Hi, @Dumbell!
Just as Dino mentioned and recommended here, that’s exactly what they should do, show the development and request a grant for what has been delivered. It’s totally possible.
sorry if I ask this again, we want to start with our own strength, we will present complete milestones, but there is no way to be sure that these will be paid right, will it still be necessary to make a public proposal? We have put a lot at stake for this project on astar in the past, with a considerable economic loss for us, would it be possible, net of a commitment that we will put in advance and a work demonstrated in advance, at least receive in some way the security that a milestone delivered according to the rules, will be equivalent to a secure payment? could the council expose itself in this case?
I am sorry to repeat ourselves again, but for us to operate with ucg or grant behind us or a combination of both makes a lot of difference and unlike the past we need to know how and when to pay the developers who work for us.
We prefer to receive a negative response immediately otherwise.
We need to know that the commitment will be respected, not just assume that it can be respected. On our side we will have the limitations of the milestones, both in time and development obviously.
Gm just to announce, even if it is very unlikely, that if the current proposal is accepted and we receive the funds in the wrong way, that is before starting with the 3 milestones, our team, not being able to eliminate it today, will send the funds back immediately.
WUD X AoC collab
Let me explain this to you in more detail again.
To answer your question, everything will depend on the proposal you wish to submit. At the moment, you have two proposals in progress:
- One requesting a 990K ASTR grant: Age Of Chronos - Treasury Proposal
- Another requesting the 25M ASTR staking grant from the UCG program: Age Of Chronos - UCG Proposal
These proposals, as Dino already explained, are handled differently depending on which treasury you’re requesting the funds from.
- If you’re requesting funds from the community treasury, the Community Council will be the one to respond to your request.
- If you’re requesting funds from the main treasury, you’ll need to go through the main Council or a referendum (which is actually the best route in your case).
All of this is clearly explained in our documentation: Astar Subsquare - Onchain Governance | Welcome to Astar
So, what’s the point I’m trying to make?
You’re requesting a guarantee from our side, but our governance is executed 100% on-chain. Therefore, if you want a grant or something similar, the guarantee lies in your deliverables.
One final piece of advice I can give you: lower the score of your proposal and apply to our UCG program through the Community Council. It’s the most common and effective path for projects with a similar or even earlier stage than yours, and we currently have available slots.
I hope this information helps you, best of luck on your journey in Astar!
thanks to all for the support and explanations.
Astar Degen also gave his positive opinion on the development of AOC.
Clearly the last proposal was wrong. What we ask the council in this post is if, net of an early development, therefore with milestones presented before, each of 330k astar, it was possible to have for the implementation of the proposal, only the opinion of the council.
The initial response was that of not being able to evaluate the importance of the game in Astar, for this reason we then proceeded to the referendum, but in the case in which we commit ourselves first with our work, and above all with the complete and online game (Today you can test everything and understand if it is a possible value for Astar or not) would an evaluation of the council be possible or not?
Thanks for the answer, in the meantime we will proceed today to the proposal for UCG in parallel.
Directly answering your question: Yes, it’s absolutely possible for you to resubmit your proposal to the Main Treasury and request evaluation from the Main Council again, as long as you address the feedback provided by Gaius as a council member when you submitted it previously: Let's try again: Age Of Chronos proposal - #55 by Gaius_sama
Although in my opinion, a referendum is still your best option for this proposal.
The public referendum scares us, for many obvious reasons. In our opinion, Astar as a community is not in a position to make important decisions at this time, important because in any case it is an expense, even if truly insignificant, for the community and an important support for us developers. We have received, apart from your feedback here on the forum, only 2 answers to really take into consideration:
A positive one from ASTAR DEGENS
A negative one from a user who voted with many millions of astrs who rightly pointed out the problem of our proposal, having every reason to do so.
Then in general there have been few votes, few sincere interactions and this, beyond the fact that they want to sponsor a decentralized community, is obviously not very positive. If you give us the opportunity to work on astar, AOC could be a tool to reactivate the community and make it participate again.
This is our personal opinion, so we await your decisions.
@Juminstock just dm you, thanks for the help.
Understood, I’ll respond soon to continue providing you with the support and guidance you need.
1 Like
Today, for who is interested.
the game is already online but it could be a way to better understand the work we have done on moonbeam and that we could also do on Astar.
SFY is a serious team, it has always respected its development commitments and completed what it had set itself with its community. The only bitterness remains the episode of dapp staking here on astar, if you want, there will be the possibility to overcome that too.
2 Likes
Hey @disgustingchains, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
We understand that you’ve had differences with the project and its team, and it’s totally valid to express concerns or disagreements. That’s what community governance is all about.
That said, we kindly remind you to keep the conversation respectful and constructive, in line with our Community Guidelines. We’re all here to build a positive and organic ecosystem together, even when opinions differ.
I removed your post because it violates our community guidelines.
Let’s focus on ideas, not individuals, your voice matters, and keeping things civil helps everyone be heard more clearly.
Thanks for being part of the discussion and for helping us grow together! 
1 Like
Thanks for the reminder and for the opportunity to contribute constructively to the discussion.
Since my previous message was removed, I’d like to respectfully reiterate the core points I was raising—this time with full attention to tone and alignment with the Community Guidelines. I believe these concerns are relevant for the community to hear and consider.
1. Context matters when public funds are requested.
SFY Labs has applied for a DApp Staking slot and even UCG support, despite having previously left Astar in favor of Moonbeam. During that transition, many in the community—including team members and ambassadors—felt mistreated, and there was a clear breakdown in communication and trust. A return to Astar, especially with immediate funding requests, naturally raises some questions.
