Proposal to delist AGE OF CHRONOS (SFY Labs)

This proposal aims to delist AGE OF CHRONOS (SFY LABS) from dApp staking on Astar Network due to the team migrating the development to Moonbeam and in the words of the team itself:

Thus, the proposal initially developed by SFY Labs and approved by the Astar community in October 2023 was linked to the development and use of the ASTR rewards exclusively for building on the Astar Network.

Migrating to another network and abandoning development on Astar to continue development on another network contradicts what was proposed and approved by the community in October 2023.

The proposal to delist values the integrity of the Astar Network community and ensures that all teams execute what they have proposed (and have been approved to do solely and exclusively by the Astar community).

Every team can do whatever they want with the rewards received from dApp Staking, as long as what is being done was proposed and approved by the community.



A favorable vote, and of great importance for the moment, if they delay, they will win without deserving it.

1 Like

It is right that this proposal was made.
Natural consequence of what the current situation is. Nothing to say.
It’s strange to only be answered now, weeks after our inevitable decision to change due to lack of support.

The only thing to add is WHY we arrived at this choice 4 months after our original proposal, because the story must be told in its entirety.

SFY has been in contact with the ASTAR team since early 2021, probably even some of the current Ambassadors were not present at the time.
We have always supported the team’s work actively and for us it remains among the most promising in terms of development today.
We were among the first teams to bring art and cultivate an nfts community to the dotsama ecosystem. Not only that, in the last 3 years we have worked with different teams (including Parity) and communities, supporting them with our work and being recognized as “serious professionals”.

This was confirmed at the time of our dapp staking proposal also by some of you and by the team itself.

Before launching our team into a new development adventure, that of a game that used our graphic experience and the RMRK technology that we have studied consistently over the years and of which we are proud promoters today, we evaluated different options.

Speaking both privately with the ASTAR team and evaluating what the contribution of dapp staking was (the good @0xRamz can confirm, he shared with us all the tables and projections of v2 staking), we understood that we could self-finance our project and we decided to expand the team to 9 people, including game and blockchain developers on the team.

With 5 million ASTARs staked we were just able to pay for the work done by these 2 professionals added to the team and it was an important support for us.
With 5 million ASTAR we received 500 astr x it was approximately. We believed in the narrative of dapp staking and began to cultivate this way of self-financing the project through targeted marketing which over the months has also brought benefits to the Astar community itself.

After a few weeks we were told that dapp staking was changing and to do everything we could to promote our work and our dapp. It should be noted that the concept of dapp staking V3 had already been presented before we made our request for dapp staking, but that NO ONE is among the Astar team (very serious for us given the relationship we have had over the years) and neither among yourselves Ambassadors who welcomed us among the developers, never even mentioned this process.

We concentrated only on our work, we could not know all the proposals taking place in the community, just as today we do not know all the discussions taking place of any other kind. So this change surprised us.

You can’t attract developers with a support promise of 100 and then change the cards on the table by switching to a value of 5.
This was the percentage loss on our rewards, i.e. -95%.

We were told to self-promote the dapp, we did it, we managed to quadruple the number of our stakers and triple the number of staking astr reaching the threshold of 15 million. Currently, despite these numbers and despite the work done by our team, support has dropped to just under a tip.

I don’t want to talk about why dapp staking v3 is non-meritocratic and ruined one of Astar’s best narratives that differentiated the team’s work from everything else.

If the choice was made because many teams in the past took improper advantage of this system, before totally excluding from this system even teams that actually worked and brought benefits to the ecosystem such as SFY or even other teams (don’t think that we are the unique, we had discussions on the matter with different dapp developers), it was necessary to have greater control over the teams, request progress on the work, milestones to be achieved.

In that way you would have excluded those who did not work and would instead have rewarded as appropriate based on the project and with LINEARITY and MERITOCRACY for what was collected.
These things have been said and communicated by our team for 4 months. There were no replies, no support, except from a few friends like @Leo , and the only suggestions received concerned our lack in terms of “marketing”.
Being then stuck for months at 14.9 million almost as a mockery, without anyone from the ASTAR core team or the ambassador community even showing interest in our difficulties.

We spent the first few weeks trying to reach a new “tier”, as soon as we managed to add a few hundred thousand ASTARs and surpass tier 4 after a few hours we always narrowly returned to the TIP tier.

We probably caused a lot of trouble by making CLEAR the poor management and design of the v3 staking dapp.

But these 4 months have been stressful and we no longer wanted to play chasing tiers, we don’t have time for this. Teams should be focused on development and should be rewarded for that, not how friendly you are with @pitcoin777 (it’s an example) or anyone else .

