Proposal to Delist Core Contributor & Community Treasury from dApp Staking

Governance
1

Objective

The objective of this proposal is to remove the Core Contributor and Community Treasury dApps from Astar’s dApp Staking program in order to address the concerns raised by our community and make them feel heard. The objective is to realign the program with its core purpose: supporting active builders and real decentralized applications.

TL;DR

To strengthen our commitment to a builder-first, transparent, and community-driven dApp Staking experience, the Astar Foundation (as Main Council) proposes to delist the the Core Contributor and Community Treasury dApps from the dApp Staking program.

While these dApps were initially added to provide options in the early days of the program, when few external projects were available, they are not actual decentralized applications (dApps). With over 75 real dApps now live, we believe this is the right time to redirect that support back into the hands of developers who are building the future of Astar.

Listening to Our Community

Over the past months, our community has spoken clearly and passionately about the need to ensure dApp Staking stays true to its original mission: empowering developers and builders on Astar.

We’ve heard your concerns:

  • That non-dApps like “Core Contributor” and “Community Treasury” receive an outsized portion of staking nominations simply because they appear “safe” or familiar.
  • That this disincentivizes support for new, innovative, but lesser-known projects who depend on these rewards to build, grow, and deliver real impact.

This proposal is our response to that feedback.

:white_check_mark: We’re acting because the community asked us to.
:white_check_mark: We’re making this change to support real builders.

Why We’re Proposing This

The Core Contributor and Community Treasury dApps are not standalone dApps but were originally added to help bootstrap the system when few projects existed. Today, with dozens of live projects and a thriving pipeline, their continued inclusion unintentionally hinders visibility and growth opportunities for real teams.

By delisting these two dApps, we could unlock over 600M ASTR in nominations that can now support builders who are actively shipping, scaling, and innovating across Astar and Soneium.

This proposal isn’t about stepping away, it’s about stepping up for the next generation of builders.

What About the Funding

This decision does not negatively affect the operations of the Astar Foundation or the Community Treasury.

Core Contributor:

  • Rewards currently received are minimal compared to the overall Foundation treasury.
  • Removing it has no impact on our ability to fund ecosystem growth and support initiatives.

Community Treasury:

  • The Community Treasury currently holds 117.2M ASTR, with 110M ASTR already staked independently.

  • In Q2, it earned approximately 7.9M ASTR, including 1.5M ASTR from dApp Staking rewards as a listed dApp.

  • During the same quarter, the Treasury covered various expenses such as grants, Ecosystem Agent tips, and operational costs, yet its balance still grew from 109.5M ASTR to 116.2M ASTR.

  • This demonstrates that the Treasury’s yield not only covers operational expenses but produces a consistent surplus, ensuring that this change will not impact ongoing or future community programs.

:card_index_dividers::backhand_index_pointing_right:t3: See the ACC report here

:link::seedling: Community Treasury Subscan

Refocusing on Real Builders

This move is about restoring balance and focus:

  • Redistributing support to actual builders who need it most.
  • Leveling the playing field for smaller, emerging teams.
  • Upholding the spirit of dApp Staking: rewarding those who build.
  • Fostering trust in a system that truly reflects decentralized growth.

We’re proud to see dApps like AltLayer, Astake, Kyo Finance, Bifrost and SoneFi making real progress recently. These are the kinds of projects that deserve greater visibility and rewards.

This move aligns perfectly with our broader goal to empower developers, support innovation, and ensure that Astar remains the home of builders.

Community-First, Always

We’re glad to lead with community guidance.

This proposal comes from the Astar Foundation, but execution will be handled by the Community Council, especially given their management of the Community Treasury, oversight of the dApp Staking program, and permissions to list or delist projects.

We will now open the floor to hear your feedback, ideas, and concerns.

Our goal is simple: empower the ecosystem to thrive through fairness, transparency, and real opportunity.

Next Steps

  1. Forum Discussion → We’re initiating this thread as a temperature check.
  2. Collect Community Feedback → Share your thoughts openly and respectfully.
  3. Finalize Proposal → If aligned, a formal delisting motion will be submitted.
  4. Implementation → Coordinated execution with the Community Council.

Together, we’re creating a stronger, more vibrant Astar, one where builders lead and the community thrives.

We’re looking forward to hearing your feedback below!

Gaius_sama, Astar Main Council :astr:

12 Likes
2

Thank you for the proposal, I am fully in favor!

However, I do have a few concerns.

