Let's try again: Age Of Chronos proposal

Astar
146

Hi

I would like to reply to share why I voted ‘nay’ on the proposal. Before I continue I would like to clearify 2 points, based on the history related to this project:

  • These opinions are my own; Our community council consist out of 5 votes, I only represent 1.
  • Don’t expect an open forum debate;

As community council I voted on the proposal to whitelist SFY Labs to dApp Staking, my vote was ‘nay’:

Becaus the voting was about dApp Staking, I found some misalignment with the code of conduct that can be found here: dApp Staking Code of Conduct | Welcome to Astar

dApp Staking is not a grant or charity program. Projects must be capable of sustaining themselves without relying solely on staking rewards.

Based on the discussion happening here, I have a personal worry. This personal worry is based on SFY Labs history at Astar. What if SFY Labs joins dApp Staking and stakers are not coming and rewards are low, SFY Labs will attact Astar Foundation again for not supporting smaller project. So I would like to know as part of chaning my decision: are you aligned with this rule in the code of conduct, that you are responsible for the to keep your project sustainable without relying solely on staking rewards coming from dApp Staking.

Related to this of building a systainable project, I’m wondering how you build and maintain community. Based on your Twitter profile, I found: SFY Labs. This hub links to your Telegram that doesn’t allow messages and has been silent since January. I have doubts if this whole discussion is of any value to Astar.

As you are aware is that Astar is now a Collective with entities as ACC (Astar Community Council), AFC (Astar Finance Committee), … and also Astar Foundation. As part of ACC in the Collective, I don’t see any value for the ASTR token in what I can find.

image
image1751×1592 108 KB

Inclusion in dApp Staking does not imply endorsement or automatic trust. Projects must earn and maintain credibility through transparent operations, strong community engagement, and consistent results.

After being banned on the forum for well-know reasons, you came back immediatly with a proposal to join dApp Staking, UCG and even went for treasury request for funding… I would have expected that you first would try to gain back the trust in the Astar community and stakeholders before going with a treasury proposal or a new dApp Staking listing after being delisted.

It would have been a huge difference if you just launched the game on Astar to show your commitment, or a social post saying about your commitment again towards Astar or any statement about what happened before.

Small other concerns:

  • I’m wondering during the Moonbeam space you posted, you prefered to keep anonymous? The other gaming projects turned on their cam’s but you decided not to do this. What’s the reason?
  • I’m not a gamer, so I’m not able to judge your gaming studio skills.
  • Do you see yourself as gaming studio for the niche market? The reason why I’m asking is that you keep focusing on RMRK while based on my research there hasn’t been any developments anymore or BD towards this standard (since 2024). Reference: RMRK Team · GitHub, because you keep focusing on this standards your focus is on a niche market, is this correct? My worries here is that there is no adoption of any major NFT marketplace with this standard.

It would be great to answer some of my questions but I hope you don’t go in to a defense mode but can answer in a professional way as a founder should.

PS: I don’t engage in DMs around this topic.

147

@AstarHood

This particular vote is for a UCG proposal and not soley a dApp staking request. So obviously there is no worry around attracting stakers at this point.

UCG does not require a working product and is to allow for early stage teams a head-start to build a community and product on Astar if I am not mistaken.

I will let @SFY_Labs reply on your other queries.

Edit: RMRK standard is already developed. What isn’t being developed by the RMRK team is Skybreach (online metaverse game)

See Evrloot on Moonbeam as a huge RMRK NFT gaming project which generates 100’s to 1000’s of daily transactions

Blockquote It would have been a huge difference if you just launched the game on Astar to show your commitment, or a social post saying about your commitment again towards Astar or any statement about what happened before.

Unfortunately, developing a game costs money. The team are willing to deliver their milestone goals first, and then retroactively apply for the treasury funding. Once the game is live , the promotion of Astar will naturally follow.

There is also no other teams posting in this forum as much as Sfy currently , and no other team competing for that last spot.