We continued to see teams (in some cases, with stories of proven SCAMS behind them, you should inform better…) being more supported, we continued to see teams with a “Non-development”, with stopped projects, maybe with a contract created months ago and never updated being more supported.

Our work is public, the code is on our github page. For the last month we have been working with the RMRK team @Magusz for the creation of the first 3D equipables in the history of NFTS. They know how much work we did and how much effort it took. We have already delivered the first Milestone (practically all the work started on Astar) to the Moonbeam team and if you want we can share it again here too. We were presented with a much simpler grant proposal, compared to the idea of support via dapp staking.
But definitely more effective and above all RIGHT for our case.
We are not just any team or without history, we are OGs in the dotsama ecosystem, who have always worked seriously and this seems to have been recognized by everyone except those who created this new staking Dapp and those who defend its rights at all costs critical issues without even thinking about THE PROMISES MADE TO THE DEVELOPERS.

The numbers were clear, had we reached little interest or a really low threshold of stakers on our dapp, we would never have thought of continuing. The truth is that our community, even if small, has followed and supported us with almost 15 million stars, doing even better than teams much more important than us.
We cannot disappoint them by indefinitely extending our development times or by proposing a product that does not correspond to our initial idea just because Astar has decided to burn most of the revenue received from staking these 15 million astar because it is better to support a narrative of supply burn. (While those who receive 15.1 have higher revenues, and paradoxically equal to those who have 29.9… :man_facepalming:)

Either you bring forward serious development support, or call it Tip staking because currently except for a few highly supported teams (not always with merit) everyone else has simply taken a big disappointment.

Our position and history in dapp staking is particular, it will be a warning for the future and will certainly bring greater awareness of future measures in the community, so in the end it will be a good thing to have talked about it. We are very sure that things will evolve for the better, because they are LOGICAL, no one in their right mind will defend these errors except in principle. The community will find a way to fix things, but we simply don’t have time for that.
We have a team that has been working for several months and needs to be supported and paid.

The negative trend of new dapp staking proposals and team interactions that do not report the developments of their dapps despite receiving greater rewards than us, is the answer that should answer all your questions.

Growth processes cannot be perfect, errors are inevitable and as long as the human factor is present they will be normal.

This is the story, each of you should make your own considerations

We wait for further clarifications.

SFY Labs


I remember that SFY has been involved with Astar since Shiden launched and has been involved for a long time.

I believe SFY had recently been active with Astar because of the appeal of the dApp Staking mechanism, but the transition to v3 has changed the mechanism significantly, and it can’t be helped that the original plan has changed.

It is unfortunate, but I think the choice to move your activities to Moonbeam is inevitable. I will continue to support you, but I think you need to be delisted from dApp Staking.

I would like to mention again that the v3 reward system is being updated based on my proposal.


You’re absolutely right, we’re just disappointed with the timing and lack of support. You were one of the few who always supported us. We completely agree with delisting if necessary according to the rules.
We are saddened to see the usual mechanisms put in place, we have done everything, even making ourselves hateful in the eyes of the community in a moment of extreme euphoria for the project’s performances.
But we have always been honest with the community and reported our decision to change more than 1 month ago, without any serious comments about it from anyone, simply ignored:

I also remember that we refunded all the incubators sold in ASTAR tokens on Singular, sold at an average price of $0.04 and returned at an average price of $0.10 therefore having a considerable loss. Not only did we work without earning money, but we also suffered a loss. For us it is essential to be transparent with our holders:

The ASTAR community has lost a serious team with values demonstrated over time. In a few months, when the work of those who are currently supported without any merit will be evaluated, you will realize what we are talking about. But then again, it’s something that probably no one is really guilty of, the natural evolution of things required this. When we presented our “complaints” as many defined it, no one cared in the slightest about SFY or the stakers present on Age Of Chronos, it didn’t take much to get around the tier problem, except on a technical level (about your proposal is significantly better) on an economic level.
So this means that our work is not appreciated and we prefer to work in a different environment, and not where it matters to be friends with an Ambassador, or anyone else.

Ambassadors and core team should do another job in dapp staking:
Instead of voting everyone positively, and accepting everyone, they should deepen their research, see who the teams are that support each other, check that there is no collusion with those in the community who have a certain weight (even ambassadors themselves) and check the developers of the dapps. as a rule, reports at least monthly, if not weekly.

This would bring quality to the system and not useless conversations LIKE THIS.

1 Like

Hello, @SFY_Labs team!

I am one of the newest ambassadors in the Astar ecosystem, but I have been following this project since 2022. I would like to share my opinion with you:

While it is true that the migration to V3 changed MANY plans and significantly modified things, it remains a project 100% focused on builders and the communication of their projects. You clearly have one of the most interesting projects in the Astar ecosystem, and it shows that you have worked very hard to improve your product continuously. I congratulate you for that :clap:t3:.

