You’ve created a treasury proposal on-chain for a single payout.
Now you have a referendum open to approve that payout.
Also, you seem to have multiple nay votes at this point.
I don’t know if it’s related to your proposal, product, explanation, history, etc.
It’s the token holders voting, some will disclose their reason, some won’t.
guys, we are trying… you should give us a hand on this, we made the proposal here on the forum, technically we did not know that the payout was single, can’t this point be changed? we do not intend to be paid… and we do it all again, we will have to wait another month… we really streamline this bureaucratic part if we all agree on the methods… give us a hand please.
This holder voted 2 million against just for this reason, can we make the proposal in line with our original ideas and reassure him?
There is a problem, we all agree on the milestones to verify, but technically the payout is single, we do not want these funds in advance, but if we make different proposals, could one of them later not be approved and make the entire development blocked? We do not know how to do it, can not the foundation manage the payments only after the verification of the milestones? We do not say it only for us, if this way can be profitable for developers and community in the future, can not we find a way to facilitate this path without both being blocked by the management of payments? We have only had 2 negative votes of which most for this fact, and I would have done the same, because I would not trust paying without receiving anything immediately in return, so that vote if the management of payments is this, is more than fair.
I believe I’ve provided you technical support, suggesting which calls to use, etc.
The issue you have is that you’ve jumped into creating proposals without understanding how the system works. That’s why one of your public proposals was already slashed.
For non-tech related questions, I’d let others provide you with support.
Ok, how do you suggest to solve the problem that the user posed about the payout, we essentially agree with him otherwise, we would not have written it in the proposal itself, indicating the milestones.
Can we use a wallet managed by the foundation as a bridge before the verification of each milestone for example?
In this way the acceptance of the grant is for the creation of the game and the payments will be made only after verification. What do you think? If you have other ideas let us know
@SFY_Labs
Hello, SFY Labs team!
I’ve added both the link to your project’s website and your X profile so you can share them directly in our Discord. Let me know if you need any additional support from our side.
Hi @SFY_Labs,
As outlined previously, Astar’s governance system—like Polkadot OpenGov—is fully onchain. This means that once a proposal is submitted and associated with a preimage, it becomes immutable. Neither the proposal nor its underlying code (preimage) can be altered. Once a proposal is upgraded to a referendum, the execution is bound to the original preimage and proceeds automatically if approved.
In your case, the preimage tied to your referendum specifies a transfer of 990,000 ASTR from the onchain treasury (YQnbw3oWxBnCUarnbePrjFcrSgVPP2jqTZYzWcccmN8fXhd) to the address XMAHssEGJvaFyvXYYmuWDXvzCx4oLY5tGnvPLkviMVW4AYd. If the referendum passes, this is exactly what will happen—executed directly by the onchain logic, not by any individual or member of the Astar Foundation.
If you’d like to modify the amount or change the beneficiary, you’ll need to submit a new proposal with the revised parameters. That new proposal will need to go through the governance process again (preimage, proposal submission, referendum, community vote).
This process isn’t bureaucratic—it’s transparent, decentralized, and uniform for everyone. Proposals rise or fall based on community consensus, including input from large token holders. If your referendum faces opposition, your options include:
This is how governance has been functioning in the Polkadot ecosystem for years. Many proposals are revised and resubmitted before gaining approval.
I hope this clarifies how the governance system works. Taking time to gather feedback and ensure alignment before submission can go a long way toward securing support.
Thanks for your answer Gaius, we have to agree with the person who pointed out that we would be paid before presenting the work, so at this point since the modality will always be this one through the onchain vote, or 990k or 330k it doesn’t change anything, even if we divide the amount, we will always be paid before presenting the milestone.
We wanted to be transparent and put our work before the payment. Chasing voters at this time is utopia, you know it too, it would be a waste of our time as well as yours, those few who continue to vote only want to preserve the value of astr through the correct use of funds.
In the end we will be seen as those who get help from friends to receive funds in advance and then who knows if they will ever present a product, being legally non-binding and functioning as on polkadot (we know what happened there in the past), first of all we do not believe that it will ever pass, but then even if it did pass, we believe that it is a non-meritocratic method and I repeat, we can only agree with those who presented us with this problem.
We should think of a way to be in compliance with our proposal and not have problems.
That said, the idea of making a change with this new type of grant for developers could be to:
Create a new proposal, where the payment of the grant is highlighted (even all the expected funds, since nothing changes) to an external wallet (we asked if it was possible through the foundation) and then only subsequently pay developers like sfy after community verification?
Could this be a technically feasible idea in your opinion? So change the beneficiary? Who could we define as beneficiary?
Your proposal is the exact same problem again though.
Payout before delivery - even if it isn’t your account.
The simplest way for you to approach this, IMHO, is to create something as part of your first milestone, create a treasury payout proposal, and ask either the main council or community council to approve it. It boils down to the thing you want, only without any intermediary holding the treasury funds.
EDIT: This is just a suggestion, please make sure to communicate & agree the way forward with e.g. Gaius.