My final comment to you @AstarHood - after your thorough analysis, do you agree that there is no risk to Astar here?

If Sfy Labs don’t deliver on their goals, there will be no payment delivered to them.
The upside is huge if they can build an NFT marketplace which every NFT project on Astar can use (there is no NFT marketplace existing right now).

And the NFT marketplace isn’t even their main objective, just a by-product. On Astar, we have no live games right now. That’s crazy. Teams have tried and unfortunately failed (i myself have been rugpulled by 2 Astar gaming projects who sold NFTs).

Gaming is a huge weakness we have right now. Also, Sfy game is free to play. No risk to bad community sentiment.

We’re getting:

A game
A cross chain marketplace
Smart contract development which is usually way more expensive.
Exposure to other chains when Sfy launches on other EVM chains.

The UCG proposal is just as much a gesture for Sfy to begin development so they can begin working (which is what they are highly skilled professionals at, and not to waste valuable time posting in forums). I think we can all agree that this topic has been discussed to death. Let’s let the team build now, please.

And judge them on their results. And not for past transgressions. What an example it would be for any other projects who want to build on Astar

Edit: We accepted NFT Bridges for UCG but now we don’t have an NFT marketplace. What if NFT projects want to launch on Astar but we don’t have the infrastructure to facilitate them? I beg for us all to please all look at the bigger picture here. There is no risk, only huge upside reward.

1 Like
148

Hi, I’m truly sorry to read your words. For two reasons: first, because we believe we’ve spent more time than anyone explaining our proposal, starting from the Grant (where we’re still waiting for a reply from the council), and second, because I read what feels like forced accusations.

The important thing is that we’ve always been fully transparent, and I’ll personally respond to you point by point. This despite the fact that our request is now one month old, and we’ve been bounced between the Grant, the UCg, people pretending not to understand, conflicting instructions regarding the onchain proposal… At this point, it’s pretty clear to us what the intention is. We’ve even been advised to be more “politically smart” and simply take what we’re entitled to, because Astar is supposed to be a decentralized chain where objective merit matters more than subjective opinion. But honestly, we have many doubts about that now.

Let’s start with the most important point:
SFY proposed, unlike what current dApps or others (who have received community funds, deservedly or not, over the past two years) have done, two things that (we hope) can go hand in hand:

A direct Grant, with milestones submitted in advance by the team for all developments on Astar (we’re still waiting for the council’s answer, the application is a few posts above).

A UCg, which would take on a different role depending on whether the Grant is approved or not. If the Grant is approved, the UCg will be used to sponsor game transactions via paymaster and account abstraction. This requires specific services and comes with monthly costs. Without the Grant, we won’t be able to offer these features but will use UCg funds to support primary development of the dungeon.

That’s the summary. We’ve written and debated extensively on this, so it’s strange you noticed my livestream profile image rather than everything we’ve spent enormous time writing and discussing (again, it’s been a month since our first message).

Regarding the accusations—like the last one—I want you to know that we’re Italian, we’ve held public livestreams for Astar and promoted the network on one of the biggest crypto channels in our country. We’re a registered company with a tax ID that half the Dotsama ecosystem is familiar with. We’ve done interviews and shared videos of our lab. The livestream with Moonbeam (moderators from New York) was at 11:00 PM our time—of course, I joined from home to protect my privacy. Being accused of hiding things is embarrassing, and I expect an apology for this point, especially since neither Moonbeam nor any other call participants had an issue with it. Oh, and by the way, we signed a legal contract with Moonbeam—unlike teams that scammed this network for hundreds of thousands of dollars and are still hiding under fake names here, seemingly just trying to get back at us.

Here’s what I mentioned:

  1. https://youtu.be/VeuLJ-0fN_c?si=v4OuJ8gphZaxUE5B

  2. Astar sponsorship on our YouTube channel (unfortunately it was a members-only link, but others attended—Vasaking can confirm, along with other Italian users):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUNN8gHb-_4

  3. Company website: https://www.stickyfactory.it/
    You’ll find everything—registered office, VAT number, and partnerships (including Parity/Polkadot). We’ve even invoiced Web3 Foundation.