  1. Staking from exchanges was supposed to be assigned to the Community Treasury. In other words, I think a receiving mechanism for staking from exchanges will be necessary—what do you think about this point?
  2. Also, this may not need to be considered too deeply, but the ASTR that is sitting idle in the Community Treasury will no longer have staking destinations. If it stakes to dApps, its role will overlap with the UCG. At present, the ACC mainly stakes to infrastructure projects, but will the Community Treasury also follow that policy?
3

I believe the proposal to delist the two dApps makes sense because—as stated in the post—they are not real dApps, and their presence in dApp Staking is not consistent with the program’s original purpose. They also attract a lot of nominations (especially from new users) because they’re perceived as “safer,” which ends up diverting millions of ASTR away from real dApps that need that support to climb tiers and earn higher rewards.

My only hesitation was about the Community Treasury dApp, since I worried that delisting it could remove a meaningful revenue stream needed for future ecosystem needs. After reading the report shared by @Gaius_sama , though, it’s clear the Treasury already holds a very large reserve and generates substantial returns on its own (even without dApp Staking rewards). So delisting it wouldn’t compromise its sustainability.

One point to consider: by removing a “mentally official” dApp (i.e., one perceived as “safe” by newcomers), a small share of first-time users might hesitate to stake because they don’t know what to pick. We know funds’ security is guaranteed at the protocol level, not by the individual dApp, but a new user often doesn’t know this. I still think this concerns a very small slice of users and can be addressed with better communication in the communities and with a clear notice directly on the portal (dApp Staking section): “Choosing a dApp does not move your funds to that dApp; security is guaranteed at the protocol level.”

With that said, I confirm my yes to the proposal: it’s a decisive step toward a more fair dApp Staking, aligned with the program’s mission and continuously evolving.

PS:

Very interesting questions, I’m really interesting on that points

1 Like
4

The points @you425 expressed are interesting. In general, I completely agree with this proposal.

5

I also want to note that I agree with the points raised by other agents regarding:

  • the need for a proper mechanism for exchange staking flows,

  • how the Community Treasury should deploy its idle ASTR after delisting,

  • and the importance of giving newcomers clear guidance once the “safe” default dApps are removed.

In addition, my main concern is ensuring continuity of user confidence and ecosystem stability during this transition. It’s important that as we delist these dApps, we communicate clearly and manage the change smoothly so stakers, new users, and builders all feel supported.

2 Likes
6

As a development team, we fully support your decision! It’s a wise choice that rewards the work of those who submit suitable proposals, simply by involving more stakers in dapps.
Our team also proposed it some time ago.

One point, not technical but rather communication-related:
Over the years, many stakers have seemed more inclined to stake on the Core Team dapp simply out of trust.
We need to reassure them that whatever dapp they choose, their funds won’t be at risk. It seems trivial, but many haven’t understood this.

Excellent initiative

6 Likes
7

After several rounds of discussion within the Community Council, we have reached a consensus regarding this proposal. In terms of addressing the current lack of meaningful support for builders, we believe this initiative makes sense and has merit.

At first, I was more inclined to support the idea of burning rewards from either the Core Contributor pool or the Community Treasury. However, after deeper evaluation, it became evident that this approach would have little to no material impact. The amounts involved are simply too small relative to the total supply.

To illustrate: the Community Treasury generated around 1.5M ASTR over a three-month period—equivalent to approximately 6M ASTR per year. This represents only about 0.07% of the total supply. Burning such a minimal amount would be largely symbolic and fail to address the broader challenges.

By contrast, redirecting these resources to support real builders would be far more impactful. In the hands of developers actively contributing to the ecosystem, these funds could generate meaningful outcomes.

2 Likes
8

Your point is very valid — it was also one of the concerns raised during our Council discussions, and your suggestion is truly valuable.

One additional aspect we considered is the perception from the community. Removing the core dApps from the list might unintentionally give the impression that the Astar Foundation is “abandoning” the dApp Staking program. It’s important to clarify that this is not the case

These core dApps don’t actually reflect the day-to-day work happening at Astar. Their continued presence in the dApp list risks creating a distorted view of where value is really being generated. The real contributions to the ecosystem come from ongoing initiatives and collaborative efforts that go far beyond these symbolic entries.

Their removal, if decided, should be framed not as a sign of “abandonment”but as a step toward greater transparency and alignment with Astar’s actual priorities. If concerns arise, we can confidently highlight a broad range of ongoing initiatives — such as the Astar Community Council (ACC), the Astar Finance Committee (AFC), the Foundation’s continuous programs, the strategic role of Startale, the Fast Finality Layer deployment, and the expansion into Soneium. Each of these demonstrates Astar’s active commitment to building long-term infrastructure, strengthening governance, and expanding cross-chain adoption.

Ultimately, this adjustment would clarify that dApp Staking is meant to empower genuine builders while the broader ecosystem — supported by these strategic initiatives — continues to evolve and deliver value for the community.

4 Likes
9

I find it great to read this proposal. I agree with the arguments presented, and I think it was a decision that sooner or later had to be made, since the growth of dApps is solid and it was necessary to give builders their own space.

