Quantitative Metrics for dApps

1

What I noticed while observing discussions in the community is that quantitative goals are essential for evaluating dApps. These goals should be measured using on-chain data, the size of the community, and activity rates. Disputes and arguments within the community often arise because everyone believes their project is contributing to the ecosystem, while from another person’s perspective, it might not seem so (and vice versa). As a result, many unproductive debates can be seen on the forum.

Therefore, I propose establishing consistent criteria for evaluating dApps. I believe the council members can work to reach a consensus with the entire community on this. By setting consistent metrics, we can discuss more constructively which dApps are contributing and which are not. What do you think?

4 Likes
2

dApp staking criteria is a good step, but I don’t see consistent criteria across all projects as an equitable or even viable solution.

Possible issues:

  • How do you compare an on-chain game’s metrics to those of NFT projects?
  • What criteria should be used for a team in a development stage vs a mature product stage?
  • How do you handle cases like we have now where teams that chose to build on Astar zkEVM have seen chain traffic dry up as the chain has been in sunset for multiple months?

There are quite a lot of these types of a vs b metric trade-offs that will need to be addressed. A consistent quantitative set of metrics such as those listed in the original post above would not handle this well.

In regard to the discussion quality. I see a few issues, one of which is the criteria, but others exist:

  • Need for a clearly defined ambassador role within governance. (Are they brand ambassadors, or do they have a governance role - are they in charge of the forum, are they in charge of dApp staking, etc…).
  • Poor forum maintenance: Topics being left open well after their topic expiry.
  • Lack of quality replies to serious issues brought up by both teams and forum users. (although this has picked up in the last week or so, especially by @Maarten and @0xRamz)
  • A general acceptance of accusations without proof and lying the burden of proof on the accused (I could just say: Sota, you stole from the treasury, prove you didn’t! Versions of this seem to be popping up a lot across multiple team threads).

So I do agree there needs to be some type of framework, but it will need a lot of thought behind what type of projects the Astar Network wants in the program, and how to differentiate criteria based both the type of project and the expected development lifetime.

3 Likes
3

Quantification of dApps evaluations has been discussed from time to time since dApp Staking was enabled. However, the fact that there are so many different types of dApps makes it very difficult to make uniform comparisons. In particular, it is difficult to evaluate infrastructure dApps because many of them are off-chain.

If a uniform evaluation is to be made, it will be necessary to establish evaluation criteria for each category.

2 Likes
4

Having a evaluation criteria for dapps would be fantastic because it would allow the entire community to be able to easily monitor the performance of the various dapps. However, I understand that it is difficult to be able to compare all dapps with standard criteria because based on the category of dapps there would be different standards to follow. It could be interesting to divide the dapps into macro categories and for each category establish the criterias (goals etc…) that all the dapps must follow/reach within that category. In this way we could monitor performance in a fair and ad hoc way for the type of dapps.

5

Technically it was enough that the listing rules were the same for everyone. Add MILESTONES to these rules.
Milestones are voted via proposal.
Where is the problem? Each team will have different milestones depending on what they create. If OFFCHAIN ​​work is expected in the dapp, just specify it in the milestones.
If the milestones are unbalanced towards offchain work, it is always up to the community to accept the proposal.
Milestones can have different deadlines, each deadline reached, enables you the earn period in the next milestone.
An external team should monitor the milestones reached, which in any case should be public.

Current dapp staking has ridiculous restrictions for some things, and 0 controls for others.

Furthermore, as pointed out by others, I would like to say that an analysis of the stakers behind the dapps should be public on the astar portal.

An external team should monitor the milestones reached, which in any case should be public.

Current dapp staking has ridiculous restrictions for some things, and 0 controls for others.

Furthermore, as pointed out by others, I would like to say that an analysis of the stakers behind the dapps should be public on the astar portal.

6

This topic has been raised several times since the inception of dApp Staking. I believe there is a need for standard indicators.

As others have mentioned, it is difficult due to the various types of dApps. However, I think it would be clear what actions are related to increasing the value of ASTR. For example, a popular dApp that issues many transactions is clearly being used by users (or as some kind of infrastructure or platform) more than a dApp with almost no transactions, which means it contributes more to the ecosystem, right? (Although I think some level of scrutiny on the transactions is necessary).

By considering statistical correlations and pooling our wisdom, we could establish guidelines, even if they are not perfect.

7

While it is necessary to create a robust evaluation framework for dApp Staking, it would appear that a one-size-fits-all solution is impracticable, given the nature of dApps. Each category, be it infrastructure, games, NFTs, or others, has its own dynamics and requires specific metrics for evaluation. Segmentation of dApps into macro categories and defining specific criteria within each appears to be a pragmatic way to ensure that assessments are fair and meaningful.

Milestones can be very crucial in this regard. By setting milestones for each category, voted and approved by the community, we can set clear, objective criteria. Teams would be judged on their capability to meet such milestones, while external monitors verify the progress to ensure accountability. In this process, fairness would be upheld while accounting for projects that are in different stages of their life cycles, from development to maturity.

