I withdraw my proposal and request that the moderators delete this post.
Best of luck.
2 Likes
Thanks for putting this proposal together. I’ve followed the progress of NEET and Fractal RED, and the team has already delivered useful tools like the NEET Dispatcher and Raffle that benefit both Astar and Soneium.
A few points I think are important for discussion:
1. Continuity
Without Treasury support, the work already funded through UCG risks being lost. Backing this proposal would help protect that investment and keep momentum.
2. Value to Astar
-
Adds ASTR utility through the in-game marketplace.
-
Strengthens Astar’s Web3 gaming presence with original IP.
-
Expands visibility by integrating Soneium.
3. Milestones
The ~$100k request seems reasonable, but it would help to see a clear milestone breakdown (e.g. what will be delivered in the next 3–6 months) so the community can track progress.
4. Engagement
Progressive releases (combat demo, testnet marketplace, etc.) could let the community test early and give feedback.
I support this request and encourage others to share thoughts so we can shape it into the strongest alignment with Astar’s goals!
1 Like
hey @Satoshi. Thanks for the proposal.
1. Strengths Identified
-
Original IP in Web3 Gaming, potentially differentiating Astar/Soneium.
-
Past deliverables: NEET Dispatcher and NEET Raffle tools have been deployed.
-
Planned ASTR utility via in-game marketplace and transactions.
-
Potential to attract new users from the gaming space to the ecosystem.
2. Risks & Concerns
-
No public launch or traction: No playable version has been released for testing.
-
Community uncertainty: No clear evidence of an active user base or engaged community around NEET.
-
Lack of marketing plan: No defined strategy for user acquisition, partnerships, or distribution.
-
Market narrative: Gaming is not the strongest Web3 narrative in this cycle; potential ROI for ASTR may be limited.
-
Large funding request: $100k is significant at such an early stage without KPIs.
-
Precedent risk: Approving full funding could set a precedent for other underdeveloped projects to request Treasury support.
Before any funding can be considered, the following should be clarified:
-
What is NEET’s active community size (Discord, Telegram, X, testers)?
-
Are there any traction metrics (alpha testers, KPIs, external partnerships)?
-
What is the marketing and go-to-market plan?
-
What is the expected ROI for ASTR (volume of marketplace transactions, % of ASTR usage)?
-
What is the team’s burn rate, and how long does $100k sustain operations?
-
Can the proposal be adapted into a milestone-based funding approach, with unlocks tied to tangible deliverables (e.g., playable alpha, community traction, proof of ASTR utility)?
I can conclude that while the proposal shows potential, it carries significant risk and limited strategic alignment at this stage.
My Recommendation:
I do not support approving the full $100k request upfront.
Instead, I would consider partial / milestone-based funding under the following terms:
-
An initial reduced amount to keep minimal operations running.
-
Additional funding only if a playable alpha version and a validated marketing plan are delivered.
-
A final tranche released only after demonstrating real ASTR utility through an integrated and active in-game marketplace.
I believe this approach ensures a responsible use of Treasury resources while giving the project the chance to prove both its execution capacity and its value to the ecosystem
4 Likes
I support all gaming proposals as this is an area Astar is under represented in.
I have a few questions:
- Is this an NFT based game?
- Do you plan on collaborating with other Astar / Soneium communities?
- This game will be on Soneium only, or also Astar?
- I think splitting the request in 3 or 4 milestones will guarantee a higher chance of success of this proposal passing.
1 Like
You will have to re-structure your proposal to reflect this by the way before it moves to referendum.
Do you plan on collaborating with other Astar / Soneium communities?
Yes.
I represent an NFT project named ApeXChimpz on Astar network. Lets discuss opportunities when you get some time.
2 Likes
Hello! Thank you for your contributions to Astar and Soneium so far.
My opinion is similar to Pitcoin’s: the amount requested is too large to be paid all at once. It should be divided into milestones. In addition, more concrete explanations about the game itself and a roadmap—similar to what would normally be presented to investors—seem necessary.
