Burning rewards from the Core Contributor or Community Treasury also wouldn’t make a significant impact, as the amounts are extremely low compared to the total supply. For example, the Community Treasury generated 1.5M ASTR over three months—roughly 6M ASTR per year—which equals about 0.07% of the total supply. These funds would be much more impactful in the hands of real builders, such as Kyo Finance, AltLayer, and others.
1 Like
The market doesn’t live on math alone: often, the perception of something is a more powerful tool than the thing itself. Burning the funds from the Community Treasury and Core Contributors isn’t just a matter of calculating their minimal impact on the total ASTR supply (0.07% annually for the Treasury). It’s also a powerful marketing move: a serious, well-structured token burn program can have a significant psychological impact, showing commitment to the ecosystem’s sustainability and boosting investor confidence. The benefits include:Perception of scarcity: reducing the circulating supply can reinforce the idea of a more valuable token.
Signal of seriousness: it shows the project is willing to sacrifice funds for the ecosystem’s benefit, enhancing credibility.
Attracting investors: a well-communicated burn can generate excitement and attract new holders.
Instead of getting rid of these funds without a clear strategy—meaning continuing to distribute them broadly without direction—we need to tackle the real issue: it’s not the limited funds to dApps that’s the problem, but the fact that there are too many dApps, often not carefully selected. We haven’t gotten anywhere with this resource dispersion! We need a rigorous selection process to:Allocate more funds to a few high-quality dApps that bring real value to the ASTR token.
Eliminate dApps that don’t contribute to the ecosystem but burden operational costs, like Subscan, the most recent example.
dApp staking should be an investment in projects that strengthen the ecosystem, not an ATM for covering operational expenses. This way, even smaller but truly deserving projects will have adequate resources to grow and add value.
3 Likes
I think the essence of this proposal lies in the following points:
- Preventing stakers from casually voting for Core Contributors or the Community Treasury without much thought.
- Making it easier for rewards to flow to developers.
- Encouraging stakers to learn more about the projects they stake on.
This in turn will increase interest in dApps within the Astar ecosystem and improve the functioning of dApp Staking. However, a re-evaluation of the projects currently listed in dApp Staking is necessary, and I believe this should be led by the ACC (since that is originally its role).
As for burning, I don’t think it has much real meaning here. In fact, in dApp Staking, rewards that are not allocated as developer rewards (i.e., the rewards from empty Tier slots) are already being burned rather than contributing to inflation. In other words, burning is always happening in the background. Burning the Core Contributors’ or Community Treasury’s share on top of this would not significantly change the overall outcome.
The true essence of burning is to “reduce circulating supply.” Burning ASTR that has never entered circulation has almost no effect, and continuously burning small amounts also makes little difference.
Astar has conducted relatively large-scale burns in the past, but from a marketing (price) perspective, they had almost no effect. This was because the tokens being burned were ones held outside the market and had never entered circulation, so the impact on price was negligible.
That said, in extreme large-scale cases like what recently happened with OKB, the story can be different. But that is not something Astar can realistically replicate.
If burning were to be used for marketing purposes, it would need to be along the lines of:
- A large-scale burn from allocations.
- Buybacks from revenue, followed by burning.
Neither of these are viable for Astar (though #2 is something the AFC is attempting). Trying to achieve this through dApp Staking simply doesn’t make sense. In that case, reducing inflation itself would be more effective.
How will the delisting of Core Contributor and Community Treasury dApps affect smaller builders who may have relied indirectly on those rewards
From the @Community_Council we are already in action doing this. Our work covers UCG and dApp Staking.
1 Like
Hello,Thanks for the response. The proposal regarding Core Contributors and Community Treasury is clear, and I’m not the one missing the point here. But, frankly, removing these two dApps solves nothing, because they’re not the problem. Do you really think that by eliminating them, stakers will suddenly start diligently researching the remaining 74 dApps? With so many options, without clear information or concrete incentives, they’ll keep staking randomly, just as they did before. And how do you expect funds to magically flow to “worthy” dApps? And, by the way, which ones are these worthy dApps? The ones running on other chains? Those that should be covered by corporate operating costs? Those that bring no value to the token? Or perhaps the ones that, by some miracle, lose their private keys? Expecting funds to go to the right projects just by removing two options is, let’s say, a bit overly optimistic. Business is built on precise actions that deliver results, not on hoping stakers will figure it out on their own.On the burn, you said the impact is minimal because the tokens aren’t circulating, and fine, I get that. But, as we’ve already pointed out, the market often rewards the gesture, the intention, more than the action itself. That’s why marketing exists: to communicate effort, even if it doesn’t mathematically shift the balance. A burn, even a small one, could at least send a signal to the community, something that shows commitment. And then, let me understand: the proof that a burn doesn’t work is that it was tried once and didn’t deliver? So, one failed attempt is enough to dismiss it, but the dApp staking system, which has been running for years without producing anything tangible, is fine as is? The charts are right there, ASTR’s price is in freefall, the community’s trust is gone, and the comments on X are shouting it loud and clear. It’s not Core Contributors or Community Treasury’s fault—it’s the system that’s not working.Believe me, I’m exhausted. I’m one of the few writing on this forum without being paid, and that alone should make you pause and ask a couple of questions. My patience is running thin, and if this keeps up, I’ll do what most of the community is already doing: stay silent. I won’t be responding to another reply, because discussing this without seeing real change is draining. The token’s price, which, let’s face it, is what matters, keeps plummeting, and trust is at an all-time low. Removing those two dApps isn’t the answer, because the problem is much bigger. If you want to talk about real solutions, I’m here, but we need something more concrete than this proposal.
