DONKEY GANG Nfts DAO dApp Staking Proposal

Has Donkey Gang NFT collection migrated to Astar Network EVM since you started this discussion?

I’ll repeat myself:

A project can only apply to dApp staking if it is deployed on Astar Network (L1 substrate or EVM chains or on L2 zkEVM) or if the project contributes directly to the growth of Astar Network.

A project outside the ecosystem is not eligible to apply for dApp Staking.

Again, you can open a vote on Astar Townhall to gather community opinion about supporting your migration to Astar EVM, but that won’t be validation for a dApp Staking listing. This will require a new vote once the collection has been migrated to Astar EVM.


Have a nice day and good luck to all.

1 Like

Real shame to lose this innovative team.

It’s a weird precedent to set as teams with no product existing on Astar have recently been approved for dApp staking and UCG (i’m not going to name names for fear of repercussions for them and the core team trying to save face with this precedent)

I fear Astar is slowly starting to lose the ‘supporting builders’ narrative and the comments from the core team above are concerning to me as a community member. I expect more informed and considerate comments from the core team given the influence they have on the wider community.

Forums should be a place for free thought discussion, collaboration and constructive ideas - but it seems more like core team and ambassadors use their emotions and unfounded resentment in discussions, comments and voting decisions.

I hope existing and future builders aren’t put off by this but the future for Astar isn’t as bright as it once was in my opinion.

In advance, i am sorry if my honest comment and feedback hurts your feelings and i hope logic overwrites any feelings you may have.

1 Like

About this answer from @Gaius_sama

This is clearly your retelling, where is it written that ucg is a measure for NON-DEPLOYED projects? :face_with_monocle:
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… :joy:

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.

Closed this topic because project is not deployed on Astar Network or has no intention to be deployed on Astar Network to bring value to our ecosystem.

1 Like

After receiving DM from @FFR23 and @SFY_Labs saying that my information is not correct and that I now block their freedom to keep continue this discussion. I will reopen the thread for them to continue.

I’ll just say that I left the group chat with SFX team after the Age Of Chronos blaming from this team to Astar Foundation. Now this post asking to join dApp Staking with another project not even on Astar is for me just wrong. This has nothing to do with not being supportive to project. Hearing about ‘others building teams who feel they can’t speak up with honest feedback and fear us by giving feedback’ is from my point of view a false statement when I see our Agent supporting and our core team in TG groups.

If you think we did, there must has been a miscommunication and Im more than happy to comment on those other cases and share the full context.


@Maarten , we told you and also @sota in private: unfortunately there are people who have abused their role several times, putting their personal ideas and in some cases, feelings of hatred before tangible problems just because they don’t understand what it means being a developer. There are too many ambassadors who have double roles or are involved in other projects who are playing a dirty game in our opinion. And I won’t say anything else. The cake is small for everyone.

SFY was your collaborator since 2021, we didn’t deserve this treatment.
I prefer to think of it as a lack of communication and not something intentional, I understand that you all have numerous things to think about but we spent 2 months struggling here before making a difficult decision. An ambassador responding to a dev on how his job should be done is something truly ridiculous. An ambassador will never be able to understand that behind SFY’s fight on the astar forum there were economic problems for a support that from one day to the next became equal to 0, due to decisions taken by NON -DEV. Work doesn’t pay off just with nice words.
We invested 100% of our efforts in this community, getting ridiculed several times. The ideas of those who responded to our posts were personal and they all tried to pass them off as if they were written rules. The latest invention is that UCG is for dapps not deployed on astar while dapp staking which is a clearly inferior measure in terms of immediate support, can only be applied to those who already have a dapp on astar. How can something like this be possible and above all where is this written? We reread Gaius’ entire post on UCG 3 times and found no reference, we came to the conclusion that it is yet another interpretation of the rules. Also because he doesn’t have, once again, logical sense. Just as the subdivision by tier made by people who have nothing to do with the real problems of a dev and accepted unconditionally without a real vote on the matter makes no logical sense. Don’t talk about decentralization please.
Are small-medium developers arriving in the latest one? If you are no longer interested in them you should have said so or put specific deadlines on the guaranteed support. We trusted you and invested, hired new people, because we knew that dapp staking supported us for a total of 100… and it could have been a little less… but never reaching 0 as it was. Many have written that dapp staking should not be seen as the first resource for a team, but only as a help. And where is this rule written? Another interpretation. If before proposing a project I consult with the Astar team and I know I can count on a support value of just a help and not the core of my project? To astar this, in case of success of the dapp, wouldn’t it be a further value to demonstrate?
Control of dapps was and still is non-existent!
Did those who benefited from the UCG make periodic reports as agreed? Shall we check together, Maarten? We have already done it.

