Proposal to Change ASTR Tokenomics to Fixed Supply

Economics
83

Thank you everyone again for all the thoughtful comments and for engaging with this proposal in such a constructive and forward-looking way. I wanted to take a moment to directly address some of the concerns raised by various contributors — we really appreciate the time and care behind them.

1. Fixed Supply vs. Low Inflation Anchor

“I am opposed to fixing the supply… I recommend fixing the inflation rate once it has been reduced to a certain level, such as 0.5%.” — @you425

This is a very fair concern. The proposed fixed supply is primarily designed from an investment thesis perspective — to bring long-term clarity for institutional alignment and prepare Astar for more strategic initiatives including some related to Soneium.

Importantly, under the proposal’s emission decay, ASTR issuance maintains 81% after year 1, and 65% after year 2. According to our model, emissions won’t reach 0.5% annualized levels until years, so we have ample buffer to observe the ecosystem’s evolution and make adjustments as needed.

2. dApp Staking “Phase-Out” or Sustainability Risk

“Fixing the supply would result in a gradual phase-out of dApp Staking, raising sustainability concerns.” — @you425
“The current dApp staking system is not functioning properly… Fix that before moving forward.” — @AstarPunks

This is a nuanced issue. dApp Staking was introduced over 5 years ago, and while it served a critical role during our early growth, the current developer environment and financial stack have changed dramatically.

The truth is, dApp Staking in its current form has limited appeal for today’s builders, especially compared to more tailored tools (points systems, LPs, milestone grants, Soneium promotion, etc.). I think it is not directly related to fixed supply discussions, and we should create a dedicated working group to improve dApp Staking — ideally toward simpler, goal-oriented, and governance-aware models in the later stage.

3. Sustainability of Core Infrastructure (AFC, Treasury, Coretime)

“There’s no guarantee that non-inflationary income can cover coretime or strategic needs.” — @you425

Thanks for surfacing this. Hope to clarify: ASTR inflation is not currently used as main source to pay for coretime or infrastructure costs. ASTR inflation is now mostly burned or directed to builders/stakers/collaters.

So while long-term sustainability remains important, the emission cap does not hinder core infrastructure funding, which is designed to evolve with AFC and future revenue sources.

4. Developer Incentives & “Builder-First” Vision

“Developers should be the first to be given preferential treatment.” — @AstarPunks

I agree with the principle — builders are at the heart of any thriving network.

In 2020, inflation-driven rewards made sense. Today, builders are incentivized by more nuanced and competitive stacks: points programs, reputation-based grants, exposure to real-world users (e.g. via Soneium), and yield/liquidity alignment.

Again, this reinforces why we should treat developer incentives as a separate topic, to be worked on jointly with the Main Council, Community Council, and AFC teams.

5. Governance Centralization Risk (e.g. Exchanges or LSDs)

“Voting rights via exchanges or LSDs could result in disproportionately large voting power.” — @you425

This is an important concern, but one that is orthogonal to whether we use inflation or not. Governance centralization should be tackled through mechanism design, and we’re exploring:

  • Custodial delegation restrictions

  • Active voter boosts

  • Transparent delegation metrics

Happy to open a dedicated governance safeguards thread to explore and co-design these ideas.

6. “What Is Astar’s USP in This New Paradigm?”

“What is the unique selling point (USP) of Astar, especially if ETH gas and stablecoins dominate?” — @priceylife

I appreciate this question — it’s fundamental.

To me, Astar’s unique positioning lies in becoming the staking, coordination, and governance hub of the Astar DAO Collective, which aims to deliver blockchain technologies for real-world adoption, not just a smart contract platform. The ASTR token powers this layer — with usage across:

  • Governance (via dApp Staking + proposal voting)

  • DeFi (as a routing asset & collateral)

  • Consumer applications (e.g., points, badges, rewards)

  • Gas token + AA integrations on Soneium

The supply cap brings credibility and predictability to this thesis — helping us decouple incentives from inflation and focus instead on non-inflationary value creation.

7. Cap Support but Caution on dApp Staking Sustainability

“I support a cap, but have questions about the impact on dApp Staking.” — @Beck

That’s very fair. The multi-year decay curve and AFC are precisely designed to ease the transition.

With ~10 years before hitting 0.5% emission levels, we have time to:

  • Pilot new funding mechanisms

  • Launch Astar-native dev opportunities

  • Incentivize governance participation

  • Refactor dApp Staking into a long-term aligned format

Thanks again for all the input — please feel free to share if further comments.

7 Likes
84

Thank you for your reply.

1. Fixed Supply vs. Low Inflation Anchor

Yes, I assumed this proposal was made from that perspective. However, when it was first introduced, it wasn’t clearly stated that the focus was on the investment perspective (i.e., token value). That’s why some of the earlier questions arose.