It’s true that NEET has a track record of delivering products in the past, but the effort required to develop a game is incomparable to what was needed for those previous products. The genre is completely different, and the required skill sets are also very different (speaking from personal experience). At present, what has been submitted is mainly NFT sales and concept art, but this alone doesn’t sufficiently guarantee execution ability.
You have already submitted a short video, but I would recommend presenting something that more clearly conveys what gameplay will look like.
1 Like
I think the plan is ambitious, they are asking for a good amount of money, but my concern right now with all projects is what plan they have to reach new users or other ecosystems. A product without users or a community will be difficult to establish in the long term, So please clearly outline the marketing milestones for promoting your product once it is functional. This will help position and promote Astar. We need not only functional products but also “engaging” ones that reach many users.
On the other hand, NFT and gaming are in decline. What plans do you have to include in your DeFi plans? We need dApps that create economic value and are self-sustaining.
I recommend that you create a separate, very detailed document for everything I have mentioned above.
Hey @satoshi , I’d suggest calming things down a bit and being more respectful in the forum discussions. It helps keep the conversation constructive and makes it easier for everyone to engage.
–
You are a builder and I am an user, so that’s my perspective: While I appreciate the effort, I think this is a crazy amount for a game that hasn’t even launched yet and has no guarantee of traction.
Anyway, I don’t see gaming as a strong narrative in this cycle — even though I understand that Soneium’s focus is entertainment (and Astar will likely align with it). Our treasury is limited, and since 99.99% of crypto is still about investments, no matter how fun the game might be, if it doesn’t generate profits for players, the team, or Astar, it simply won’t make sense for people.
Every crypto game that ever gained traction only did so because it was play-to-earn (e.g: Axie Infinity).
I’m a bit skeptical about funding highly niche projects — the risk is just too high - and the reasons and KPIs you provide are not enough to me to AYE the proposal (as an user, community member and ASTR holder).
Thanks for the proposal.
You should improve your attitude on the forum. There are no “stupid” questions — the participants in this discussion will be the ones voting on your public proposal. If you’re unable to clearly explain your project or respond constructively to questions, it’s unlikely they will vote to approve your grant request.
From my side, your proposal is missing some very basic information:
- Game concept: What is the game about? Can you provide an overview or examples of similar games we can compare it to?
- Fractal RED: This is the first time I’m hearing about it. Looking at the other NEET topic on the forum, this was not included in the UCG milestones or the original roadmap. Why did you decide to pivot and build this game instead? What about the other promised milestones and projects, such as your DEX?
- Astar relationship: Beyond the “potential” in-game marketplace transactions, how does this proposal add real value to the Astar ecosystem? Am I correct in assuming this means accepting ASTR as a currency in your marketplace on Soneium?
- Funding logic: If the game is built on Soneium, why should Astar fund it? Do you have other sources of funding or revenue from the Soneium ecosystem, or are you relying solely on the Astar Treasury?
I’m not against funding and supporting teams building new on-chain products connected to Astar. However, this proposal feels like it came out of nowhere and lacks the fundamental details needed to understand the bigger picture of what you’re building. Since token holders will vote based on the information provided here, I strongly encourage you to clarify these points and take the time to answer questions before rushing into the on-chain governance process.
5 Likes
Thank you for your response.
Do you have anything you can present as proof of your team’s track record? Even if you do, I must say it may not be of much help. In this industry, there have been countless projects that claimed strong credentials only to disappear later. In fact, even on Astar, there was a game project that eventually faded away.
For that reason, rather than simply emphasizing your team’s capabilities, we need to see at least a concrete plan. Without a clear vision of the game itself and how development will be carried out, it will be difficult to justify providing a grant.
I recall seeing Fractal Red in the documentation quite some time ago (back then it was described as being inspired by Monster Hunter), but it seems to have since been removed from the documentation. Judging from the images you’ve shared now, it looks like your direction may have changed since then.
Personally, I don’t believe it necessarily needs to be a P2E game. What matters is building a game where blockchain provides real value. But at the very least, unless you can present a vision for the game and something that demonstrates your ability to execute it, I don’t think this proposal can move forward.