This framework should be based on transparency. Public visibility of stakers behind dApps and detailed performance analytics on platforms like the Astar portal would foster trust and informed decision-making. Simultaneously, there is a need for scrutiny in balance-encouraging genuine activity while avoiding superficial metrics or unproductive accusations.

Furthermore, there is a need for refinement in governance. Clearly defining roles such as ambassadors and improving forum moderation and responsiveness would elevate the quality of discussions and decision-making. By addressing these systemic issues, we can create a more equitable and efficient dApp Staking ecosystem that aligns with the long-term vision of the Astar Network.

2 Likes
8

We agree, and we have been saying it since day one after the shameful implementation of v3 to the detriment of the work of REAL developers.

The tier system also, since we are talking about improving dapp staking, should absolutely be changed.
Marteen in a post on skylab which has 30 million in staking for 15 months for the entire duration of its listing as a dapp coming from a single wallet, spoke of the POWER OF THE System in terms of support.
Nothing could be more false, in a system in which there is 1 vote = astar, like v2, the funds coming from 1 wallet or more wallets are financing, and if they do not come from wallets that cannot do so (like the foundation), they are absolutely legitimate.
When you create a tiered system and in fact a ranking, a dapp in tier 3 thanks to the funds of 1 person earns 8 times more than one in tier 4 that perhaps has more stakers and also occupies a place, which perhaps in the near future will be scarcer. So that stake is absolutely damaging to the rights of other dapps and not meritocratic, so it should at least be made public. Precisely because of the new system, without taking into account that if I, a new staker who perhaps am interested in voting and supporting a dapp, see that skylab has many more votes than any other dapp, I am encouraged to bet on them, but if I knew beforehand that those votes come from 1 person or a few, perhaps I understand that the community does not actually support them as developers and that what has been demonstrated is not of great interest to the masses.
Astar as a project should be interested in this.

The current tier system only incentivizes betting on those who arrived first, who are already well positioned in the ranking or who are backed by influential hands. Not even the rewards promised by the various teams have stirred the interest of the stakers.
The passivity of the system and the lack of votes even in the governance actions presuppose a sensational distance between us who are here and the people. Astar is not truly decentralized. If you do not act by getting people to be more interested in their stake, and bringing them closer to the developers, you will not be able to grow in a healthy way and what we have seen in recent weeks will be the norm.
The staking rewards must be different depending on the supported dapp and how it behaves. Users must be interested, at that moment they themselves will be the ones to talk and control the developer teams.
When a team that has little stake develops and contributes to the ecosystem, respecting the milestones, it must receive a staking percentage of:
% base rewards + x

With this system you can easily return to a linear v2, obviously lowering the circulating amount to be distributed among developers (perhaps based on what is the maximum possible today, without counting the empty slots), lower the number of dapps that can be registered and insert a maximum number of time according to which a proposal must be supported.
Neurolanche or Astar degens after 2 years for example (a long time for any proposal that has ever been made) will have to re-present themselves and re-apply with a new proposal.
What these teams proposed 2 years ago cannot be what they are doing today, and in the best of cases the objectives have already been achieved. Keeping them in the same, privileged conditions, since as mentioned no one votes, means creating a centrality that often is not even the result of the excellent work of the dapps.
If the dapp works well then, it will be easy for it to win back people with a new proposal and therefore new goals.

These are ideas from those who have SUFFERED as developers all the negative aspects of a system that is not decentralized and truly meritocratic, and have suffered it with a significant economic loss in 2024.

Take this suggestion and make good use of it, at least by developing a discussion. The current dappstaking is a monster created by those who are distant from developers and their needs, and who have not understood that without them a development platform will be by its very definition of non-development. Astar cannot leverage its growth only on the burn of tokens, a compromise is needed, in fact this burn in the last phases of the market has been irrelevant.

9

Let me share the reasoning for modifying your post before you create more harassment towards me for censoring you and because you will edit it again and again.

First my name is Maarten, not Marteen.
You again pointed out and repeat on a topic not relevant to this one to point again towards Skylab. This discussion is happening here, and lets keep it here: ❇️ UCG: SkyLabs - Next Steps

Second, a dApp can have investors staking on them. Your ‘Power’ statments are completely false. Investors are entitled to stake in the projects they support. Already stated this in this post: Centralization. Whales Voting on Dapps - #3 this is how the system is build to give extra support to developers.

This one is same reason for being deleted: Centralization. Whales Voting on Dapps - #3 - your information is not correct and statement is not true.

You are targeting our developers who openly discussed dApp Staking with builders and community: dApps Staking v3 - proposal, I should have deleted the whole paragraph because you are again making false statements.

I’m still waiting on your email to get on a sync with me and community to clear things out. Hope we can soon do this :+1:

Slow-mode enabled to make sure we keep this thread structured and we think before posting comments.

4 Likes