However, the anger conveyed in your messages here in the forum caused your messages not to be received appropriately. I believe there are different ways to draw attention, and the one you used was the least appropriate.

@you425 have done an impressive job by proposing something so important to the Astar protocol. I congratulate you for that, and I know much of it is due to the messages you, @SFY_Labs team, proposed.

I just want to make it clear that you don’t need to GET ALONG with anyone here, as you have mentioned. That’s what the forum is for—to discuss proposals and see the community’s acceptance. In the future, we will have more decentralized governance; it is a project under construction.

On the other hand, I also support your exclusion from the dApp staking list.

I wish you much success with your project!


we understand your point of view.

In any case, our team has suffered enormous economic damage and no one, beyond the continuous appreciation of our work, has cultivated the discussion constructively (we are talking about 4 months of waiting).

Everyone has been on the defensive since the first day we reported the error, and this, beyond the fact that things will change positively (we wrote it too), indicates that there are different interests in the immediate future.
bad to say but it’s the truth.

In the end we will receive a pat on the back…
“that’s how it went, what do you want to do about it, good luck”…

We will follow the developments of the supported dapps unlike us and we will draw our considerations.

1 Like

I oppose this proposal.
The reason is simply that there is no clear regulation regarding delisting.
While there is documentation about listing in the Astar docs,

Even after the delist proposals and discussions regarding Starlay and Arthswap, this matter has not yet been regulated.

Furthermore, SFY Labs currently has the support of 14.7M $ASTR from staker ( supporter ), so unless the delist proposal comes from SFY Labs themselves, I am against this proposal. :four_leaf_clover:

We don’t know what to answer.

  1. There has been a significant change in economic support.
  2. We have updated our development based on this by proposing the following 1 month ago (without receiving responses):
    AGE OF CHRONOS : dApp Staking proposal - #94 by SFY_Labs

There are dapps that offer much less than this.
We are not interested in current rewards, but only in respect towards the almost 15 million Astars staked on our project.
Currently nothing changes for us, in fact this today is just an additional burden and further work that we are giving into an ecosystem that in our opinion does not deserve us.

Make your own considerations

I think here we have a really different opinion about this situation.
The dApp staking V3 was made also to change completely from the previous model of stake and forget and in my opinion dApp staking should be an economic boost for the project and not the main source of income. As already mentioned earlier it was proposed to SFY to apply for the UCG but they refused.
The gran finale of this disagreement brough us to the migration to Moonbeam so at this point it’s pretty clear they will stop focusing on the Astar Ecosystem which is the reason why I will support the delisting.

1 Like

Yes, In YOUR opinion, Not about what astar ever promoted about this.
Dapp staking could also have been the core of the project, and I could give you many examples of current dapps that have used funds in this way. What you say is not written anywhere, and furthermore, as specified above, we evaluated together with the astar team before making the request whether it was convenient for us to present this project.
The almost 15 million collected are worth a tip in terms of rewards only because they are not 15 million but a little less. This is the main point of a random system, which coincidentally… will change.

And which coincidentally led to this:

An incentive that is no longer an advantage for all developers.
Maybe astar won’t need new developers, maybe it’s now in a phase where the core team is interested in reaching other goals, and they think that bottom-up development is something that has been useful in the past but not today.

Who refused? When would we do it?
We only reported that UCG was a temporary measure and that it would not be enough to avoid a continuous run-up to the tier, when our team and probably any team should be focused on bringing value to the ecosystem. Asking for 1-2 million astar would not have avoided the problem that would arise again shortly, we decided not to present it. What we would have to do to receive UCG, i.e. show monthly reports, we were already doing. Just as an ambassador proposed our delist, in theory he could also promote a UCG for SFY Labs, why didn’t you do it for example?
Furthermore, UCG is according to the current rules a mockery, perhaps even worse than how the dappstaking v3 tier system was studied, we follow the forum and follow who and how has taken advantage of this measure, and how it is providing " developments" on their work. There are teams that have not been present for months and you ambassadors endorse all this with simplicity (it should be your job to check) and then come and talk to us in this way, for the sole fact of having been honest with the community and having highlighted a problem that it is “normal” to find at this stage, but it is present. And only a person in bad faith would deny this. Just as only a person in bad faith would deny that there are dapps directly linked to ambassadors or influential people who have enormous advantages over others. As we have already said in the post above, things will evolve for the better, everyone’s time and work will resolve things, unfortunately we don’t have time. We are not shocked by dappstaking v3 as an incorrect idea at present, we are shocked by the position taken by people like you, because in recent years we have always been present for the ASTAR team, and we have always promoted this project as TOP in an environment in which seriousness is in short supply, and we continue to think so.

