Let's try again: Age Of Chronos proposal

Astar
207

Thank you, @Dino. So, all we can do now is wait.

The launch period has restarted once again — a system that’s difficult for a company to sustain, while it’s so easy for other players to take advantage of it.

The processes are slow, and the thresholds are extremely high. To be honest, aside from companies already familiar with the Astar ecosystem, I find it really hard for newcomers like us to get involved.

I believe that, as a community, we should strive to simplify some of these processes. We pushed hard for the council to verify our work; all conditions for a positive decision were met, with the work delivered and fully documented. Yet, if you want to avoid making a decision, you can always find a way — as has happened here. Four months have passed since our initial request, and despite everything, we are still waiting to receive a judgment on a possible first milestone.

The community has repeatedly voiced criticism here on the forum regarding the payments voted on solely by the council for ambassadors and agents.

The council has criticized the unsustainability of our project without any technical justification — merely subjective opinions — despite having received thorough explanations. But isn’t there a problem when the work of these other contributors is dismissed? Documented, well-executed work should be recognized regardless of one’s role. Instead, we keep seeing opposition only toward one type of network participant.

Do you think this is the right path to attract developers?

Currently, we are playing a game that makes no sense for a company. However, we’ve given our word and we are moving forward — honestly, we have nothing more to say.

Thank you.

208

The council can approve your spending request, that’s correct. They decided not to do it for the reasons they stated. It’s based on their opinion, :100: .

However, they can also cancel your proposal, slashing your deposit and removing your request altogether from the treasury spending request pool. They haven’t done it but deferred the decision to the token holders, which is completely fair. Imagine if they approved it, you got the funds but no one but a few people actually wanted to use your product - that would be bad. Or they slashed it but people actually wanted to use your product - again, very bad.

If token holders want to see you and your product on the network, and see its merit then you’ll get approved. If not, you won’t get approved. It’s not moving as fast as you might want it, but it is fair that token holders get to decide how treasury funds are spent.

My comments are process oriented, irrespective of who you are and what your product is.

Public votes will decide whether you get the requested funds or not. That’s it, final.

2 Likes
209

I completely agree with you!
The fact is that immediate evaluation, without the community knowing anything, also happens with agent reports, right?
So it seems strange to me.
I understand that we’re probably the only ones to have made such a proposal, especially because it’s something no one would do financially, considering the work involved and the possibility of not being funded. Again, please take these words of mine as a report of our experience as a company trying to develop on Astar, not as non-constructive or hateful criticism. We’re not against anyone here, we’re simply struggling to reach our goal, even though the proposal seems to please many and is mathematically a win-win for everyone.

In our humble opinion, not only agents should be funded, but also various network players if supported by the numbers and the work done. Just as there’s a fixed number of agents, there should be a fixed number of developers every so many months who should be evaluated in the same way as agents—based solely on numbers, without any subjectivity or personal opinion on the work done. This could be a good idea to avoid getting stuck in overly lengthy processes that only demotivate those involved and lead them to choose different paths.

1 Like
210

Hello guys, the referenda is started and we want to express our thanks to everyone who will supports us. You’ve once again, for the umpteenth time, expressed a concept on the highlighted problem of “go to market.” @pitcoin777

We’ve already clarified this point several times. We’ve provided Moonbeam’s activity numbers, which are, in fact, a test also for a go to market (which is significant). It’s clear that one of the few undefined factors is being used to give a negative answer. This isn’t done with any idea or any other project. It’s very unfortunate, especially after achieving a project milestone that’s worth far more than the requested funding. The council votes positively on the activities of a promoter (also your activity) like an ambassador, based on numbers, but it can’t positively propose the same thing done by a development team, because it asks of them things that currently aren’t being asked of anyone and are clearly impossible to predict. In fact, there is no requirement or principle that your promotion activity must be accompanied not only by numbers but also by actual users converted to become new Astar holders. This is exactly what is required of us, because, I repeat, despite a general overview we have repeatedly provided on the use of nfts and the market that would generate them, we certainly cannot predict a certain number today or talk about the sustainability of the project. I would like to point out that Astar today is a network without NFT markets. I have no idea how you want this to change, but this certainly won’t happen by not supporting projects like ours. Very disappointed. This is only because we want to be honest with you all; perhaps it would have been better to create a fake go to market answer with ai and answer this question precisely with false projections.