You now have more info than any project here has ever provided. You have our faces and legal data. Please don’t compare what we do with others.
As I’ve already mentioned several times, our engagement on Astar has cost us $12,000—strange that no one looked into that.

You focused on a profile picture but missed the fact that we refunded all AOC stakers on Astar for purchased NFTs. Maybe go see where those who sold NFTs via Yoki Port are now—that’s just one example to show the difference.

And don’t just take my word for it—listen to others:

Do you consider The Kusamarian a neutral third party? They’ll soon release another video about us as well.

Also, since people questioned what SFY has done for Astar in the past:

We granted full staking rewards (30%) until the final listing day of Sapp staking (yes, even when we received only 66 ASTR per era—it’s all onchain, check it).

And we distributed all NFTs that were offered as staking rewards—valuable ones, including BTC Ordinals mints, with minting fees of hundreds of dollars (back when mempool was overloaded):

Also worth pointing out: SFY provided 3D artwork for Astar’s Berlin event as early as 2021. SFY and Astar have known each other for longer than most people currently in this space. So no, we’re not strangers.

And regarding Telegram—it’s not a priority channel for us. This was again misjudged. If you visited our X account, you’d notice it’s active every day (unlike some teams you’ve funded with thousands of dollars) and engages daily with users. What’s the point in focusing on Telegram when we chose a different strategy? We simply wanted to create a dedicated AOC profile and haven’t decided yet if it’ll be on Telegram or another platform. The game was launched recently—we’ll soon hold a tournament with N3mus and will decide. But again, if this is available:
https://x.com/SFY_Labs?t=Hsv1SWU-PkxYTWoEpjmL1w&s=09
…what’s the point of your question? Look at how much material you could have found about us—you only chose to highlight a trivial social cue.

But the real lack—both of respect and of logic—is not evaluating the game itself. You may not be a gamer or technical enough to understand what RMRK is (you called it a “niche,” minimizing it again—but I think FFR23 reply was quite exhaustive about the protocol), but how can you vote on a proposal without evaluating the actual dApp?
how would you rate Evrloot without playing it and without understanding how RMrk works within it? do you know that it is the only game on dotsama to have received a pre-seed funding of $500,000 from several Angel investors? are they all crazy? if you had read our documentation you would know that AoC currently provides among other things a leveling system or chain for each single nfts. the RMrk protocol in this case is fundamental for us, how could we do differently? does anyone have a solution? should I not use the niche protocol as you say even if it is the technical answer to my needs?
We’ve written articles, built an MVP, then the full game, shared onchain TXs, and asked the Astar community for feedback (which we collected). What more do you want, exactly? A pretext to exclude us? Are you waiting for a behavioral slip-up?

We came back because Astar should be a decentralized ecosystem where anyone, with good intentions and proven skills, can build.
Out of three council members, you and tksarah wrote things that simply aren’t true, diminishing a product my team worked on for months—one with incredible superficiality, and the other by looking at everything except what truly matters in evaluating a dApp.

We’re disappointed.
if this is the research and the way of evaluating I understand why Astar is in these conditions.

149

Good morning everyone,
leaving aside the issue of the way the proposal was presented – an error already admitted by Sfy – I’d like to focus on what seems like a real settling of scores, rather childish. Sfy’s manners may not be politically correct, but they are undeniably frank and truthful. In the business world, it would be wiser to set aside personal sympathies or grudges and focus on the good of the actual business.
I’m not a player and probably will never use the product, unless there are economic interests at stake. However, it’s undeniable that this project brings traffic to the network and value to ASTR, not to mention that there are no similar products in our network. The requested amount is relatively small, and the result is practically guaranteed. The feeling is that people are digging in their heels to “make him pay” for someone who cares more about substance than form. Continuing to stroke our egos only fuels pride but risks making you lose sight of the primary goal of your role: improving the network.