When it comes to judging what we write, they are all so precise, punctual. We go around the mere words of not arriving at a solution (this request on donkey gang dao is an example, just read how the post developed), when instead we have to write to a team that hasn’t reported for months and who never went into the specifics of how the astar network will be used in their dapp, everyone seems to have become accommodating.
There are 2 types of teams:

  • Those who fight and achieve results, and who are not afraid to express sincere opinions
    -Those who only have interactions with nice words, little hearts and many clichés about how beautiful the community is and how collaborative it is in every aspect.
    Just a means to achieve the economic incentive.

Sir, but we would like to know more about what you are developing…
where’s the meat?
It is clear and statistically proven that the 2nd type of team has an easier life here, but they have just false interactions, and everyone understands this.
We have seen many developers who you now idolize, not writing anything for more than 1 year on their social channels, wake up people!

We are poisoned by the situation, in the last 3 months we have worked 24 hours a day to be able to have a playable MVP with all the ideas we have written. And we succeeded thanks to Moonbeam who had never had any dealings with us before then, unlike you, simply because they understood what we were proposing and why.
6 months ago many devs on dotsama aspired to develop something on astar, the incentives were high. Today it is a privilege for a few, friends of friends and the first filter is the personal ideas of the ambassadors, who attack or turn a blind eye when necessary. This principle applies almost everywhere, it is clear, but no one advertises something like dapp staking like Astar does, that is precisely the difference. today it is a good marketing operation, yes.
The reasons why this thing doesn’t weigh on other teams like it does on us are essentially 3:

  1. The team does not develop seriously and has 0 costs
  2. the team is already so large that it can do everything independently and if there is dapp staking it is just an additional income
  3. The team is already part of much higher tiers, both in terms of personal skills and because it has the support of people who count in the community.

The real problem for you is that the last team that should have been penalized was SFY, we won’t give up. We don’t do it as we have demonstrated by developing a finished structure of our dapp in just 3 months and we don’t do it if we need to have our rights guaranteed.

Our dapp is visible to everyone today. No tricks, no deception as some speculated months ago. The added value would have been incredible, and I would venture to say that no one is currently doing such a thing or has any plans to do so. Have a chat with the RMRK team if you want. There was no technical reason not to have done it on astar in the past, and there was no technical reason even today if a rapprochement had been achieved, through a new, less demanding dapp, which in any case could have been a way to keep a open channel.

Furthermore, also leaves us with one last personal thought, which may be wrong, but when there are so many problems, you start to think many things:
We understood that one of the problems that put our team in a bad light are NFTs.
The connection we have with the rmrk team and the standards we use are clear to everyone. Unfortunately we note that there are other marketplaces that are more supported and with which the core team perhaps shares more objectives, perhaps simply of an economic-marketing nature.
The type of standards we use would make our nfts inappropriate in any other marketplace, those of Age Of Chronos not even trivially viewable… You had a technical discussion with us months ago in private, where we provided our graphics to some members of the team, you know how we feel about it.

We don’t want to go any further, we have received nothing from our activity on astar other than economic damage given the reimbursement made to all those who purchased the incubators and an average price almost triple.

It is not possible that many consider SFY to be a serious team and only the Astar core team suddenly considered that this is no longer the case.
Unfortunately you no longer have time to manage these things, but you should inform yourself better about how the people you have delegated are managing things.

This post, as it always has been in recent months, will not lead to anything useful for us, we already know this, we are used to it by now.