We thank anyone who wants to support us in the vote from now on and we remain available once again for any further clarifications.

211

Very disappointed to see the comments from @Dino and @pitcoin777

(complaining about the numbers on Moonbeam is like comparing apples to oranges - this is about building a product that will be ready for when the NFT market picks back up again. I did not hear these complains when Skylabs were building their product and then rugged as the community found out they were technically inept).

So now we have a team with experience of building on MB but it’s being turned into a negative.

Honest discussion , feedback and constructive criticism should be encouraged so that an ecosystem can be constantly strengthened.

@SFY_Labs have proven to be an honest and innovative building team.

Sfy acted in good faith on the basis of the feedback from the initial proposal - build the product first and then request funding.

The fact this proposal is being nayed and ambassador payouts are aye’d does not make sense to me. The ONLY treasury proposals in the pipeline are for ambassadors - and when a developer requests a small amount - we Nay? Make it make sense.

If this proposal fails i’ll be leaving Astar and this forum for good - i’ve tried to improve this network over the last 5 years (exposing Neurolanche, trying to keep dApps honest, trying to improve controls / procedures) but you guys can live on your own island by yourselves which is what you seem to want.

these are just my honest thoughts and not an attack on @pitcoin777 or @Dino .

Just a very disappointing outcome

Edit: NFT landscape is effectively dead on Astar if this does not pass by the way

Edit #2: it needs to be re-iterated that this is a free game and they have done no marketing. This is a time for building.

It is a compliment that a project wants to build on this network - the hostile NAY comments on that proposal is not right or professional.

The irony that to date, Astar has supported many rug pull projects, and now that an honest project is trying to build there is a heavy Nay vote is not lost on me.

1 Like
212

Thanks, Dino, for your reply. It’s gratuitous hate on your part. When we read replies like this, we fully understand why Astar is in this situation.

  1. The game on Moonbeam has 30 levels, and most transactions have occurred in two months. Virtually all the holders of a small niche like Moonbeam have been reached. New levels and new drops will be added. These are not small numbers, in fact, we’re talking high numbers for the parachain ecosystem. We’re also working with the team to use the game in upcoming community events. I don’t know what you’re expecting; perhaps you thought Ubisoft had made you a multi-million dollar grant proposal. That’s not the case. :slight_smile:

  2. gratuitous attack, which has nothing to do with the proposal. Forbid us from discussing the past, but you use it for your own convenience and on Subsquare so that all new voters can read, even if they don’t know the past and the points of view different from yours, to belittle, discredit, and find conflict. I’ll give you some news: we were right about everything, the facts speak for themselves.