1 Like
150

thanks @Marroz , I was about to add this, I asked chat gpt how much the type of work done by my team to get to this type of game would cost. It won’t be a certain evaluation but for sure aiming for around $30,000 to repay the expenses alone is really ridiculous on our part. Why do you do it, why do you need more chains?

Simply as already said we want the game to travel through different chains and for there to be as many users as possible, in a not too distant future we want to get to what Evrloot has reached today, a game that we esteem, the only one that we really esteem a lot for ideology and therefore that they have demonstrated. Currently they are many steps forward obviously having started much earlier.

Our game on some points is also more complex and expensive to produce, for example the part exclusively of the game is in first person and in 3d reproducing new environments monsters with movements and logic is complex. I would also like to point out that everything, and I repeat everything, except the Lore of the game (help yourself with text ai), and some music that we used with permissions after paying for it, was made by hand by us. Not that it is a bad thing to buy assets or use ready-made things, the important thing is to do it with the right copyright permissions and specifying it in the cost calculation, something that is completely ignored not only here on astar but everywhere else.

IP is important even if no one here is building a AAA game, no one should allow themselves to essentially sponsor clones as innovative products or products that have been worked on for months. In the future we are certain that no one can say anything about AoC IP, and I repeat I do not want to get into the merits of other teams that have never responded on this point.

No fool would have done the work we did and suffered the humiliation received here on astar for reporting the truth and continue to try.

It’s simply something not remunerative, fortunately there are people who have already confirmed in other posts (I don’t remember who wrote that the wife works in the 3d sector). Here is the summary table, it won’t be precise but we’re getting close:

1000043790
10000437901079×1211 192 KB

151

Thanks for your reply.
The more I read, the more I’m convinced, I made the right vote as ‘nay’ to support further this project. These kind of replies strenghten my thoughts, why support those not even believing in Astar unless they get what they want:

As this opinion is mine, I’ll close the loop here.
I wish you all the luck in all future endavours in web3. Keep building!

152

nice attitude. you accused of hiding things, based an evaluation that should be objective on ideas that do not exist, false, presumptuous and incorrect, and now you also confirm this vote of yours. You can say what you want, but everyone will read your answer. You have the task of analyzing reality, after my answer the only thing left for you to do given the humiliation received on unfounded accusations of technical competence, you have no choice but to play the behavior card. You do well, keep it up. You are doing a great job.

PS: You AstarHood are not Astar.
if your job is to evaluate, I wouldn’t have said anything if you had said to me, your game doesn’t make sense to me, it’s poorly made or has these problems. You have personally accused and denigrated technical aspects that you clearly don’t know and you have shown that you don’t know. Everyone has read what you wrote, we don’t believe in people like you, Astra should be something different, but if an important role is filled by a person who behaves like a child in an attempt to sabotage the work of others, then it’s a big problem.

And we ask what we deserve following the rules that are present actually now. you are instead using your position to ban this without having any technical or regulatory issues or even behavioral ones. as they say in our parts, you are hanging on to pipe smoke.

153

Disappointed and surprised with that answer @AstarHood

You’ve taken two harmless quotes out of context and ignored every other comment from 3 users in total in regards the technical advantages.

We’ve wasted our time by commenting as your mind is already made up based on human bias alone. There is nothing we could have said to have been given a fair shot or attempt at changing your mind, or you hearing the proposal out.

With a response like the one you’ve given, calling out their integrity and commitment to Astar, you’re basically trying to goad an illicit response from @SFY_Labs , and then afterwards say “see, told you so.” “Keep building though.”

It’s disingenuous and disrespectful - no other team has been subject to this level of scrutiny.

Look around the forum - there’s no other team commenting here right now. There’s no other team with an appetite to develop here.

Sfy are the only ones commenting - it’s Sunday, and your questioning their desire to develop here?

They’re wasting their time in here while all they want to do is build?