I also shared the same concern about the image this change might create. And I believe that to build trust, it’s just a matter of making the information clear, in different formats and across different spaces, so that builders understand why those dApps are being removed. But it’s a challenge with a solution.

An official bulletin on Astar’s website would help centralize the information and give the announcement more formality. :envelope_with_arrow::sparkles: In addition, it would be an easy resource to share with the community and new builders, reinforcing transparency and trust in the process.

2 Likes
10

Regarding this matter, it has already been discussed within ACC, and I’m also in agreement. However, I felt that we need to make decisions on the two issues raised by @you425 ;

  1. The destination for exchange-based staking

  2. How to handle the idle ASTR in the community treasury

As for item 1, we may need to consider contractual obligations with the exchange.

As for item 2, it seems best to continue discussions within ACC. I haven’t come up with any concrete ideas yet…

1 Like
11

I think it’s a good start and an extremely interesting proposal. Based on what has been described, I think everything seems to be under control, and so we could say that these dApps more than fulfilled their objective at the start of dApp Staking.

Fortunately, we have the necessary advice to handle whatever the future may bring, and as always, the most important thing is that the funds go to the real builders.

I will continue to follow the upcoming updates on this point.

12

Thanks for the proposal, G.

Overall, I am fully aligned with this proposal. Many high-quality dApps deserve support, while the two in question occupy disproportionate space without providing real benefits to the ecosystem.

That said, as pointed out by others, there are three important points we need to address before moving forward:

1. Community Treasury & CEX Staking

Since the Community Treasury is the recipient of CEX staking, this issue must be resolved before removing the two dApps.

  • From personal experience, I recall when I used to stake only via CEXs for convenience and lack of knowledge. Whenever staking options were disrupted, my instinct was to sell and switch to assets with better APRs — not the wisest move, but common among retail users.

  • The risk is that if CEX staking becomes unavailable, it could trigger short-term selling pressure on ASTR and spark FUD.

2. Communication Around Soneium vs. Astar

With the recent launch of Soneium, discontinuing these two dApps could be interpreted as the Astar Foundation or Startale abandoning Astar in favor of Soneium.

  • To prevent such misunderstandings, it’s crucial to have a clear and comprehensive communication strategy.

  • The reasons for discontinuation must be explained openly across multiple channels, ensuring the community is well-informed and FUD is avoided.

3. Allocation of the Community Treasury

The distribution of the Community Treasury also requires careful consideration.

  • Some dApps and projects that provide structural services to Astar Network (e.g., Subscan, StackCraft, ChainPatrol, etc.) could be supported directly through dApp staking with idle ASTR from Community treasury instead of relying solely on treasury proposals.

  • However, we must ensure that sufficient funds remain available for UCG, which may require up to 4 × 25M ASTR.

:white_check_mark: In summary, while I support the proposal, we must:

  1. Address the CEX staking issue.

  2. Communicate transparently about the rationale behind discontinuing the two dApps.

  3. Ensure treasury allocation balances structural support with sufficient reserves for UCG.

4 Likes
13

How will the Astar team ensure that the 600M ASTR in freed-up nominations are actually redistributed to smaller or emerging dApps rather than just consolidating around a few popular ones?

14

There’s really no way to control this kind of thing and this is something that Astar Team has no control. The tokens belong to the holders, and they have the freedom to allocate them to whichever dApp best meets their expectations (which are mostly financial). dApp Staking wasn’t designed to help everyone equally, but rather to provide meaningful support and momentum where it can.

There’s a strong possibility that many tokens won’t be restaked right away, since a lot of users still have the ‘stake and forget’ mindset. I’m confident that a portion of the tokens that get unstaked will simply remain idle in users’ wallets for a while before they eventually notice and stake them again.

Smaller and emerging dApps will need to convince users to delegate tokens to them for a reason. Sota used to describe dApp staking as a form of Darwinism among dApps — users will ultimately decide the winners.

1 Like
15

I would first like to express my appreciation for the deep involvement of community members in this discussion. It’s inspiring to see participants from different parts of our ecosystem share their views on this topic. This is exactly the kind of dialogue we aim to foster with an exclusive and advanced governance system for Astar Collective.

Regarding the topic itself, several important questions have been raised. Before addressing them, I want to emphasize again that the purpose of this discussion is to open the debate. Nothing is set in stone, and all elements can be adjusted based on consensus and the best path forward to resolve the issues raised.

Q: dApp Staking for Exchanges

Currently, only Binance is staking on the Community Treasury dApp. If we delist this dApp, we will need to discuss an alternative for their staking. Potentially, we could propose a list of dApps for Binance to choose from, or suggest that they stake across several dApps at once, creating more equity in the ecosystem. However, this decision ultimately rests with Binance, as it concerns their funds, and is not one the community can influence.

