@neo_defi , thanks for the reply.
I have a general understanding of the past funding amounts and future needs.
I will assume that we will proceed with Option 2 as you proposed.
On that basis, I have an additional question.
$0 (the revenue will be distributed to ve voters)
1.Regarding the above answer, do you mean that all of the protocol revenue will be distributed to ve voters? That would mean that the funds already raised to develop and maintain the protocol would be gone in less than two years. What is the plan for obtaining the funds for continued development? In general, the system should be designed to save funds in the Protocol’s Treasury to some extent. If the amount saved is large enough, it can be returned to the community through buy-backs or other flexible measures. If this proposal is approved, I think sustainability is very important since we will be supporting Starlay.
2.You need $500k worth of $LAY to provide $1M worth of liquidity. Where would the allocation for this amount come from? Based on the current $LAY price, you would need about 63M LAY. This is about 6.3% of total supply.
The image above is a graph of allocation vs. circulation taken from Starlay’s documentation. It seems to me that no matter which allocation is used, it is not enough for circulation. I think an explanation on this point is needed for the Starlay Community?
3.This is not a question for NEO, but for the entire Astar Community to know: if you do Option2, you will be offering a LAY-WASTR LP. As I am sure you know, offering liquidity will result in IL. I believe that accepting this proposal means supporting Starlay and assuming that the price of $LAY will increase. This in itself is not a problem, but borrowing $LAY from Starlay to provide liquidity is taking a risk.
（If the $LAY price increase is higher than the $ASTR, the IL will cause the $LAY in the LP being supplyed to decrease and the $ASTR to increase. In other words, the need to repurchase to repay $LAY means that a debt has been incurred. Conversely, if the rate of price increase of $ASTR is higher, $ASTR in the LP will decrease and $LAY will increase, so that after repayment, the increased $LAY will remain and $ASTR will flow out.）
It is safe to say that there is no direct burden on the Community as it uses $ASTR (public goods) stored in Astar’s Treasury. However, if the price of $LAY does not go as expected and falls, $LAY in the AMM Pool will increase and $ASTR will flow out. This means that the circulating supply will increase, diluting the value of $ASTR held by the community. In other words, it is indirectly a burden to the community. I wrote this as a threat, but even if this were to happen, it would hardly be a hindrance because it is not a large amount. However, we need to know what could happen and what the risks are. Indirectly, we are supporting them with our assets.
I have written a lot, but I am by no means unsupportive of Starlay. I want the team to do well. However, I don’t want this to be the status of a project to which the Incubation Program has been applied (even though it has graduated). I want them to show me something that makes me think, “I think we can successfully rebuild this.”
Here is what I would like many people to be aware of as it relates to Starlay. There is no need to discuss it here, as it is not the main topic of this case.
Many Astar Community Members ask, “What are we doing in the Incubation Program?” I think. If you have some knowledge and ability to research, as I do, it was obvious that this IDO would fail (as for too little liquidity, I did not expect it…). However, some of you may have participated in Starlay’s IDO solely because it was accepted into the Incubation Program. This is because, since it is called Incubation Program, I think they are advising on the contents of the Project (Tokenomics, operation, how to deploy, etc.). In other words, this is a situation where trust is being generated for Astar, not Protocol. Trust requires evidence, but there is not enough transparency for that. Trust and blind acceptance are not the same thing. Situations where blind acceptance occurs should be avoided. For better or worse, there was a lot of attention and expectation on Astar. It is understandable that there would be a great deal of disappointment when the top protocol (and one that has already adopted the Incubation Program) is in this situation, even though it coincided with the overall market crash. What has already happened can’t be helped, and improvements should be made for the future.
I am a member of the Astar Community who has high hopes for Astar and wants it to grow. I don’t want to be too picky, but I believe that we all need to seriously think and discuss (not complain) for the future and that will lead to DAO. But even here, if there is no transparency, there is no discussion.
We hope that this case will help Astar and the community grow in the future. Now is the time to step up to the plate!