close to 14,999M staked on their dApp earn the same amount of rewrds than a dApp who bearly get 1.5M staked on them. This nonsens is getting even bigger as Tier increase
As highlighted by other too this eliminate the eagerness to perform and attract more staker as long as a dApp is not near to be downgraded. especialy with gap between tiers as enormous as they are.
- increase lowest rewards rate for Tier 4 :
As mentionned 66 ASTR per era i.e. ~300$/month is just ridiculously low and will have an insignificant effect. It will also significantely reduce the ecosystem attractivness for new project, especially for very early project and/or new teams.
to those who would answer that by doing good marketing they will be able to rise in Tier, i would answer that while it’s true, you cannot be in the field and at the windmill at the same time. For small project with limited manpower an resources it is critical to dedicate your time & limited equity to technical developpment instead of community developpement, at least before a certain threshold is reached.
- Add one more tier :
Adding a fifth tier is IMO imperatif to reduce huge gap between the Tiers 4 and 3 which are currently insane for a small project and make it extremely hard for them to climbe the Tier ladder.
- Reduce number of slot :
to realocate those found to lowest Tier dApp without reducing other tier rewards
- Reduce dApp staker rewards : (i won’t be popular with that one)
to realocate those found to dApp rewards without increasing inflation
Maybe it it only my impression but i never heard anybody complain about the staking APR during V2. So at the beggining of V3, when I saw the APR increase at around 15%, as a dApp staker, a was happy until I discoverd that this increase did not come from a reduced APR for unactive staker (as it was initialy proposed one year ago) but from a realocation of dApp rewards to stakers which is IMO a great error. As mentioned in the early V3 discussion, active actors (dApp & dApp staker) deserve to be rewarded more than passive one. This was one of tha backbone of the V3 proposal.
lastly, and this is my last point, I want to emphasis that i’m very critical and disapointed by the way this V3 has been brought online on Astar mainnet without putting it on trial first on shiden during at least a few weeks/months and invite stakers and dApp to experience it, comment it and improve it BEFORE launching the V3 on Astar mainenet. Isn’t it the whole purpose of shiden, our testnet BC? I’m not in the secret of the team about why it has been done like that but it has been seen as very rushed and unorganized on our side bringing a lot of confusion and discontent amoung users (not only the casual one) in addition to this Tier dApp rewards system issu.
5 Likes
I see. Certainly, it is clear that the mechanism I proposed is more complex than what we have now. I understand that simpler on-chain logic is better, but I do not know what level of simplicity should be the standard.
So your opinion as a developer is important and I would love to have it.
Yes, no problem. However, I do not know how to distinguish this topic from this thread, as this is a v3 topic for me. If you have a good title, please let me know.
Yes, I think you could have done better.
The sender and receiver of information usually have different perceptions. If it had been in the discussion stage or a minor update, it would not have been such a big issue, but this time the content was too big. The content needs to be better publicized.
Here’s what I thought about this case.
“The timing of the v3 and zkEVM got jammed, and the distortion was caused by forcing it to go forward.”
You may not have the luxury of time right now, but I hope that the entire Foundation will look back on this.
4 Likes
Thanks for saying it should be a target. It is nice to hear opinions from the staker side like yours.
As for the discussion, I would like to move it to another thread as Dino said, but I would like to comment on one point that seemed to me that there might be a misunderstanding.
Currently, Basic Rewards is at about 15% due to low stakes. If the stakes were to increase to the same level as v2, they would be roughly the same. The problem is with Bonus Rewards.
Previously, we were told that the staking rewards that were supposed to accrue during the voting period would be accumulated and distributed to active stakers (Extra Rewards). However, a update in February changed this mechanism and it will now be generated primarily from the dApps Rewards allocation.
However, I think this in itself is a problem that can be covered by working on the Tier structure (number of tiers and slots). But it did not happen, and we are now talking about this time.
2 Likes
Nothing to add, you were perfect @Mouthmouth68 .
It’s a bit sad to see that we have been identified as the bad guys in the situation, it’s sad to see that other developers, who have suffered the same treatment even in higher tiers, have not provided support.
But as already mentioned, we consider the Astar team to be among the most competent around. They always used logic and common sense.