Note for @Mouthmouth68: CEX staking will not be disrupted. When a dApp is delisted, stakers continue earning rewards and only need to change their dApp allocation during the next staking cycle. We would coordinate with Binance to reallocate their stake at that time (in 50 days), ensuring the flow of rewards remains uninterrupted.

Additionally, one option could be to revise the proposal and delist only the Core Contributor dApps, while keeping the Community Treasury dApp active. This would resolve the concern.

Q: Idle ASTR in the Community Treasury

ASTR in the Community Treasury is meant to be allocated through the UCG program. However, there may be times when no UCG projects are receiving grants, leaving tokens idle. Until now, these tokens were re-staked on the Community Treasury dApp. If this dApp is delisted, the Community Council would need to decide how to re-stake those tokens to continue generating yield and growing the Treasury.

One option could be to stake on infrastructure and tooling projects, similar to ACC’s approach. I support this idea, as it reinforces our intention to back developers. To avoid overlap with UCG, the amount could be capped (e.g., 2–5M ASTR per project) to simply help promising projects reach Tier 4, a small but meaningful push.

A broader solution would be to delist only the Core Contributor dApp and keep the Community Treasury active. However, this carries the risk that stakers could migrate entirely between those two dApps, leaving the original issue unresolved.

Education and Awareness

On the point raised by @SFY_Labs about education, I could not agree more. A strong educational phase will be essential. This will form part of the foundation’s marketing efforts around the initiative, in close collaboration with projects and agents, once consensus is reached and the decision is executed on-chain.

I look forward to more ideas and continued discussion on this important topic.

Gaius_sama, Main Council :astr:

3 Likes
16

Yes, exactly. The final decision will ultimately rest with Binance.

The challenge is that we don’t know how Binance will choose their staking targets. If they diversify, that’s ideal—but depending on how it’s handled, it could end up creating unfairness.

Perhaps the simplest solution would be to keep the Community Treasury. However, this would only partially achieve the original goal of the proposal. As an alternative, what if we prevented staking to the Community Treasury through the Portal UI?

Specifically, this would mean:

  • The Community Treasury would not appear as an option in the staking destination list.

  • It would still remain visible in the Tier display.

  • Even if you opened the individual page, staking would not be possible.

That said, this approach would create an issue: ACC and Binance would no longer be able to stake to the Community Treasury via the UI. To address this, certain accounts could be granted the ability to stake to the Community Treasury directly. Of course, this would require a UI update, which is the main drawback.

17

Actually removing Community Treasury from the portal only could be a good option to solve this issue as ACC manage its staking through direct intrasec instead portal UI.

As for binance, i doubt they are using portal UI either since its require manual operation (i don’t think that such structure would not have automated it staking managment at least partialy)

3 Likes
18

I see, thank you.

If Binance isn’t staking through Portal, then simply disabling staking to the Community Treasury from Portal’s UI should suffice, so it seems the effort required would be minimal.

1 Like
19

I think this could be a good solution! For the ACC it’s not a problem because, as @Mouthmouth68 said , they don’t manage staking through the portal UI. (I’m not sure about Binance, but I think it’s the same.) This might be the only solution to keep the Community Treasury dApp operational.

The only way, in fact, would be to disable the option for regular users/holders to stake in this dApp, while allowing only specific accounts/wallets to do so via the backend (similar to Binance and ACC). This is the only solution that would make sense to keep one of the two dApps. Otherwise, I believe both should be removed, because if even one of them remains, we would end up with the same initial problem: a large number of users would choose this dApp, taking away a significant amount of votes from the ‘real dApps’ in the program.

2 Likes
20

I commend the Astar Foundation for recognizing that Core Contributor and Community Treasury attract funds that could be better allocated to innovative projects on Astar. We appreciate your ability to cover operational costs and generate a surplus, but funds are never enough, and a drastic change like removing both dApps could have unpredictable long-term effects.I’m torn. I see applications like SubScan requesting to join the program, but I honestly don’t understand why. I don’t know the costs of maintaining the entire infrastructure—and I mean absolutely everything—but completely giving up these revenues could weaken the Community Treasury, and a financially weak treasury benefits no one.I propose an alternative: instead of removing the dApps, keep both, but allocate the revenues from one (e.g., Core Contributor) to directly fund innovative dApps, making them available to developers. Use the revenues from the other (Community Treasury) for a burning program to reduce the ASTR supply. This would satisfy both developers and the community. Additionally, we should avoid including applications that provide basic services used by every blockchain and focus dApp Staking resources on dApps that bring tangible value to Astar, not just revenue to cover operational costs.

2 Likes