Accountability and transparency is very important in the blockchain and web3 space. If a team fails to communicate with the community and keep a positive energy then, it’s a red flag, as people will definitely lose interest. I voted AYE.
4 Likes
Same with the other projects. Projects who are receiving funds from grants or dApp Treasury should always be transparent about the achivements and active to user feedback. I hope that dApp Staking v3 will solve these issues.
4 Likes
I think some people are equating what happened at ADAO with the token crashes at IDOs conducted by Starlay Finance, Arthswap, etc., but I think we need to distinguish between those and what happened at ADAO.
The IDO crash can be interpreted as an accident caused by market principles, with investors participating with the understanding that there are no restrictions on selling to large holders or mechanisms to limit extreme price movements, such as price range restrictions, as in the case of an IPO.
On the other hand, I think the difference is that what happened at ADAO was an incident intentionally caused by the project operator.
I think it is clear that the incident was caused intentionally, as there has been no response to date, despite attempts by Astar officials to contact the ADAO operators and by the victims, including myself, on social networking sites and forums.
I have participated in IDOs conducted by dApp on Astar in the past, and I could accept the above interpretation of the losses caused by them as unavoidable, but as for what happened with ADAO, I am aware that I was clearly victimized by the malicious ADAO operators.
I also recognize that Astar officials are partly responsible for the incident, given their support for ADAO through the Builders Program and multiple references to it on X’s official account, as I mentioned in my previous posts.
Based on these considerations, I believe it is appropriate to utilize treasury and other means to help the victims with regard to the incidents that occurred in the ADAO.
*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.
3 Likes
I proposed this in Arthswap case(they are not to be compared to ADAO they were responsive) however to avoid these “miscomunications” in future I propose every dAPP to do a quarterly report to showcase what they have done previous quarter and what they plan to do next quarter in the way they find to be transparent( I would leave for dAPPS to find best way to report this so some others can follow). That way community can always check the report and create an issue to debate if neccesary. Transparency must be next level to justify the funds given.
I think this would solve many recent issues about inactive dApps as community cares about providing help but only to dApps that bring value to the ecosystem.
5 Likes
Voted aye for this proposal
3 Likes
Voted yes. I think it’s a problem that the dApp doesn’t work and we can’t communicate with the team. However, I’m against compensating the victims this time. Considering the past, I fully understand the desire for compensation, but ADAO is a third-party and not operated by Astar Foundation. If the logic that “since the official X account frequently mentioned ADAO, they should take responsibility when ADAO commits a scam” becomes acceptable, we would have to provide some form of guarantee to others who suffered losses in other dApps. If that happens, there is a possibility that the situation will become uncontrollable.
I hope that this matter is resolved as soon as possible.
3 Likes
I agree with this idea. This is also how Astar Foundation supported Starlay to provide the liquidity so that the community can exit. You can find the proposal somewhere in this forum.
If Starlay is supported, all other projects must also be supported. It has to be fair. I will 100% vote yes.
6 Likes
I agree with @As1027
Not because I´ve put some ASTR tokens into ADAO (I can easily give those up) but because of a matter of trust in the team. If the main account promotes a certain dApp I think it is logical for the user to think that it is a safe dApp. By losing your tokens you also lose trust in the team and this is something to absolutely avoid.
I vote YES to the delisting and I will vote YES for a possible refund for the users involved.
4 Likes
Since @pithecus opened the discussion here in the forum, we have seen a considerable amount of users who have claimed to be scammed by ADAO with evidence to confirm it, I see it convenient that the Astar Foundation supports these victims, so we can maintain the good image we have and not devalue other great projects that are in the dApp Staking program.
4 Likes
I am not asking for compensation solely on the basis that an Astar official made a post on X about ADAO.
As mentioned in previous posts, ADAO participated in the Builders Program, and the application process should have included an evaluation by a committee composed of the Astar team and others.
After ADAO’s participation in the program, StakeTechnologies would have provided various support and grants to the project.
In this case, Astar officials must have been in communication with the ADAO operator, and it is their fault that they lost contact with them after the incident was discovered.
Also, there may be a rule that projects listed on dApp Staking must be posted on Astar Portal, the official Astar-managed site, unless they are delisted, but the fact that ADAO information continues to be posted there after the incident was discovered without any measures being taken is problematic.
Astar Officials could have taken steps to prevent the number of victims from increasing, such as issuing an alert when they received a victim’s complaint.
It is urgent because there were actually people who complained of being victimized, and no one would blame Astar officials if they took the initiative to do so.
And I am not saying that Astar officials have to be responsible for all dApps that exist on Astar.
I am saying that when a malicious act is committed by the operator of a project in which Astar Officials were involved in no small degree through the Builders Program or Incubation Program, Astar Officials should be held partly responsible, and that there is a need to help the victims.
I hope that dApp Staking V3 will help prevent malicious incidents like the one that occurred at the ADAO.