Even if people like @Dino , who have worked so hard on this new system and should still be thanked, we must improve by listening to what the dapp teams express.
We were probably superficial in not understanding better how much we would have been entitled to under 15 million (the calculations were in percentages). Starting from our logic of good faith towards the astar team, and seeing that there has always been minimal support in v2 even having received many fewer staking astars on our dapp (5m vs 14.6m) we thought that beyond small corrections, we would have done even better than the previous month (currently our marketing is also very aggressive).
The support was missing 12 times what we thought and for very few $astar. We had the worst position, today we are probably the first among the lucky ones in tier 3, having the least astar of all and on the contrary we share the same rewards as those with 30 million in staking. Objectively this isn’t right either. We are objective.
Something more linear should be considered. We wouldn’t even be able to show you the right and correct path, we like some proposals, we can understand together how achievable they can be.
One thing is certain, dapps have made a commitment to the community and must be monitored in their development.
However, the community has also made a commitment with every single builders, and support cannot go from a well-defined number to 0, the measures are fine FOR EVERYONE, being at the mercy of marketing speculation on the tier raceis not good. that’s all.
We hope that others can also join the discussion with their own experience on this matter. Thank you All.
2 Likes
@Mouthmouth68 thanks for the comments, I will try to make my replies concise.
The dissatisfaction with the lowered rewards is expected. I don’t know what person would be happy when their income is lowered.
My general comments are related to the system as a whole.
The focus in the discussion overall so far is very narrow, and does not consider the whole system.
I’m sorry that you see it that way. I don’t. Just the contrary.
Previous tokenomics were unsustainable.
Getting 4k or 12k (tier 3 and 2) is not peanuts. I have no further comment about this.
That is not what I said nor meant.
I’m looking at the system as a whole again. Not idealistically.
Developer rewards can be sold, can be staked, can be used for kickback.
It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact in a decentralized protocol.
We have unstoppable grants for such projects. It’s not loosy support.
And if need be, unstoppable grants need to be revised to perhaps provide a tier 3 boost to the early projects. But it’s not related to the protocol itself.
I ask you to please read the documentation.
The APR is high because staked percentage is still low.
And I will touch on this in the next paragraph(s).
No comment here, I agree. The Shiden trial was too short. This was a decision made in line with other feature launches.
However much I’d like to see more testing on Shiden being done, the network has low utilization and received feedback would not have been as valuable as on Astar.
@you425
You can make a new topic called e.g. dApp staking v3 - tier algorithm adjustment proosal or something like that.
Just to emphasize one thing about this - it’s being highly misinterpreted.
This change was done for technical and modeling reasons because it makes more sense. This way we can define the bonus pool directly, instead of defining it implicitly via other parameters like dApp rewards & voting subperiod length.
Summary
- complaints have been received & noted, and regarding the topic, it’s expected
- the tier system in it’s current form isn’t going anywhere in the next few weeks (or probably months)
- some time needs to pass to collect sufficient data & feedback - right now, with the tier system at least, I don’t see significant problems, but just the contrary, that it’s working as expected (again, my opinion, not the stance of the Astar Foundation)
- I do respect all opinions that have been shared so far, even more so when done without FUD, labeling, name calling, etc.
Lock & Stake Discrepancy
Now, to give a bit more perspective, there is a problem I see now, a big one.
The total locked amount in dApp staking v3 is around 3.2B ASTR.
Total staked amount is around 1.6B ASTR.
The idea behind higher staker APR (when 50% is staked, it’s around 10-11%), was that it incentivizes stakers to lock & stake their ASTR (stating the obvious). But it’s also supposed to make dAPps job easier of attracting new users/stakers - if there’s a high and attractive APR on a well established chain, it should make building community around your project simpler.
Back to the lock & stake discrepancy - why is that?
What does Astar Foundation, as a team, need to do about this? How to improve outreach, marketing?
What are developers & dApps doing about this? How can they attract more stakers, especially new ones?
TL;DR - the staked amount needs to increase and get closer to the 50% (ideal staking rate). Then we need to take a look at the tiers, where the dApps are. So far, staked amount was and is TOO LOW.
dApps will be entitled to higher rewards automatically as more stakers enter the system.
Future Work
Right now, it’s observation (and bug fixing).
The feedback received here is noted.