I think the question now is whether the community will accept a proposal framed from that perspective.

It’s true that under the current model we have a 10-year buffer, but honestly, I’m not sure whether it’s better to “remove the supply cap 10 years from now” or “establish a supply cap 10 years from now.”

From a marketing perspective, I think introducing a supply cap now would have more effect. But whether that’s the right choice, I can’t say for sure.

2. dApp Staking “Phase-Out” or Sustainability Risk

Whether it’s directly related depends on whether dApp Staking itself will be changed. At this point, I believe it is directly related, which is why it has come up in discussion.

That said, I agree with setting up a dedicated working group to discuss this. Even as emissions decrease, parameter adjustments should be enough to manage it for the time being.

3. Sustainability of Core Infrastructure (AFC, Treasury, Coretime)

On this point, I do have a clear objection. Currently, there are actual expenditures from both the Main Treasury and the Community Treasury. These include payments to Agents/ACC/AFC, event costs, and Subscan’s expenses, among others. There are also direct grant applications.

These funds have been accumulating because of inflation. Cutting off this revenue source will indeed create a problem.

Right now, the amounts being used aren’t very large, and accumulation still outweighs spending, so it hasn’t become an issue yet. But obviously, if revenue falls, deficits will eventually occur — and waiting until then would be too late.

1 Like
85

Thank you so much for the comment @you425 , many valuable inputs.

As we discussed separately, the focus of changing to fixed supply is more from institution initiative perspective but not only marketing perspective.

Regarding the question around actual expenditures from both the Main Treasury and the Community Treasury, reduce selling pressure and maintain ASTR token price in the longer term via reducing inflation is our motivation. Considering the current size of treasury, I think maintaining ASTR price may be more of a priority compared to generating more ASTR.

@Gaius_sama may have more insights on the council expenditure side, thank you so much

2 Likes
86

Thank you.

If there is such a strategic background, this choice makes sense. Since we can observe the situation until the supply actually runs out, it should be fine to make a decision at a later stage in this case.

87

Currently, the combined size of our treasuries, including the Main Treasury, Community Treasury, and AFC, stands at approximately 830M ASTR.

At this stage, expenditures from the Main Council and ACC remain quite limited relative to the total treasury size, which makes me less concerned about the point you raised. Over the past five years, treasury management has been extremely conservative in terms of spending (excluding the ACS campaign). Even with a gradual reduction in the revenue stream, this should not significantly affect treasury stability. Moreover, AFC has already begun generating revenue from other sources, a model we could potentially explore for other idle treasury funds to ensure continued income once inflation no longer contributes.

2 Likes
88

If the discussion is reaching a close and there’s general alignment among participants, I’m happy to initiate an offchain vote of confidence on Subsquare to finalize the decision and move toward implementing the new tokenomics.

If anyone still has questions or concerns, please raise them soon, otherwise, I’ll begin preparing the vote in the coming weeks.

9 Likes
89

The offchain confidence vote for Tokenomics 3.0 is now live on Opensquare. :ballot_box_with_ballot:

This vote gives ASTR holders the opportunity to signal their sentiment on a proposed structural change to ASTR tokenomics: transitioning from an inflationary model to a fixed-supply system with emission decay, updated fee distribution, and Protocol-Owned Liquidity (POL).

Voting Options

:one: Transition ASTR to a capped, fixed-supply model with emission decay
:two: Maintain the current inflationary tokenomics model
:three: Neutral / Abstain from signaling preference

Parameters

  • Voting Period: September 17, 2025, 00:00 UTC → September 28, 2025, 00:00 UTC
  • Snapshot for Voting Power: September 17, 2025
  • Outcome Calculation: Decided by balance-of results (weighted by token balance)
  • Vote Type: Offchain confidence vote (non-binding)

Context

Tokenomics 3.0 introduces:

  • Fixed maximum supply (~10.5B ASTR)
  • Emission decay → gradual reduction of staking rewards over time
  • Fee distribution update → 50% burn, 30% to collators, 20% to treasury
  • Protocol-Owned Liquidity (POL) → sustainable coretime acquisition without reliance on crowdloans

How to Participate

:ballot_box_with_ballot: Cast your vote: https://voting.opensquare.io/space/astar/proposal/QmQzbYYTbRAgYK2LLfC6GVExVxTvMtT15vdGVKcF2FZwFk

This vote is non-binding, but the outcome will guide the Astar community and governance bodies in determining whether to advance Tokenomics 3.0 for further development and implementation.

Your participation is essential in shaping the future of ASTR. :glowing_star:

6 Likes
90

Big action for Astar, I like it. New tokenomics could be a real step toward long-term sustainability with capped supply, emission decay, and POL.

Love that the community gets to signal first, feels very Web3-native again. Curious to see how ASTR holders lean on this one…)