Worrying for the future of this eco and no surprise we are where we are.

Let’s await the outcome of this vote from the rest of the council.

I hope they have pure intentions and want Astar to succeed like the majority of people in this forum.

@pitcoin777 @Gaius_sama @jay

As i believe you are the remaining voters left from the council, I humbly ask that you please judge this UCG request from a technical perspective only, and from the perspective of if the Astar ecosystem, teams, and community would benefit from the value and already live cross-chain partnerships this team provides with no human bias to influence your decision.

I hope it is purely a technical and risk / reward based analysis taking into account the needs of Astar (no NFT marketplace is a huge gaping one)

Thank you very much.

154

Let me start by saying that I don’t claim to know who is right or wrong in this discussion, nor do I consider myself expert enough to have all the answers. However, as an outside observer, I’d like to share a reflection that I believe many might share.
This conversation is public, and anyone on the forum can read it and draw their own conclusions. From my perspective, it’s clear that the best interests of Astar are unfortunately taking a backseat in this debate. I’m not referring to those who put forward the proposal, but to those responsible for evaluating and deciding on it. I find it unacceptable that the discussion is focusing on tone, form, hidden agendas, or personal matters rather than on the technical merits of the proposal itself.
I formally request a definitive report on whether the proposal is accepted or rejected, supported by comprehensive and objective technical arguments. Personal opinions or unrelated dynamics have no place in this process. I urge everyone involved to reflect on their role, which carries both responsibilities and honors, and to refocus on our shared goal: the progress of Astar.

1 Like
155

Case in point here - we have no centralised NFT marketplace so all of our collections are scattered.

Recently onboarded to UCG - team NFT Bridges have developed a solution but Astar lacks the infrastructure to be able to support NFT Bridges effectively due to all the 3rd party NFT marketplaces rugging - and Sfy Labs can provide the solution with their cross chain marketplace.

We are seeing issues in real time that Astar is facing that Sfy Labs can provide solutions for.

NFT communities will be huge on Sonieum

Would echo the above comment from @Marroz on a technical report analysis being required for the sake of transparency.

156

@pitcoin777 yes the request is for UCg, we have explained it several times, even if in reality it is not clear. in terms of the regulation we asked before proceeding if we had to deploy a contract on ASTAr because for us having worked on a game that can be used on any EvM it was relatively simple to do, but we were told that for UCg it was not necessary. We do not understand why our game should be identified as a after that does not contribute anything to this ecosystem, there is a lack of an objective evaluation in our opinion both of the ecosystem (we cannot unbalance ourselves and say anything otherwise we would be accused of not believing and being offensive as above) and above all of our dapp. There was no technical discussion about it, and we are very sorry about this, even with negative ideas but at least technical. It would also be interesting to know @jay 's evaluation as it was done. If there are things that we can improve on a technical level we would be really happy to do so. We also shared statistics on moonbeam transactions, today we have a call for tournaments on N3mus and for example technically in that case to grant external rewards to players we will filter for each account the nfts present with the maximum onchain level. Here for example in this case applied another way of using the RMrk protocol and why we decided to adopt it. Then of course, we could have made a leaderboard on server directly in the unity game, but it would not have made sense.

157

@SFY_Labs

I have tried your game.

Please tell us how many players do you have on Moonbeam? What kind of engagement do you have there?

158

hello we can report these data for now:

  1. MVP sponsored by N3mus(july 2024) played by about 100 unique users in the lunar game festival, with about 1600 mint of the parent nfts and about 100 (we had only one level) children nfts, in fact the rewards of the players. each game counts a minimum of 3 onchain transactions between pay fee - start mission and end mission + the mint of characters and rewards(we will make a post soon about this)

  2. since the launch of the full game we are more or less on the same amount of bdi tx per day and we have doubled mint. Until now we have not started with the tournaments yet, this morning we have a call with Nail of N3mus and we will make an announcement about this. We also did a collaboration with Wud and it is an important test to understand how to use aoc as a drop tool for external projects. Everything always based on the onchain level.