I agree that parameters aren’t perfect.
I’m sure I wrote this already somewhere, even prior to the launch.
One thing is to model something (even if months are spend on this), it’s another thing to see how it works in production.
Things will change. And it will be relatively soon.
But things will change in a way that it makes sense for the whole system, not one subset of it, without considering the rest.
4 Likes
Sorry Dino, but here we are not talking about having reduced the rewards.
If you identify going from 100 to 5 as a reduction, then we are kidding ourselves. SFY did not see a reduction (like many others)
I brought you our mathematical example:
- 5M staked in V2= 500 $ASTR (unsustainable? it may be, let’s cut correctly)
- 14.6M staked in V3 = 66 $ASTR. In mathematical terms it may be a reduction, but in terms of support it means throwing out our development.
If the proportion is right, for the same amount of astar staked in v2 we would have received 1460 $astr. So:
1460:100=66:x x= 4.5%
Our rewards in tier 4 are 4.5% compared to V2.
Do these numbers seem normal to you?
An announced reduction?
If some dapps have gotten away simply because they were protected by influential people in the community, there are others who do not have this privilege and will find themselves at the mercy of the moment or luck.
Closing: If you have decided to change dapp staking in this way, in a democracy you can do anything, but let’s not make fun of the developers by attracting them with false promises, this is not a daopp staking as already said before it is a STAKE and Tip the Dapps.
It’s not nice to put the names of all the projects and show how well the network is growing and then give ridiculous percentages. We must protect the token, the value of what will be done in the future, but also the daily work of those who really work.
The division into voting and build to earn periods is a great idea. There will be less immobility among stakers.
The TIERS division and the current management of rewards is absolutely not correct.
Dapps are part of the astar system and narrative in the same way as other players, such as collators and stakers… They all had the same importance when the project was not known.
It doesn’t seem that way today.
If you proposed a reduction in the rewards for collators from the current ones up to 5% of them, based on random numbers and minimal fractionalities, no one would come to get involved economically, and they would choose other chains to do their job.
Dapp staking today does not have the same value as a few months ago and this is done by reading your words: consciously.
2 Likes
Hi @Dino thanks for your time and answer. It is always apperciate.
First, i want you to note that none of my previous answer is an attack or mean to be disrespectfull to you or the team. I understand taht a lot of work has been put on V3.
their’s 3 pts I wanted to react on.
1 :
My comment refering to peanuts is only targetting Tier 4 support which need to find their comunity and/or backer.
Even if i feel that Tier 3 support could be imrpoved a bit too, Tier 3 and 2 are not small amounts at all and do make sens to me.
2 :
I’m aware of the Grant but as mentioned it is unrelated to the dApp staking system. Idealy, B2E programm should be able to sustain by itself dApp dev without the need of unstoppable grants which should be thus reserved to exceptional idea/projects with way more strick criteria (again i’m only taking about Tier 4 here)
3:
sorry for taking shortcut, i did passed though the doc and understand that ATM the 15% B2E rewards is due to low staking proportion. I was actually considering the global APR of B2E target APR (10-11%) + bonus (5%). I rember that in our early talk it was proposed to reduce B2E staking APR of a few % to supply the voting bonus pool and thus rewards voter this way while rewarding a bit less the inactive holders
But anyway. As mentionned, ATM we can only wait for the team to collect required data to adjust parameters for the better. I know that a good balance can be achieved and that it is just a matter of time to reach this point. I just hoppe, for small project, that it won’t be too long
3 Likes
I did not perceive it as such, so please don’t worry about it.
I see. In that case, I agree with you.
It’s peanuts and IMHO it should stay as peanuts.
These are dApps that essentially need to have 1.5M staked to enter the tier.
There needs to be a mindset shift about dApp staking rewards, in general.
One thing is to be idealistic, another thing is to be realistic.
It’s not sustainable nor good for the network to give out huge rewards without asking to bring high TVL & stake in return. It devaluates the token.
You might be the best builder there is, and your product might be fantastic, off the charts! But that doesn’t count for anything, however harsh it may sound. You need to have active users, and you need to get those users to stake on you. That’s the metric for the reward. It might not be perfect metric but it is one that brings value to the network by having higher TVL (or TVS). Because token is locked, and cannot be immediately sold.