Best regards
After careful evaluation with the team, we have confirmed that removing the Community Treasury from the UI Portal is not a feasible option. This approach is incompatible with the current Portal UI logic and code, and therefore cannot be implemented. As such, we should remove this topic from further discussion and continue focusing on the initial idea of delisting Core Contributor & Community Treasury.
Proposed Path Forward
To move this discussion toward a practical solution, I suggest the following approach:
- Delist the Core Contributor dApp for now, while keeping the Community Treasury dApp listed.
- Monitor the next dApp Staking cycle to evaluate whether funds previously allocated to Core Contributor are redirected to other dApps or moved to the Community Treasury.
- Encourage the Community Treasury to consider adjusting its staking strategy:
- Limiting the amount staked on its own dApp.
- Redirecting a portion (~4M ASTR) to infrastructure or active ecosystem projects that could benefit from support.
- Helping smaller projects reach Tier 4, while reducing the likelihood of Community Treasury appearing among the top dApps, where users often stake without deeper research.
Evaluation & Next Steps
Following the next dApp Staking cycle, we can assess the effectiveness of this strategy. Based on results, we will be in a stronger position to consider further adjustments or open new discussions if necessary.
4 Likes
I understand, thank you very much. Then I believe there is no problem proceeding in that direction.
Got it. I understand the plan, makes sense to test it out next cycle and see how things play out before making bigger moves.
Proposal: Optimizing Community Treasury & dApp Staking Strategy
After carefully reviewing the current discussion and the proposed path forward regarding the Community Treasury and Core Contributor dApps, I would like to propose an alternative approach that aligns with both ecosystem support and efficient allocation of resources.
Current Situation
- Community Treasury Holdings: 110M ASTR in staking
- 21M ASTR in Age Of Chronos (UCG-related)
- 89M ASTR in Community Treasury’s own dApp
- Community Council Team: 6 members, currently under-utilized with available 10–12 weekly hours per member
- Existing Responsibilities:
- Managing the Community Treasury
- Reviewing UCG grant proposals
- Evaluating and listing dApps for dApp Staking
- Overseeing Ecosystem Agent Tips
- Participating in governance votes and onchain operations
Concerns with Current Proposal
The current recommendation to keep the Community Treasury dApp listed and adjust its staking strategy:
- May still concentrate large amounts of tokens in the Treasury’s own dApp, limiting exposure to other ecosystem opportunities
- Could continue to make Community Treasury appear among top dApps, where users might stake without deeper evaluation
- Does not fully leverage the Community Council’s available capacity to actively support the ecosystem
Proposed Alternative
I propose the following adjustments to maximize impact and decentralize staking:
- Delist Both Core Contributor and Community Treasury dApps
- Completely remove self-staking concentration to free up 89M ASTR currently locked in the Treasury’s dApp.
- Increase Allocations for UCG Staking
- Expand support for UCG-related initiatives (e.g., Age Of Chronos) to strengthen active ecosystem projects.
- Community Council to Actively Stake in Ecosystem dApps
- Integrate a new responsibility under the existing Community Treasury management role: Active staking in promising ecosystem dApps
- Objective: Support active projects, help smaller projects reach Tier 3, and foster a more diversified ecosystem staking landscape
- Utilize freed tokens (from delisted Treasury self-staking) to execute this strategy
Rationale
- Leverages Community Council capacity (6 members × 10–12 hours/week) to actively contribute to ecosystem growth
- Reduces token concentration in a single dApp, promoting decentralization and healthier staking patterns
- Encourages smarter staking choices and higher engagement with emerging projects
- Aligns with Astar’s mission to support ecosystem expansion and long-term sustainability
Here my proposal, community.
4 Likes
I believe this is a very well-prepared proposal. However, internal discussions within the Council will be necessary to clearly define the metrics and criteria for dApp selection. Afterward, a report should be published for the community in a transparent manner. This process is essential to avoid any perception of favoritism toward specific dApps and to mitigate potential conflicts of interest.