Having said that I want to clarify one thing, AoC is presented on astar as on moonbeam in the past, we do not intend to make promises on interactions, in an ecosystem like the current astar we promise a functional game and value through the unlocking of rewards in a free way, we can certainly improve the aspect of the minimum fees by completely reducing the costs by installing a paymaster (if we are granted the direct grant as mentioned this will be financed by ucg support). In any case I would like your opinion on the game since you played, also considering the entire nfts collection completely in 3d for a total of about 200 unique pieces (when unlocking all levels), considering that the team has high server and service costs like that of thirdweb (with which if I’m not mistaken astar has a partnership, but I have never seen any dapp use … investment optimization … let’s talk about it too …) therefore arriving at a quantification of the 30k required. In your opinion are they many, are they few, are they the right ones? The game is inspired by Legend of Grimrock, the average game session after level 5 is about 30-45 minutes per dungeon according to our calculations. think that Legend of Grimrock has only 10 levels and has long dungeons more or less of the same duration. Our first saga in Nomindio Labs is 30 levels to get to the mint of the complete collection, I think you read the story, it is set for time travels, use of new environments and completely different equipables, in a different context. So we have already created everything to be able to insert new chains from the beginning, we have left nothing to chance. I leave two links below:

1 Like
159

Impressive numbers! Would love to see what ye guys could achieve with the Astar community and a gaming audience on a chain like Soneium.

I participated in the Evrloot N3mus tournaments, great way to raise marketing and attract new users to the game, so you should see a nice steady increase there like Evrloot did.

Looking forward to innovating with you guys and getting some item drops in your game - perfect way to mix communities between projects on Astar. This game has to potential to become a real central HUB, especially if / when you support Soneium EVM on your proposed marketplace which you have already stated previously is possible.

160

I don’t know if they are impressive or not. I think they are the reflection of a community. We are far from evrloot, but we have just started. Both Astar and Moonbeam do not have large communities, the multichain game could help both to receive new users, this is for sure, but it would be valid for any dapp this not only games. But it is not only valid for these two chains, we hope to be active elsewhere too. Not having active nfts marketplaces except singular for now forces us to think about a proprietary solution for the near future.

But we must ask ourselves why we have come to not have an nfts marketplace on a network. This is due to the poor quality of the proposals in terms of nfts and collectibles, alleged games or other. I think we all agree on this, right? We cannot blame only and exclusively those who managed that service to lose.
We do not know if our nfts will be successful in trading in the future, we have an idea to achieve this. Surely AI has also changed the nft sector. Digital creation was already poor in itself, AI has made the process infinitely poorer, and for this reason we turned to a niche protocol and made a one-of-a-kind collection at the base of the game. We added an activity that can be defined as “tailored” to a game, a platform that must have its own scalability.

Having said that, the paymaster would certainly help a lot, the moonbeam sponsorship has not yet made itself felt, in a few hours we will talk to N3mus and organize something, then we will also see those results.
At the marketing level, we have invested 0 for now.
In general:

-Marketing without a product is always negative
-A product without marketing is not necessarily negative, or it will be negative until you have the economic strength or community support to do it.

If after the delivery of the dapp and the achievement of the milestones, astar wants to help our team in involving the community, we will make our work and our professionalism available to do so. As long as the game, the dapp of any kind, is well built I don’t see any problems with this.
Then if we want to estimate minimum engagement objectives, basing this evaluation on the current performance of the astar network and active dapps, we can do it, but this cannot be included in the milestones unless there is a reevaluation of the grant amount.
With the funds and a working product, marketing and engaging new users is certainly not a problem.

