About this answer from @Gaius_sama
This is clearly your retelling, where is it written that ucg is a measure for NON-DEPLOYED projects? 
We would probably have to ask where it is also written that dapp staking is a measure only for projects already deployed on Astar, but let’s pretend that’s the case. In fact you should tell me why you accepted Age Of Chronos in the past, but this question will not be answered… 
And, so If a dapp has already deployed something on astar, can’t ask UCG?
The fact that there are more frequent reports (we saw how the teams that are in UCG have sent reports to you and how you have accepted them, even months later, it was enough for them to write to you: we are working) means nothing. It’s always your personal idea.
UCG also leads to a listing, or rather it is a superior measure where funds are also granted that perhaps with a classic listing you would not receive from the staking community. And now there are 17 (who knows why this measure has changed here too… when we said that the 2 million were insufficient to guarantee presence in higher tiers, we were complaining…)
And above all, even if this were the case (and it isn’t, because the rules are written and not interpreted or used depending on who you are in front of) why didn’t you say it in our discussion since we went around a very simple point, for a long time and with hostility on both sides, such as having a contract migrated before the listing? For me these are quite clear attitudes. You should be ashamed of how you are behaving in a system that is supposed to be decentralized, but in fact only counts on your interactions, and a few others above.
Furthermore, just to be even more precise and clear, if you want I’ll make you a list of all the projects listed in dappstaking without ucg and without them being deployed on astar or having a single tx made on the network. This is documented.
You know very well that our team has more tx on the astar network than many others who have been funded for some time without having developed anything yet, and despite this you are committed to having this type of discussion, because it takes a lot of effort and I would also like to say bad attitude to arrive at this kind of finesse in the use of words.
Both you and @Jerad have made personal considerations on the new dapp proposed by us, and we accept this. But then you backtracked, making the whole technical discussion about what was or wasn’t donkey gang dao pointless and then said submission wasn’t possible. Why discuss it then? Furthermore, you made uswait more than a month. Dangerous attitude, you have set a precedent with us, both with AoC and with this new proposal.
Instead of solving with common sense after having caused a very large financial damage to our team, continue with the same attitude.
The bottom line is that SFY is a serious builder, and the facts say so, AoC is reality after only 3 months of support from other teams.
Everything we expressed in our proposal is reality. There is not a single technical point that we have not completed. The only promise not kept is that of supporting us.
It is not a game purchased with assets downloaded from who knows what online store like many others in this sector, and which includes a simple token gate perhaps even decorrelated to the game characters. It is a real web3 dapp that uses the blockchain and innovative protocols in all steps, including the final one of the creation of the collection assets, which is the first 3D equippable in the world.
And it’s something that probably only SFY can do right now, we challenge anyone to even try.
We await any results.
When we expressed all the problems of v3 you closed yourself like a hedgehog in order to protect poorly designed rules, instead of giving the minimum support required to be able to overcome the situation easily you decided to do not support a team that has always supported you, even free of charge from 2021.
Very little was enough, instead you decided to be hostile just because we speak with sincerity and clarity in everything we do.
Despite this, we have reopened a channel with a new proposal and instead of appreciating what we are doing, you have decided to sabotage us and above all our time once again.
Channel reopened for a simple reason, to have a glimmer of future development here on astar. However, it is not possible.
As if we were the evil of builders on astar. The evil is the teams that have been appropriating funds for more than a year without having built anything, the teams that have developed a minimum amount just to be able to guarantee themselves thousands of dollars every month for an indefinite time without controls (there are none on ucg… .imagine without).
You should really be ashamed of how you are handling things here.
If we went to the vote we would have no doubt that there would be millions of astar in the NO box even if the proposal was to give away a dapp without receiving anything in return from the program.
This is the furthest thing from the word decentralization.
Sorry to be so harsh, but it’s the truth.