Furthermore, do you know that we have been stuck at 14,970 million ASTAR for more than 2 months and you come to talk to me about UCG? do you know how many astars were missing to have at least worthy support? 30 thousand ASTR. Has any ambassador who even today highlights how our work is objectively good and measurable helped us?

Even just at the level of communication support. Besides telling us “increase your marketing”, what else has the Astar team done that is tangible, even just to temporarily circumvent the controversy??
2 years ago we published among the first nfts collections on astar, spending a lot of resources and earning nothing from our work, in a period of bear market in which there were no serious marketplaces for astar (bad user experience and donkey gang community that wasn’t even familiar with the concept of evm, use of metamask etc…) just because we were happy to be able to help and aware of the excellent work of the team. Our commitment would have been worth at least future attention towards us.

Furthermore, every time someone helped us with our dapp and we reached the next tier within a few hours the stakers dropped again and Age Of Chronos dropped back below that threshold. We are certain that our note about dapp staking v3 was annoying and that we have been punished for it day after day for the last few months.

We can do a good research on all the teams that have taken advantage of dapp staking v2, how, all those that have taken advantage of UCG, what they have developed, whether they have respected the promises made to stakers (whatever type they are ) and if they respected the rules that the community and above all you amabssadors should have enforced (trivially also the creation of monthly reports). Then we evaluate it together, what do you say? To be so angry, we have already evaluated these things and compared them to what we have suffered.

The grand finale of what? we have written what we will grant to the astar community. We wrote this 1 month ago, NOT TODAY, and it is in line with what we received. Are you interested in a web3 game using all the rmrk standards and the first equipable 3d nfts in history? The support of 66 astar per era is not enough sorry, because it is not a support, it’s a tip.
The Moonbeam team had known us for some time although we had never had relationships like we had with the Astar team, they presented us with a serious solution because they were interested in our project, that’s it. At least they didn’t make us false promises of support.

Nothing to object to this.

I see we just can’t see the situation in the same way. Wish you good luck on Moonbeam.

1 Like

Exactly, because we have different roles and exposures.
But dappstaking will change going in the direction we are talking about.
There must be a reason.
Good job to you too.

1 Like

Just jumping into the discussion to clarify a point.

If a project has been approved by the community to be removed from dApp Staking, all stakers and tokens staked on that project are not affected by the delisting, they will continue to earn rewards as if they were staked on any other project in dApp Staking until the next voting period.

It’s important for me to explain this, as it shouldn’t be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to remove a project from dApp Staking.

The decision should only come from determining whether or not SBY Labs deserves to remain in dApp Staking for what they have contributed to our ecosystem and what they will do in the future.


A different solution, which I don’t know if it has ever been taken (as lucky as we are, probably not…) could be to evaluate SFY’s new proposal regarding the management of the nfts Saurus Crew collection (which is minted on astar) is in line with dapp staking, so evaluate our proposal here:

And understand whether tier 4 rewards are possible for this new type of project.

I am following the points raised by our official ambassadors in this debate and the objections of the project in question as an observer. If our ambassadors have a complaint, it should be taken into account.

Based on Gai’s statement; “I am joining the discussion just to clarify one point.

If a project is approved by the community to be removed from dApp Staking, all stakers and tokens staked in that project are not affected by the delisting, they will continue to earn rewards as if they were staked in any other project in dApp Staking until the next voting period.

It is important that I explain this, because it should not be taken into account when deciding whether or not to remove a project from dApp Staking.

The decision should be based solely on determining whether SBY Labs deserves to remain in dApp Staking for what it has contributed to our ecosystem and what it will do in the future.‘’

We are focused on whether the project should be included in the future. I will monitor the opposing views and decide at the last moment in the voting process.

1 Like

My point is simple, there is no clear regulation about delisting, even after Starlay and Arthswap delisting discussion. That’s, all. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:
Why ONLY Age of chronos( SFY Labs ) should be BAN ?


What SFY Labs proposes and was approved by the community will not be executed, then delisting is the only path.

If SFY Labs want to make another proposal after delisting process just feel free it can be accepted or rejected - community will decide!!!

Astar is a public blockchain - everyone can propose anything and if the community approves it will pass… that’s simple :wink: What we (as a community) will not accept is not walking the talk.

Ser… we had more than a hundred of video conferences with teams over 2022, 2023, doxxing them and doing BD tasks and it is not productive once number of dApps was increasing. Also, dApp staking is designed to be like an “app store” with hundreds of dApps and the community will choose the winners. If they like, they support and stake.

So, where is regulation about delisting? We stand upon.