  3. The attitude has always been aimed at construction and not destruction (unlike what you’re doing). Astar is empty. No one except ambassadors and local event organizers is asking for funding and building on this network simply because it’s uneconomical. From the outside, it looks like they’re asking for incredible funding. A milestone currently equates to the work of a couple of ambassadors for a quarter. About ten articles and twenty posts on X? That’s tangible value, right? Are there no conversion possibilities, poor marketing, or simply, as we’re told several times, a useless proposal? With this kind of attitude, you’ve made the network completely barren. What’s the principle by which you can analyze the numbers of a blog post written by an ambassador that reaches a few hundred people, and not the work of SFY? Your personal belief that it won’t be a successful game? The community should worry about finding tangible development and organizing a growth path for this, as well as the absurdity of “going to market” for a project that on Moonbeam has about 3,000 unique mints and over 500 players for the first saga of the game alone. Your statements, as mentioned, are gratuitous hatred saved for the right moment. You wrote a wall of text, and you were responded to with a wall of text. You’re casting us and those few teams who once had the desire to create in a bad light. Astar’s peak in terms of community pricing and interaction occurred during a time when dappstaking provided a serious financial incentive for development. When all that disappeared, the developers also disappeared, many of whom were malicious—we all know that—but the oversight was enough. We submitted a complete milestone. Not a single person asked any technical questions about it, except @GuiGou Many of you haven’t even opened that folder yet feel entitled to know that: 1) the game will have no future; 2) there will be little interest from the community(you need to restore a community not pretend that the actual one made by you and some others can be “the community”… you need project like us, not only is, but like us to restore a community) ; 3) even if the $10,000 grant request is ridiculous for the work presented, it shouldn’t be implemented because Sfy is an inconvenient team. A suggestion: instead of denigrating for free, look around and understand why other places are doing things differently. Evrloot is a similar game with more advanced development than AoC. A few months ago, it received funding of around $500,000 from Moonbeam and several angel investors. According to the arguments made daily here, it’s a waste of money and the numbers aren’t worth the investment. Wrong! When you have to demonstrate the network’s potential to other large web 2 companies, what will you do? Will you pay them by constantly selling tokens? Will you support new events like ACS? (Selling tokens) Has anyone been as critical of the creative solutions of recent years as our work is being criticized? Will you pay influencers to write posts full of nice words, or maybe, just maybe, would it be better to have a game, even if only intended as an MVP, that actually has on-chain transactions, and that can showcase the available technology even at select events? Putting aside Sfy and AOC, this is an irresponsible attitude that will only cause harm. Complaining about the walls of text from those who are still present here, in a community that, whether you agree or not, thrives thanks to the votes of very few people, is anachronistic. It’s a shame because currently, the votes of Pitcoin, Dino, and a few others truly have a significant impact on a community that isn’t as decentralized as it should be after several years. Age Of Chronos - treasury proposal Comments like this one reflect exactly what we wrote above. The hatred expressed speaks volumes; read on, we have nothing further to add.

1 Like
213

As you can see, today, completely different things have been written compared to these words. I hold nothing against Dino or anyone else — we would simply like to understand how they expect to bring life back to this place: with what methodologies? what activities? In particular, what should matter is what is first proposed and then delivered — a point that seems underestimated — but until now, no one had ever worked in this way on Astar, and it could be used as a method for many other dapps that want to get involved.

It’s not that we had great hopes; we knew that a public referendum would unleash serial haters. The council, by speaking about “go to market,” found the right point to confirm that:

  1. A game was a good thing for Astar

  2. The work was carried out properly

  3. Points 1 and 2 could be nullified by hypothesizing a lack of sustainability (a subjective opinion) and thus consciously avoiding funding.

Because, as we said, the public referendum — in a place where people don’t vote on things far more important than a simple $10,000 grant for a game — would obviously have been voted down by the usual suspects.

The council must be objective; the community doesn’t necessarily have to be. Numbers are enough — but we all know that’s not democracy. It’s very disappointing; we will have to move forward with UCG and dApp staking at a different pace… For the work done so far, we have earned just over $1,000 in three months.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions, compare with the past, with the projects that were funded, and compare with SFY. For now, from our activity on Astar, we are at a loss of $11,000 (considering that on Subsquare the old listing was mentioned, which caused us a loss of $12,000 through various mishaps I don’t want to repeat).

Just look at the single folder from the first milestone delivered and tell us if it’s not far more than anyone else has ever done.

Wow :flushed_face:

1000047540
10000475401080×2412 257 KB

215

This is just my opinion as a community member (=
The vote is decentralized — make your own decision wisely, everyone. The system is open to different perspectives, and each person should vote based on their own arguments and convictions. And that’s perfectly fine.

Let’s keep it clear: there will be no personal attacks over opinions or voting choices.

216

@pitcoin777

The only personal attacks are in the comments of that referendum.

I’m shocked with what i’m reading.

1 Like
217

No personal attacks :slight_smile:

We delivered a milestone and below we read truly impartial comments…

We don’t agree with the council’s opinion, which is also yours, but at least it’s a technical opinion, even if it has never been taken into consideration for anything regarding the activities here on ASTAr!