I leave the economic evaluation of our game to you, I really invite you to analyze every aspect of it

161

Hello @SFY_Labs

After reviewing your proposal and considering feedback from the community, I’d like to share my opinion and outline a few key expectations and conditions regarding your participation in the UCG program and dApp Staking:

1. Second Chance & Accountability

I’ve decided to vote AYE on your UCG proposal to give your team a second chance within the Astar ecosystem. However, with this opportunity comes increased accountability. Given your prior history, I expect clear, consistent progress aligned with the commitments you’ve made in your application.

2. Updated Milestones Required

In a separate forum thread, you mentioned that not receiving the full $30K UCG grant would impact your delivery timeline and progress. Before the Astar Community Council proceeds with staking on your dApp, please submit an updated version of your UCG milestones, so we are fully aligned on what is expected moving forward.

3. Grant Oversight & Unstaking Conditions

UCG grants are milestone-based. If milestones are missed, or the ACC is not satisfied with the quality or pace of your delivery, we reserve the right to issue a formal warning on the forum and, if necessary, unstake from your dApp. The goal here is not to micromanage, but to ensure fairness and transparency in how community resources are allocated.

4. Ecosystem Contribution & Communication

We encourage open, respectful, and constructive communication with the community. Regular updates, even brief ones,go a long way in building trust and showing commitment. Please note that voting on UCG proposals is not solely based on technical merit, we also assess go-to-market strategy, business model, and the team’s conduct. Since funds are being allocated to support a project, it’s crucial for us to evaluate the team’s ability to stay focused and deliver on its promises.

That said, I’ve noticed continued public criticism of Astar Network and individual council members in your recent messages. This raises valid concerns about your long-term intentions, whether you aim to build value here or are merely pursuing grants. Attacking council members or community voices because of differing opinions is not acceptable and will only damage the level of support and engagement your project might otherwise receive.

5. Final Note

We’re offering support with cautious optimism. This is an opportunity for your team to rebuild credibility through delivery, not debate. I strongly encourage you to spend your energy building your product, rather than engaging in unproductive arguments on the forum.

Looking forward to seeing your progress and how you can bring value to the Astar ecosystem.

Gaius_sama
Astar Community Council

4 Likes
162

Hi, this is a message that was personally unexpected. I really appreciate the openness and the delivery methods, and positive interactions, we have never asked for anything different, we simply have not been given the opportunity to do so in the past.

We agree on every single point, my personal role will be to act as a bridge between the sfy and astar team, we can’t wait to finally be able to talk about proactive ideas for the ecosystem. I really agree with you on everything.

Just a note, because perhaps our initial proposal and the discussion of the amount of $ 30,000 were not understood

We first asked for a direct grant where the council according to certain methods (the ones you just specified are fine for us) had evaluated our milestones and then we were paid.

UCG is a measure that for the amount requested, will certainly not be able (unless there were any price explosions of the astr token) to make up for the total of $ 30,000. In 8 months we are talking about $18,000 at the current price, and honestly it would already be too long, we know that we can build and we know that we can do it in much shorter times.

So the final proposal made to all of you in an attempt to reconcile the existing measures with our needs was:

Direct grant: We commit to anticipate the work and bring to the council’s vision the milestones that we will have established TOGETHER before starting. The council will only have to promise impartiality and no emotionality, if the milestone is reached and every single point respected, it will have to commit to the implementation of the direct grant.
Every single milestone will not be connected to the other and will be indirectly protected by the ucg rewards in the event of negative evaluations of the work done.

Ucg will have an evaluation (monthly? weekly? you decide) not connected to the direct grant.

In the event that not all the points are respected at the presentation of milestone 1, but for the timing and communications ucg instead we will be in order, we will use the funds received from the ucg to be able to move forward and re-present the milestone.

Ucg will be a sort of protection both for us at sfy labs and astar so that the main funds are not wasted and the development is abandoned. In the past we had to do it for the survival of the project, since many rules changed on the fly and we had a dro of 90% on the rewards considered at the start, I remember that at the time there was no code of conduct written in the current way, and that it was not written anywhere that a project had to be necessarily self-sufficient and not consider the primary rewards. Ucg was 2 million and was insufficient to calmly plan the work to be done. Those were different times and I repeat there was no possibility of mediating the solution. But we have done everything we proposed on astar, even if on another network this must make it clear that my team has the technical capabilities to complete the work.