2 Likes
This is an excellent proposal, but adding to pitcoin’s point, there still remains the concern of where Binance will actually stake. Is this something that the Astar Foundation can coordinate directly with Binance?
If this point can be clarified, and if the criteria for selecting dApps are made explicit, then I can fully support your proposal.
Also, while this isn’t the main topic of the thread, it seems that in the process of setting criteria and reviewing the target dApps, we could also move forward with delisting some of the currently listed dApps.
1 Like
For first thanks to @Gaius_sama & @Juminstock for this 2 solutions proposals.
I believe the first proposal by @Gaius_sama is a valid and gradual way to start addressing the issue of delisting these two dApps. It allows us to better evaluate the impact and the redistribution of a significant amount of ASTR that will need to be managed both by users and internal bodies (such as the ACC).
At the same time, I also very much appreciate the more radical approach suggested by @Juminstock , which would remove both dApps immediately and introduce an active management role for the ACC over Community Treasury funds. This would give a definitive solution rather than a temporary one, and the ACC’s new role as an active manager of these funds fits perfectly into this vision.
That said, I think this decision requires careful evaluation. Apart from the potential increase in funds for UCG, we need to look at the current quantity and quality of dApps listed in dApp Staking. With Carlos’ solution, a large amount of funds would immediately need to be distributed across ecosystem dApps (for example, 4–5M ASTR per project), helping many reach Tier 4, strengthening the UCG, and rewarding new and promising projects. This is excellent—but it also assumes that the dApp Staking environment is already rich with innovative and high-quality projects ready to scale. While Astar is definitely moving in this direction, I wouldn’t want the ACC to suddenly have a large pool of funds to distribute without having a sufficient set of dApps that truly “deserve” this support.
For this reason, I think a hybrid approach could work best:
-
Start with Gaius’ proposal in the next cycle, while at the same time introducing the ACC’s active management of part of the Community Treasury funds (gradually “emptying” the Treasury dApp and reducing its visibility as a Tier 1 dApp).
-
Then, in a following cycle, we could move toward Carlos’ vision and fully delist the Treasury, implementing a more definitive solution once the ecosystem is more mature.
This way we don’t miss the opportunity to strengthen the role of the ACC immediately, while still leaving room for a step-by-step transition toward the more radical solution.
Just my opinion but I’m really interesting to read more comments and ideas regarding this 
1 Like
Tier 4 is a joke. It doesn’t prove anything, it doesn’t show real delivery. The focus should be on supporting projects to reach Tier 3, because that already gives them recognition, visibility, and funding to grow.
Pushing people into Tier 4 creates a false sense of achievement. It looks like progress, but in reality, nothing changes for the builders. They don’t suddenly deliver more just because they crossed a line on a chart. What matters is the work, not the label.
If we want strong projects, let’s make sure Tier 3 builders get the support they need to actually ship. Tier 3 is enough. Tier 4 adds nothing but confusion and wasted expectations.
2 Likes
Hi @Satoshi 
I agree with you that at this very moment (with the current market price of ASTR), Tier 4 has little relevance and provides only minimal support to the builders in this tier. However, I believe that if we look at it with a broader perspective (with a potentially more favorable future market and token prices very different from today’s), Tier 4 can also become a real help for the projects that are part of it.
I also want to remind everyone that dApp Staking has always had the goal of SUPPORTING teams/builders with ASTR backing, but it should not be understood (as often happens) as the only source of income for a project to develop and take off. We cannot expect dApp Staking to be the reason or the excuse why a project grows and delivers results—or why it stops building altogether. That is not the nature of dApp Staking.
3 Likes
Hello community, I’m glad to see that the conversation extended a bit more, this was exactly what I was looking for by providing a space to receive more opinions.
Yes, I’m definitely aligned with you. Let’s start this conversation internally with the ACC and come back with a collective opinion on this soon.
This is something that can definitely be coordinated from the Astar Foundation, but first it will be necessary to have a strategy to propose before moving on this side. With the ACC we will discuss this during the next week.
Totally agree, from the ACC we are already allocating resources to the evaluation of projects in order to subsequently delist those that are not contributing to the ecosystem. (We will follow AstarHood’s actions).
Your position is valid.
As I see it, the approach to supporting contributory dApps in the ecosystem can be progressive and staggered instead of immediate. The strategy would be:
- The ACC reviews and evaluates the dApps that are part of dApp Staking right now.
- Delists those that don’t contribute and leaves those who show intention.
- After the evaluation in the first step, we will have a clear vision of whom to support.
This entire process would be transparent and shared with the entire community, just as @pitcoin777 proposed.
If we follow this approach, there would be no room for errors in decision making.
1 Like