I can even accept that!

But everything else is pure hate (other messages). Enough, we’ll continue without further comments, with the agreed-upon milestones for dapp staking. Thanks for your comment and suggestion anyway @pitcoin777

1 Like
218

Could be sarcasm or could be me getting a glimpse of what has (not) been produced. Or both. But you’re right, I should have been more precise: “for a high quality saga is nothing”.

Bottom line is, just want to protect my tokens value. These are tough times, and I don’t want to make them even tougher by throwing more value away. Again - my tokens are my own and I can vote with them however I want. Same as any other holder.

I don’t think it’s a good product, it’s not something I’d play or buy NFTs for, it just doesn’t seem interesting to me. And I don’t see it really has players, whether they are apple or oranges.

You can keep labeling mine and others responses as personal attacks or dramas (which is actually exclusive to SFY and you I’m sorry to say) but it won’t change our mind. It won’t mine at least.

Best thing to do is find people who like your game, and get their support. I’m sure you can build something great if you focus on building, instead of explanations and dramatization.

1 Like
219

We don’t want to argue with you, Dino, we’re very, very disappointed.

You expressed yourself well today, I don’t think we should continue to write about this proposal.

We accept your idea :slightly_smiling_face:

We asked for an opportunity, you talk as if the funds allocated to sfy will change the fate of the ASTAr token.

Strangely, you don’t do the same for much else; we were thinking of working on a development platform, not the new Bitcoin.

You say we’re being dramatic, but the milestone has been ready for a month. Our game is already technically great, and already online. Imagine, there are only two of its kind in the world.

We’ll keep going, don’t worry, even if only with the limited funds from dappstaking. We’ll also deliver something on ASTAr, then we’ll see who made the wrong assessment.

It’s likely that none of you would have bet a penny on us delivering the milestone after a month, and that must have maybe shocked you. I don’t know what to think. My team has suffered a lot of humiliation here.

Thanks anyway for your time and contribution.:folded_hands:

220

It’s a burden I have to live with but hope to have exonerated myself at least a bit with 5x conviction nay vote. It’s a long lockup period, but 100% worth it if it helps token holders save at least 0.01% of the value.

Regardless what my vote is on the referendum, with no sarcasm, I wish you the best of luck with building the product, and the community around it.

And there’s no hate here, just dislike.

223

close but no cigar!

Real proud of the community who turned out in force to vote yes.

I think its only fair this vote is tabled again when the Neemo compensation is completed - few people i’ve spoken with wern’t able to vote.

Bad timing, but at the same time happy there is an appetite there for Sfy , their work, and the potential of this game.

No more needs to be said by anyone good or bad.

Thanks for the discussions anyway, and at the end of the day we are all aligned on our objective for a better Astar network, even if we have differing opinions which sometimes can lead to passionate conversations.

IMG_6134
IMG_6134828×1041 84.3 KB

1 Like
224

Hi,

Now that Neemo compensation is completed there are some of us who would like to re-vote on this treasury proposal.

@Juminstock can you please advise if Sfy Labs ok to re-submit a public treasury proposal using the old preimage?

Thanks

225

yeah, a lot of friends have unlocked now the funds from Neemo, so we would be happy to re-present it, given that the vote was very positive and not narrowly won.

226

@Dumbell That’s right, it’s totally possible for SFY Labs to repeat the last step (create the public proposal under the Referendum/ Public Proposal route).

Just as a reminder: every 7 days the system brings to referendum the proposal with the most support (Seconds), so if new proposals arise, it’s important that @SFY_Labs gets support, otherwise it could end up last on the list.

Success with the proposal since this is what decentralized governance is about. :+1:

227

is this right guys? we add the hash of this : Age Of Chronos - treasury proposal
thank you

image
image1292×699 58.5 KB

228

@SFY_Labs I’ve already respond to you in your private message

1 Like
229

Sfy Labs can’t post due to slow mode.

Proposal created here:

Sfy has a core group of supporters and the work delivered has been solid.

They’re proactive and deserve a chance — at least once to prove themselves.

1 Like