Hi @tksarah I agree with many things.
In any case, it should be established how to discuss all this, in the sense of whether it should be a discussion disconnected from the one regarding the reformulation of dapp staking or not. I think that dividing things only creates confusion.
In any case, even if I agree with many points, many other points are not valid for us.
Number 4 for example is a point that tries to take all the weight of the current failure off the shoulders of those who built the model. And let me explain better.
Dapp staking that is not technically a grant is true. But it always depends on the type of dapp and the economic objectives set.
For example, at the time, with AoC we could deliver our entire development simply by taking the rewards that were due to us. The fact that dappstaking was sufficient and the basis of the project’s development, was not and would not be a negative thing, if there were clear and serious rules, indeed in the case of multiple projects that arrived at a final product simply with what for some were simple tips, it could be a great boast for the ecosystem. Taking attention away from the failure of the model by making it become a simple partial support in the eyes of developers, is not an advantage for astar, it is only an advantage to excuse the current state of things. I don’t know if I explained myself. If a dapp manages to develop the entire project with dappstaking, it is only a positive thing for ASTAR.
IF OUT OF THE HUNDREDS OF DAPPS LISTED IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTING DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS HAVE NOT WORKED SERIOUSLY.
The code of conduct should be entirely based on milestones. Milestones must unlock earning periods.
1)The dapp develops and reaches milestones
2) if achieved, enablement to earn for a period in build & earn
3) in the same period, the new milestone reached can be presented and the cycle repeated
Dapp staking v3 must be eliminated. all listed dapps must be immediately checked.
Fixed number of supported dapps could be a fair model.
It is not written anywhere that there must be 200 dapps and that they are then left without control in many cases and without support in many other cases. It seems to me that he used this number for marketing, to show that all the developers of dotsama had entered the first parachain to develop magnificent things. This thing has not paid off today.
The core team has made dappstaking something secondary to the development narrative on astar, freeing up time and resources. The v3 is the classic barrier that tries to cut costs, but at the same time keeps the portal pages full, with many logos of many projects.
A huge mistake, dapp staking must be a qualitative project, based on real development, controlled and rightly remunerative for those who work well. The possible idea of quantifying support as help and not the basis of the project is what will bring less quality to the new dappstaking and projects of low value.
You can’t go from cases in which dapps have earned thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years without delivering anything to a simple tip for those who then want to really get involved.
Lowering the standards of support just because in the past there hasn’t been a high standard of control is the stupidest option that the community can choose.
I’m not saying always, but every now and then listen to the voice of those who have a real interest in developing and have already demonstrated something, even if not on astar.
Let’s stop with the victim mentality and with everyone against everyone. Let’s coordinate a new system, something worth investing funds for, and let the community decide this.
Dapp staking MUST be linked to the government vote. Stakers must get involved. We need to work hard on that, not on the definition of grant/support!
For the rest, we attach here our idea already expressed in the other post, unfortunately it is difficult to talk about some points you expressed without writing about others.