Currently a UCG slot does not earn projects tier 3 rewards last i checked.
Let’s not touch on the past and look forwards. At the end of the day this is a business professional environment and personal bias should not be a factor here.
A lot of time has passed and this team are working on the bleeding edge.
There are many cross-chain collaborative opportunities on offer here - this project also has a built in community we can leverage and there are also possibilities to integrate with Sonieum thanks to NFT Bridges.
I have, and always will, advocate for what is best for the Astar network (check my post history).
I am in favor of these grants (similar to what Moonbeam have, performance based) - as it nullifies the biggest weakness that exists currently with dApp staking (i.e. projects leeching and not providing any value, just value extracting).
As mentioned above, AOC should be charging a lot higher here than what they requesting.
We have nothing to lose here and a lot to gain.
We are on the right track with the current purging of dead projects, let’s continue the momentum and reinvigorate the Astar sentiment within the community.
it’s an idea, but honestly it would be better for us to work on milestones shared in advance and voted by the community, plus dappstaking to support the expenses to be faced. The $30,000 would be paid exclusively for development and our work. There is nothing better than clarity and transparency in our opinion, making the developer’s life almost like blackmail is not very useful, what is proposed is far below the real value of our work as considered by many of you. Then if it is possible to add a ucg period in dappstaking to this, welcome, we will be happy. Regarding our future sustenance, as said we now simply want to focus on the creation of a multichain game and in the next phase make the exchange between networks something inevitable, in order to draw value from the interaction of the various communities in the same dapp. After that we will focus on secondary markets and exchange fees. once the game is produced and launched, dappstsking alone is enough to help us with management costs, based on the quality of our work, we will evaluate with you how to proceed on astar, as we will do with communities on other networks in the same way. This way of working can only be a win win for any ecosystem in our opinion.
I really do not see it, my comment was constructive, I even warned that it should not be taken as a retaliation, we know very well what was discussed in the past, but so far I have not seen a great contribution to Astar by the project, if you support me with some metrics would be great, I am sorry that my comment has been misinterpreted, thank you.
I know, ours was also a constructive response, we can’t talk about AOC’s past on Astar, simply because there was no development due to problems we all know about, in fact I want to point out that unlike many others, the team suffered a loss of $12,000 for the reimbursement of the incubators sold (the price of Astrar had quadrupled). Why do you want to underline this thing? There was no development not due to our shortcomings but due to changes on the fly that led to problems. The proposal now is very transparent, it would be a good idea to focus on that, if you have any questions about it I’m very happy to answer you
When Neemo Finance (the current #1 dApp staking project) initially applied for dApp staking - ambassadors kept focusing on the links to Starlay Finance. They couldn’t actually focus on the important things like functionality.
Neemo Finance was accepted thanks to some whale guaranteeing it with a huge 7 million vote swing.
Now Neemo Finance is one of the best dApps we have on Astar.
My point is, please going forward leave bias at the door. Stop focusing on the past. Focus on the opportunity on offer here.
Many many people in this forum showed support for other projects which have since rugged (Skylabs, Neuro, many more).
It doesn’t matter what happened in the past - what matters is right now, and the future.
There isn’t even risk here - if the team don’t meet the agreed performance criteria, they don’t get paid. If they do, everyone wins (and Astar and community still get a great deal).
What do you want to achieve by voting no? You want a dead ecosystem with no activity? People arn’t acting with the best interests of the ecosystem in mind it seems like
Link for reference:
And my comment from last year still stands - in other words trust me bro and let’s push this through so we can get some actual activity on Astar EVM
I think having a team that brings novelty to the valuation system as proposed by SFY Labs is a great opportunity to improve dApp staking and could also bring more interest given their presence on Moonbeam. I would honestly prefer the team to apply for the UCG program to see the possible outcomes for both the SFY team and dApp staking itself. As always I hope this discussion will attract other stakers to hear their opinion about the $30k request.
Thank you Vasa, we hope our proposal will be accepted, we really want to innovate with AoC, but need a little help from the bottom.
We would like to know the opinion of others, especially the core team beyond Dino. How can we proceed to publish the proposal? Will the team take charge of it or do we have to do it?
I believe that the proposal can be put onchain after the discussion period on the forum under two possible categories. The Public Proposal or the Treasury Proposal, I believe that in the case of SFY the proposal should be put in the second category that will allow the stakers/users to decide whether to approve it or not. In the meantime, we just have to wait to have other opinions before going with the onchain vote.
The proposal itself can come from any user and I don’t think the participation of team members is necessary to make it
yep, understood, thanks for the explanation
Is there a specific time frame to do this or just wait for more interactions on this post?
We remain at everyone’s disposal for further clarifications of course.