2. Governance awareness appears lacking.
The team’s current participation shows little understanding of Astar’s governance processes, while simultaneously suggesting changes or expectations as if the system were theirs to define. Moreover, it appears they don’t currently hold the minimum amount of ASTR tokens to support referenda deposits—despite having received DApp Staking rewards for months in the past.
3. No product deployed, yet funding requested.
At the time of writing, there is no deployed smart contract or measurable contribution on Astar from this team. Nonetheless, we’ve already seen proposals for 1M ASTR tokens, DApp Staking inclusion, and UCG admission—within a matter of weeks. Without a working product or demonstrated traction, this feels premature and misaligned with the community’s expectations around merit-based support.
4. Avoiding on-chain voting is concerning.
Statements from SFY Labs suggest a desire to avoid on-chain governance mechanisms due to concerns over turnout or potential negative outcomes. In a decentralized ecosystem, bypassing community voting can be seen as undermining the very principles we are trying to build on. If trust is lacking, open voting is the best way to rebuild it—not something to be avoided.
5. Rebuilding trust is necessary before requesting resources.
If a project has previously distanced itself from the network and community, it’s reasonable to expect a period of rebuilding—starting with actions, not requests. Deploy your product. Show measurable engagement. Bring value first, then funding discussions can follow.
To conclude, this is not about attacking individuals but about preserving the integrity of Astar’s governance and treasury. The question the community should be asking is:
“Does Astar currently need this project, or is it the project that now needs Astar?”
Let’s support growth, innovation, and contributions…but in an intelligent way and making the most of the shared memory of what has come before: mistakes are useful for learning and growing!
Thanks again for the space to voice this respectfully.
2 Likes
Strange username, and i will briefly respond to your clearly Ai generated comment nonetheless
-
A comment that has been addressed 10 times over. (Change in dApp staking parameters meant the team suffered a financial hit, Astar ended up implementing changes to dApp staking afterwards anyway)
-
Governance process isn’t straightforward. Check every other UCG proposal thread like i have.
-
UCG doesn’t require a product deployed.
-
Not concerning at all.
Case Study: Neemo Finance.
Currently #1 dApp on Astar by a large margin. If the community had their way, this would have been rejected. Took a whale to get Neemo’s vote passed.
Sfy Labs don’t have anon whale support.
- Does Astar need the project?
Well, currently there is an open UCG slot, and no competition for it whatsoever.
Every treasury proposal is not related to any technical development whatsoever. If people admit it or not, Astar L1 is a ghost town for development right now.
Sfy will be building an NFT marketplace - Astar doesn’t have any. Sfy will be implementing cross chain compatibility with Moonbeam initially, before possibly expanding to other chains.
Not sure why community members want this chain to be a ghost town.
Please no more ChatGPT replies, or it’s not worth responding to.
Question i would like to ask : from a technical perspective, what are the downsides here? The team have a proven track record and working product on MB , and an all star team to deliver.
This proposal would compliment the recent NFT Bridges UCG quite well as there is synergy between the projects, and Stephen (lead dev for RMRK and Sfy Labs) is helping NFT Bridges create a solution for RMRK standard NFTs.
The collaborative nature of this proposal is criminally understated and undervalued.
Look at the pipeline, or even the comments in this forum. There’s not much coming through from an Astar L1 perspective - why are people trying to gatekeep?
My answer can be simply summarized as: at the moment SFY Labs is not in a position to ask for support or funding from Astar Treasury to guarantee its return to the ecosystem, precisely because of your behavior in the past. Furthermore, it is SFY Labs interested in returning to Astar (probably because of UCG and Dapp Staking, which were so denigrated in the past), after all, it is neither the council nor any member of the Astar team who came knocking on your door.
But not everything is irretrievable, in this case it is enough to build, deploy the products and demonstrate your capabilities with facts. At that point you can make a request for funding. But first SFY Labs must regain the trust of the Astar community. Promises are not enough: the plans are always brilliant, but what matters is the implementation and above all the results!
Spoiler: continuing to insult Astar, its community or writing with a haughty tone does not help.
deployed in 6 months.
When you figure out how to integrate the astar blockchain into your video game (more video than game) let us all know.
Blockquote Spoiler: continuing to insult Astar, its community or writing with a haughty tone does not help.
I am not Sfy Labs bro - check my history. Been here a long time. I am a long standing figure in the community from the very beginning, and am entitled to my opinion and to express it how i like (within the guidelines , which I am)
Another important point is that the game is free to play - the NFt characters don’t cost anything besides paying a gas fee.
There is zero chance of Sfy Labs rugging the community - because they can’t.
There was no NFT sale.
There is no downside
Please, @SFY_Labs, for the third and final time, let’s avoid derogatory and sarcastic tones. The conversation is going very well, so let’s stay within the guidelines, please 
.
2 Likes
I didn’t use derogatory or sarcastic tones, I’m serious, I would be really happy to talk about technology and see what a team has built with the $80,000 raised.
We have made a proposal, meticulous, detailed, there is even an online game that we could talk about for days in many aspects, for example we really appreciated the discussion on singular, and we have already activated with those in charge to solve a possible problem on our own.
Anyway note that there are unfounded accusations against my team, written with chatgpt. A team that has worked without funds for 4 months also because of people like the one above, either you give me the right to answer, or please delete everything that is not relevant to the discussion.
I will be happy to do them too. I’m very tired.
@AstarHood since you have presented a negative vote as a member of the council, is it possible to know the reasons? you always gave a comment for everyone, and since you are a person who technically analyzes projects I would like to understand how you analyzed ours. It is strange not to receive a comment from you. thank you very much.