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.
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, .
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.
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.
.