Again I want to emphasize that basic income narrative is gone - both due to legal reasons, and because it’s economically unsustainable. It’s a reward system for developers building on Astar/Shiden.
Unstoppable grants are 100% related to dApp staking, nothing else.
dApp joins the protocol, and Astar Foundation stakes on it for some limited amount of time, so they can earn rewards, get on their feet, build some user base, etc.
It’s a limited time though - the idea is that we want to support developers by helping them get boosted into higher tiers, but eventually they need to take the reins themselves and build a user base.
Things will be improved in the future, but I cannot say yet what direction we will take.
We need to identify as much of the problems as possible (or all of them), and then act on it. It’s still too early for that though, at least for the point discussed here (again, my personal opinion).
2 Likes
Have read all of this and this topic keeps engaging lol
I have one in mind right now.
After considering the whole tokenomic right now, as 50%-ish token in stake, it means to reach tier 3, at least the DApps should hold about 0.3~0.5% of the stacked pool right now. Meanwhile, tier 4 is too easy, about 0.03~0.05% of the pool. And I think it’s pretty justifiable to give a peanut-size reward. But, indeed some balance needs to bring in into each tier step IMO since slot and reward is not balance.
And this part is what I said before in another thread. You could work harder, and better than other DApps, but in the end. When we talk 'bout user support, indeed you need them to stake and root for you. It’s decentralized platform.
Thanks for your time and keep up the good work @Dino
1 Like
Thank you, I have created a new thread.
Yes, I agree with this. The amount of stakes is too low in relation to the locks. I have called for stakes at various times, but still too few. where have the stakers gone?
I think it is more likely that the crowd loan participants are leaving it alone, but I am not sure.
On a different note, I noticed something in your reply here.
At least I thought dApp Staking was still about helping developers and not primarily about rewarding them. Perhaps many community members agree. I think we are not communicating well about this and the conversation is not going well because of this discrepancy.
I don’t recall any announcement from the Astar Foundation that they have changed the significance of dApp Staking, nor do I recall ever seeing it on the Forum (sorry if there was). In other words, since it is an after-the-fact report, it is only natural that there would be disagreement.
To summarize, I recognize that this change was intended to do the following
- change dApp Staking’s main purpose to a reward system rather than a developer support system
- focus on increasing the value of the tokens (not decreasing the value by limiting rewards to some extent)
1 Like
I agree that the difference particularly between the current Tier 3 and Tier 4 is not well balanced. And that the second proposal would be much more favourable for developers and more teams could potentially cover development expenses.
The Tier system would be more nuanced and improve rewards for lower tiers without impacting rewards for higher tiers.
I can imagine that the proposed system would reduce the amount empty slots significantly. Do you have any estimates on how much this could impact annual inflation?
3 Likes
Thank you for your participation.
But thread is changed( new one is created ). Please move there.
New one :
dApp staking v3 - tier algorithm adjustment proosal
3 Likes
@Dino Clear and Direct Explanation 
1 Like
Hi Guys,
after the first month since the start of dappStaking v3, what are the considerations of the community and the astar team?
Apart from a drastic reduction in inflation and a greater burn of tokens, how are things going from the point of view of the development of various teams? It seems that the activity, announcements and proposals of all the teams under tier 3 have practically disappeared.
Furthermore, after the first collection phase, it seems that attracting users and Astar tokens is quite difficult, regardless of what develops.
Do you notice an improvement in the “democratic” conditions of distribution and a greater incentive for development, as you expected??
2 Likes
I don’t care about dApps Staking any more. Just information( from Astar Portal ).
Inflation is about 2 %
( from https://astar.subscan.io/ Tools - Charts data. my calculation. )
Total Supply : 8.40 B $ASTR.
Staking : 3.20 B ( 38.1 % ) = locked and stake
Treasury : 0.36 B ( 4.3 % )
Circulating : 2.02 B ( 24.0 % )
Others : 2.80 B ( 33.3 % ) = locked but unstake etc.
Ideal staking ratio is 50%, now 38%.
Staking & Locking accounts : 11648 / 20435 ( 53.2% )
Polkadot 2.0 will come soon or someday…!? 
( So, $DOT price is UP now. )
We lost a lot of time & money & trust.
But, We need preparation. 
2 Likes