I withdraw my proposal and request that the moderators delete my post.
Best of luck.
Guys can we stop scaring developers away?
This is a re-occurring theme in this forum.
@Maarten please step in to mend bridges with @Satoshi
I believe there is much to be gained by getting this game funded.
If they’re requesting funding, the need to present a plan that justifies it. So far, however, they haven’t shown any concrete plan—just a few images. In this state, whether it’s a game or a DeFi project, it’s hard to even begin proper evaluation.
Past achievements or titles don’t matter; what matters is “what can be done” and “what is being attempted.” At the very least, a proper deck or similar materials are needed. Right now, outside of the developers themselves, nobody can clearly explain what they’re trying to build—and that’s a problem.
It’s true that there are few builders currently working on Astar, and attracting such people is valuable. But the treasury belongs to the entire community, and careless funding would harm holders. The requested amount is also significant, and with that comes the demand for proportional justification.
In fact, in the current state, providing funds may simply lead to repeated requests for development capital down the line.
1 Like
I actually agree with all of your points.
Its the fact another thread has escalated into an argument is what the issue is. There is a re-occurring theme here.
This game clearly has potential - i agree more evidence needs to be provided and the proposal needs to be changed into a 3 milestone request.
Developers are passionate about the product they are building , and when people are using AI to respond this can illicit a passionate response.
This is a re-occurring issue right now and i am just highlighting it so that we can avoid this moving forward.
We may have just lost an impactful game and developer because people were being too critical and asking irrelevant questions - marketing shouldn’t even be a topic at this stage of development and then saying that gaming is in decline? That can be perceived as insulting even if not meant that way.
1 Like
LOL! At the end of the day, everything in this space revolves around capital. Marketing is 100%, and so is product market-fit.
A game without players is completely irrelevant, no matter how well-designed it might be. Prioritizing the product before thinking about who will actually use it is a fundamental mistake.
The treasury is limited and scarce, and misallocated funds should be avoided at all costs. To justify such a significant request, there needs to be a concrete plan for development, user acquisition, and value creation around ASTR token. Without that, it’s difficult to see the return on investment. IMO.
1 Like
I agree on this and i hope this can be provided by @Satoshi
1 Like
Asking relevant questions does not scare developers away. If developers are prepared and committed to having their treasury proposal approved, they should be able to answer and defend their proposal. It’s no different from pitching a project to investors or partners: you must convince them of your idea and be ready to address any questions.
If someone were asking you for a $100k payment upfront, wouldn’t you ask a few questions to understand exactly what you’re paying for?
Of course, not every question will be relevant, and some may go unanswered, but at the end of the day this is a negotiation between the project team and the community overseeing the funds, in our case, ASTR holders. Satoshi could have moved directly to an on-chain vote without answering forum questions, but I doubt that would have helped secure approval during the voting period.
As project owners, teams should have experience pitching to investors. It’s a challenging process, but it requires an open mindset, patience, and the ability to respond to questions, whether they are simple, difficult, or even obvious.
A strong example of this approach is @SFY_Labs, who have submitted several UCG and grant applications over time. They consistently engaged with the community, responded to questions, and defended their position. This effort is visible in governance today, as their treasury proposal is now passing. (I don’t mean to pull you into this discussion, @SFY_Labs, but I want to highlight your efforts and positive example.)
In any case, since the proposer has withdrawn their request, we can close this topic and focus on other important discussions.
4 Likes
Thank you, yes, we understand this @Gaius_sama
If we can offer our opinion on this proposal, we share the opinions of both parties. The proposal should be better structured; the treasury system for releasing funds is immediate because it’s decentralized, so it would be better to do as we did, submitting ready-made milestones. @Satoshi We also made a mistake with our first proposal; don’t be discouraged!
Regarding the requests made, we know what it takes to create a functioning game. We believe the request is reasonable in financial terms, although we currently can’t fully assess the technical aspect due to limited information. I believe that once this is resolved, it will be easier to get help.
3 Likes