However, as a victim, I cannot agree with the attitude that this incident should be overlooked because of that.
*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.
3 Likes
Hi @As1027, to a large extent I agree with what you say and I can also understand your victim stance.
Right now the core team is going through a lot of stress between the official Astar zkEVM mainnet release, dApp Staking upgrade to V3, Account Unification (AU) delivery and other things in store for this 2024.
I’m not telling you this to excuse anyone, I just want you to understand the magnitude of the stress.
Now it is true that thanks to my partner @pithecus we opened this conversation, we did not have full knowledge of what was happening with this dApp, more and more victims appear here in this conversation but we can not take action lightly, that is why this forum, to investigate whether the information is legitimate.
I reiterate that I support your position, but we are already in favor of excluding this dApp and will soon be reopening the voting process.
3 Likes
No response from the team means the team agrees to be delisted. I voted yes for ADAO dApp delisting.
4 Likes
I voted in favor of the delisting.
The issue of compensation is separate from this vote, but there are some things I would like to consider first.
The Builders Program indeed supports developers, and it seems to have been mainly focused on onboarding support, particularly in creating proposals for dApp Staking listings. Therefore, the program does not appear to be intended for continuous support, supervision, or assistance after the onboarding process.
The Builders Program supported onboarding almost two years ago, and it seems unreasonable to hold it accountable for relatively recent issues. Although it’s a bit different, I rarely hear of venture capitalists (VCs) or organizations that provided grants being held responsible for the failure of supported projects. I’ve seen several instances where projects backed by VC funding faltered, which I think is a similar case.
However, it’s also true that a clear delisting process for dApp Staking hasn’t been established, and there’s no system for ongoing monitoring. I believe this is the community’s responsibility. It would be more desirable for the community to raise awareness and propose delisting, and then for the Astar Foundation to refer to these actions. Direct statements by the Foundation have significant impacts, both good and bad, and can compromise decentralization.
Therefore, I propose providing financial aid from the Community Treasury (currently used for UCG). If the ADAO team responds and resolves the issue, the funds can be returned to the Community Treasury.
9 Likes
In general, I looked for any response from ADAO, which seems not the case at this moment. So delisting ADAO is one thing that should be done quickly, but as @you425 suggested, opening another topic/thread is better for further step(s). Setting it aside, personally, I am glad to see constructive discussion is ongoing, though it would have been ideal if the topic was not about delisting or so.
And I would like to suggest not to call victim(s) or use victimized. DD or DYOR is always highly recommended, even if the project was supported at the beginning of builders program. We can do and have to do autopsy from what has happend and is happening but in a constructive manner.
5 Likes
Hi @As1027
The current vote is open for ADAO delisting from dApp Staking.
If you wish to ask for a new vote to compensate users affected by the ADAO issue from the Treasury, I invite you to create a new proposal in this topic with your arguments that can lead to a new vote.
I’ll answer your questions but, in general, I agree with @you425 that the Foundation is not responsible for the success or failure of projects on Astar. The Builders Program aims to help projects launching on Astar and joining dApp Staking. The program does not guarantee ongoing support and project follow-up, especially years later.
ADAO was launched at the beginning of Astar in early 2022 and worked as it should for over a year and a half, the problem occurred only a few weeks ago. However, the ADAO team stopped communicating with and supporting the community in the second quarter of 2023 (simply by checking ADAO twitter or Discord), that’s almost 6 months without any news or communication from ADAO, which, when doing proper research before using a project, is already something to take into account. Relying only on information from 2022 is not a guarantee.
Additionally, in the event that users are compensated by the treasury and the ADAO team finally comes back in a few weeks or months and fixes the problem, the “affected” users will be able to get their tokens back and will therefore ultimately have their tokens + compensation from the treasury? I’m against this because the community shouldn’t have to pay for other users’ mistakes or bad decisions.
Until it is proven that tokens are lost, there is no guarantee that they will never be inaccessible.
7 Likes
The vote to remove ADAO from dApp Staking was passed and the foundation will now proceed with the delisting.
We will inform the community once this is done.
3 Likes
Fully agree with what @Gaius_sama explained, particularly the part quoted above.
As it is related to insufficient gas fee when unbinding the direct staking on the ADAO dApp, still I think there could be ways to fix this issue.
7 Likes
I also fully agree with @Gaius_sama and @pithecus.
And, It may be due to Astar update( gass fee adjustment ).
5 Likes
I am very much in favor of this mentioned by my colleague @you425, and I think the same, I have seen how the builder program is used to include the list, not to develop the product as such, something to repair.
I also emphasize what you mentioned, @Gaius_sama, project research is a task that we should do frequently (especially if we have tokens invested in any of them). It happens a lot that once we invest, we forget to re-evaluate the projects.
3 Likes
Absolutely agree, the projects must learn that the responsibility for development and growth depends on them and not on the foundation. Individual responsibility must always be assumed, I think it is a silly excuse to blame the foundation.
4 Likes