Let me guide you with the next steps. I’ve broken things down into three key areas to help guide you through the process:
1. $30,000 Grant from the Astar On-Chain Treasury
The first step is to submit an on-chain treasury proposal via either Subsquare or the Polkadot.js Dashboard, specifying:
The requested amount (in ASTR, not USD)
The recipient address
Since your proposal is based on a USD value, we recommend using the EMA30 ASTR price at the time of submission (available on Subscan here).
Please note: submitting a treasury proposal requires a 1,000 ASTR deposit. This is refunded if approved, and waived if rejected.
Once submitted, the proposal must go through governance approval, which can happen in one of two ways:
By the Main Council, for requests under 1 million ASTR (reference)
By ASTR token holders through a public referendum, for requests over 1 million ASTR
Since your request will exceed the 1M ASTR threshold, it must be approved via a public vote by token holders.
After submitting your Treasury Proposal, you’ll also need to submit a Public Proposal to vote on it. This will require:
Creating a preimage for the treasury.approveProposal(proposal_ID) call here, with proposal_ID the ID of your Treasury Proposal. Example: 0x93a6c80cf109f425bb078fab0682e191fc3eeaf23d943a9218826f9d5abf815e
Creating a public referendum on-chain (see this example for reference)
Once your Public Proposal is submitted, it will automatically be scheduled as a Public Referendum in the next voting cycle. Token holders will have 7 days to vote. If approved, the payment will be executed during the next treasury payout cycle.
2. dApp Staking Registration
To register your project for dApp Staking, you have two options:
a. Public Proposal & Referendum
Similar process as above, but using the preimage for the dappStaking.register() call (Example for the preimage call).
b. Astar Community Council (ACC)
Alternatively, you can request the @Community_Council to initiate a vote. Council members will assess your eligibility and decide whether to approve your project.
Regardless of the method, you’ll need to provide:
A developer’s native ASTR address (to claim rewards)
A verified contract address for your dApp (Astar L1, EVM, or Soneium L2)
Bear in mind that your project must meet the basic requirements to join dApp Staking — such as having a functioning dApp, product, or MVP deployed on Astar L1 or Soneium.
The Community Council will vote and may choose to register and stake on your project
Currently, one slot is open in the UCG program.
Additionally, as introduced by Igor today, a fixed threshold system will soon be implemented. Once in place, the Tier 3 threshold will be lowered to 20M ASTR, which can be sustained by the Community Treasury — easing concerns about eligibility and retention at that tier. Since you’ve raised this point before, I recommend reviewing the upcoming changes as they may be relevant to your situation.
As only one public referendum can be active at a time, it’s not possible for ASTR holders to vote on both the Treasury Proposal and dApp Staking registration simultaneously. Therefore, I suggest the following:
Submit your Treasury Proposal and the corresponding Public Referendum
Apply to the UCG program and request a vote from the Community Council
If you need help with creating on-chain proposals, feel free to consult the governance documentation, or reach out to me directly on Telegram (@Gaius_sama).
Please remember: on-chain actions are final and irreversible, so it’s strongly recommended to test on Subsquare Shibuya or work with someone familiar with the process before executing any transactions. I’m happy to assist you if needed.
Thanks for your reply, about this point, if we want to work on milestones, 3 in total, could we divide the requests? With 3 different votes so that in the positive case it can be verified by the main council directly?
Or do you think we should include everything in a proposal?
I believe it would be fair to the community as a whole to put both dApp staking registration & treasury proposal approval as public referendums.
You were part of dApp staking before, and left with a lot of noise & bad rep. The decision to rejoin and receive treasury payout shouldn’t just be left to the council.
Hi Dino, we don’t think we’ve left a bad reputation, the growth phases of the project also lead to this, we have indicated critical issues that after a year have all proven to be correct. It’s no one’s fault, some choices cannot be verified before time passes and there are positive or negative feedback.
As someone argued above, now is the time to understand if on Astar L1 it is somehow important that someone develops something useful and usable, or we must continue on the current path.
We have been very transparent and honest in indicating how we can help the ecosystem to grow and be used, you yourself admitted that these funds are relevant for the amount of development we are proposing. We are very confident in what we promise, working on milestones that are verified before releasing funds, could really be the best thing for everyone. And indeed, AoC could soon be taken as an example by other dapps that really intend to build on Astar. All this beyond dappstaking.
You might not think that, but I do.
Probably I’m not the only one.
That being said, I’m fine with what you wrote but still suggest to use public referendum.
Not sure why that would be a big deal given you’ve explained everything, are transparent and have a product & idea to show.
We decided to do both, proposal to the funding to the council (less than 1m of astar) and public proposal for listing in the new staking dapp. @Gaius_sama
The first was easy to do:
for the second we can’t figure out how to proceed, can someone point us in the right direction?
Right now we do not have a contract deployed on astar, but it would be identical to the one deployed on moonbeam, if the proposal is accepted before being listed we will deploy one only for astar, we have to copy the one that is on moonbeam for all intents and purposes. can I add that?