I also add, that in the case of both direct grant and Ucg will be paid because SFY will have satisfied the astar team in every point, part of the ucg funds will be used to guarantee a game free from any fee, including network fees, by activating a paymaster and obviously doing marketing as well as repaying the costs of servers and external services.

Every time we use these ucg funds outside of the work milestones we want to share with you everything we will do.

OPTIONAL:
We do not actually know what the community’s response will be, but if we want we can also establish together an additional milestone, not binding as a bonus to be established upon reaching a certain number of interactions and ONCHAIN ​​transactions.

I leave this faculty and the decision on the numbers to reach to you

That said, I agree on the methods and the certainty of binding delivery, my team worked the same way with moonbeam and in fact it is the same thing. We have nothing to hide and astar as a community has nothing to lose by pursuing these methods.

Gaius, I take care of the interactions here on the forum, there are 6 other people who work on something completely different, obviously I would also like to talk about what is being built and not create useless polemics.
For me it is a very high stress to have this type of conversation, I have no intention of attacking anyone in the council, but let’s hope that the respect is bi-directional.
If a person has doubts and asks for explanations and these explanations will be given, please consider them.

What do you think is a reasonable solution for you?
If I will move on to the creation of the Milestones for direct grant and creation of the timeframes to reach them.
Then I will create milestone that will be exclusively about UCG.
In fact, according to this logic, the UCG milestones will be nothing more than the points present in the grant milestones with different timeframes, presented in a deferred manner.

163

As mentioned in the UCG guidelines, milestones are required to outline what can be expected in the months following your onboarding into the UCG program:

:link: UCG Program Guidelines

You can refer to the following applications as examples:

Since you’ve already drafted milestones for your Treasury Grant application, I suggest revising your roadmap and tailoring the milestones specifically for the UCG program, taking into account both the support offered by the program and your internal resources.

Gaius_sama
Astar Community Council

1 Like
164

Of course I will do exactly that. We will divide those milestones.

Regarding the direct grant from the treasury, however, you have not answered us yet, is it feasible?
treasury grant - council vote - payment?

It is important for us to understand this thing, because I repeat only with ucg we are talking about much less funds, about half and in 8 months.
We all expect an increase in the astar token … We would be willing to work even with just ucg for 8 months, knowing that we can count on the total amount of 30,000 but we cannot know this in advance.

Let us specify that each milestone would be converted into astar tokens at the time of presentation, for example if 3, we could divide by amounts of $ 10,000 each and in a few months maybe we are talking about less or more astar tokens at the time of the exchange. What do you say?

165

Vote: Nay for dApp Staking | Aye for UCG Support

I’ve just updated my vote after clarifying that this proposal is for the Unstoppable Community Grants (UCG), not the dApp Staking program.

With that understanding, I support the application under the UCG framework. While the project is not yet deployed on Astar, I believe the UCG is the appropriate channel to support early exploration and assess its potential long-term value for the ecosystem.

As outlined in the dApp Staking Code of Conduct:

“Requirements to join dApp Staking may vary depending on the deployment chain. Projects on non-native chains (e.g., Soneium or Ethereum) must clearly demonstrate how they benefit the Astar ecosystem and meaningful ASTR token. This includes—but is not limited to—using ASTR as a payment method, in-app currency, staking mechanism, or any integration that creates real value for ASTR holders.”

This project is currently native to Moonbeam, and based on the roadmap and available documentation, I do not see a clear strategy for generating utility for the ASTR token or delivering direct value to the Astar ecosystem at this stage.

That said, I acknowledge the potential and support this proposal as a UCG initiative to help the team explore deployment on Astar. However, I do not believe it currently fulfills the criteria or strategic fit necessary for inclusion in the dApp Staking program.

1 Like