Dino What you suggest is not the same as what we are asking for. it is only for the economic aspect, but there is no certainty for me and my team since it will have to be approved first and this is not certain. We work, we get to conclude the first milestone and when it is not approved what is left for us? It is not written anywhere that if we reach all the points of the milestone it will be approved. As always, it is a risk that falls entirely on my team. An accepted proposal should give us first of all the ability to certainly count on a budget, the achievement of milestones must be the protection for the community. but if we start with the work without an approved proposal, it is not the same thing. we are taking two steps back at every step forward, many people liked the proposal especially for the budget and what was proposed, but we can’t find the space to act. it was important that the decision was taken by the council in our opinion.
How isn’t it the same?
If some account, e.g. multi-sig controls “your” funds, what guarantee do you have that they will actually pay it out? None.
If you agree on the milestones with some council, and deliver them, they should pay you out. The level of guarantee is the same as the situation with external account. Or you can always go with a public referendum.
I’m sorry but numbers speak a different story.
I have to disagree with you here, for the reason above.
It’s good this went to the public referendum so you also see how the voters feel about your proposal.
To be fair, going by the comments the negative votes are due to the payment structure and amount requested exceeding what is due for milestone 1, and not due to the value offering provided by the team.
@Dino can we get the UCG for Sfy Labs proposal voted on please?
This may provide a level of goodwill for Sfy Labs to begin development for milestone 1 as they will be guaranteed some level of support through this route.
I would like to second this way. For example, the activities of agents also get reviewed, then tip proposals get submitted. Showing achievement and being reviewed seems fair to me, and I can see it being a wise way of spending treasury, IMHO.
Bests, pithecus
we didn’t understand this point. Are you saying to make a proposal on each single milestone with the council and not with a public referendum? Please explain this better.
The current numbers of the proposal are correct, the proposal is essentially wrong, we agree with this, it is right that it is voted negatively. Understood how the unblocking of funds works now it is time to think about how to move forward no?
but since it almost seems like yet another attempt to belittle what we propose, we can once again abandon the idea of building on astar. For us, a signal had to be given to the developer community, if the actual situation of the ecosystem is liked, you can continue like this, we cannot force anyone. The game is currently online, it would be a good idea to focus on that and maybe make a small comparison with other funding stories on astar.
sure @FFR23 but let’s not forget that ucg would unlock significantly lower monthly funds. the first molestone having to pay developers and graphics would be completed no earlier than 3-4 months, unlike a direct grant, and clearly there would be no funds to pay paymaster in transactions. This would just be following the classic path that already exists on astar, to then open a way for the grant that in any case would not be guaranteed. We can do it, but please quantify the work we are talking about. 30k for a saga on astar of the game is economic madness. We are doing it practically at 0 cost, astar has paid much much much more to developers who have disappeared through dappstaking in the last 2 years and I won’t name names otherwise you will tell us that we are toxic in our interventions. We appreciate much more those who tell us that our project has no value than those who find an excuse every day not to finance the only project with an active proposal in the last few months. Add to all this that we have never put aside the idea of being paid only after checking each single point proposed. Astar has never been able to lose on this proposal, but it seems that many old grudges have not been put aside, we appreciate the interventions of Dino and Gaius and others, but now let’s decide together whether or not it is the case to continue with the grant proposal. We continue to think that in the current state of this community, the decision should have been taken with courage in a different way. This is the only personal opinion that we feel entitled to express.
That is misleading & unfair.
Only one nay vote explained why they voted against the proposal.
The rest haven’t commented.
Not up to me, I’m only part of tech committee.
No, sorry, I cannot repeat it again.
Please read the docs to understand how the governance works, I’ve asked you to do this many times already. If someone else wants to explain, great.
It’s a public referendum, token holders are voting.
It’s not belittling, it’s voting. It’s all public data.
And the sentiment is overwhelmingly negative at the moment.
Maybe it’s because the amount is too large as you noted.
My comments are purely pragmatic & system oriented, I don’t want to comment on the content of your proposal.
I’m sorry but your approach to this whole process has been superficial, which resulted in one of your proposals being slashed, and the other one being rejected by the votes atm because it does not reflect what you want to do.
I said I don’t want to comment on the content of the proposal since I was focused on explaining what can be done from the governance/tech side, what kind of proposals can be made, how it can be handled, etc. I leave it to people who have control over stuff like UCG & council to tell you what they expect from you since that’s outside of my control.
Please let’s discuss about this if possible:
Hello, @SFY_Labs team!
I’m going to have to step into this discussion for several reasons, which I’ll outline below:
Please review our community guidelines here: FAQ - Astar Forum
I kindly ask you once again to respect the rules and help keep the forum free of attitudes that go against our guidelines.
You can read more about our onchain governance here: Astar Subsquare - Onchain Governance | Welcome to Astar
That said, I’d like to share my opinion on this matter: applying to the UCG program may be a viable solution, as it fits your current proposal extremely well. You now understand how the system works and were once part of Astar’s dApp Staking, so by developing what you’ve proposed, meeting the outlined metrics, using the UCG program, and scaling your project over time, it would provide exactly what you’re looking for.
Read more about the UCG program here: Astar Unstoppable Community Grant Program | Welcome to Astar
Again, thank you very much for submitting your proposal to our ecosystem and for wanting to build on the Astar network!
Thank you @Juminstock!
One clarification from me - if i lend @SFY_Labs the 330,000 Astar up front so that they can continue development on Astar, they are still eligible to apply for this payment from the community council and / or public referendum if they deliver on the outlined milestone, right? Even if they are included in the UCG program?
Thanks.
