Soneiun Dapps (from Astar Network)

Astar
21

This is exactly my (our) mission in the next couple of months where we will see a much more connection with Soneium. To make sure dApp Staking goes to those bringing value we need to clean up.

I’m currently looking at older listed projects first to make sure those are removed first that stopped all development.

I’m currently looking at:
Avault: https://portal.astar.network/astar/dapp-staking/dapp?dapp=0x03065e84748a9e4a1aebef15ac89da1cdf18b202
ACryptoS: https://portal.astar.network/astar/dapp-staking/dapp?dapp=0x569b344ad6bf087a285f0d415d0066028921d873

Because of earlier issues with Avault, I prefer them to be delisted asap. Proposal will be published during the weekend.

2 Likes
22

Great, please don’t stop👏

23

Yes! We focus on execution to showcase Astar’s potential.
dApp Staking is a killer feature that we should promote.

1 Like
24

Hello @Zorounashi

First of all, I’m glad to see you involved in governance and sharing your concerns and opinions. This sets a positive example for others in the community, regardless of whether I agree with your thoughts or not.

Regarding dApp Staking for Soneium, my plan is for the upcoming Community Council to propose a Code of dApp Staking to the Astar Community. This would outline the guidelines for which projects could apply or not for dApp Staking and how to act once involved.

Personal opinion:

  • I like the idea of reports, but it shouldn’t be too burdensome for the team. They should focus on development rather than creating 12 reports per year. Perhaps a development report once per quarter or semester could be an option.
  • For Soneium dApp Staking, I believe any projects, (inside or outside Astar Network), that bring value to the ASTR tokens or the ecosystem in any way, could be eligible to apply for dApp Staking. We have projects from Polkadot in dApp Staking, so why not projects from Superchain or Soneium? Moreover, being listed in dApp Staking doesn’t guarantee substantial rewards. It also depends on the staking support, which is challenging enough, in my opinion, without adding overly complicated barriers to enter dApp Staking.

Regarding the current management of dApp Staking, I don’t think pointing fingers or blaming others is an effective way to drive change and progress. Astar is an ecosystem with diverse stakeholders, including token holders, the core team, ecosystem agents, dApp owners, and builders. Relying on one group to handle everything is ineffective, as they may have different focuses and responsibilities.

Being an ecosystem agent encompasses various ways to contribute to Astar. Some specialize in content creation, business development, event organization, and community management. Although they often engage in governance due to their commitment to the ecosystem, it doesn’t mean they are responsible for dApp Staking. The upcoming Community Council, introduced with Astar 1.5, will serve as the Guardian of dApp Staking.

Astar is a collective ecosystem, allowing anyone to take initiatives and propose changes to the network, including listing or delisting dApps. This openness is why the foundation has increasingly enabled community involvement in proposing changes. Governance began on the forum for discussions and voting; earlier this year, voting moved to Astar Gov (Townhall), where users have voting power based on ASTR tokens. With Astar Evolution 1.5, we also announced the upcoming launch of on-chain governance, bringing Astar Governance to the next level.

I appreciate your initiative to open discussions on projects or dApps you believe shouldn’t remain in dApp Staking. This is exactly the kind of initiative we hope to see from the community. While the Astar Foundation leads the ecosystem’s growth and technical development, every ASTR holder is a stakeholder with “skin in the game”. If they want change, they can initiate discussions and votes, just as you have.

However, it seems there is some misunderstanding regarding the steps following a new discussion, so I’ll clarify them here.

Governance Proposal Process:

  1. Open a discussion on the Astar Forum to propose a change with an on-chain effect.
  2. After gathering sufficient community opinion or support and a minimum of 7 days of discussion, a proposal can be created.
  3. Submit the proposal on Astar Gov (until on-chain governance is established) with a voting period of at least 7 days to allow community members to vote.
  4. The community can vote using voting power based on ASTR tokens.
  5. Once the voting period concludes, depending on the vote’s outcome, on-chain actions will be taken by the foundation (subject to change with on-chain governance).

In your case, you’ve initiated numerous discussions, which again is a really good thing. However, if you wish to see these discussions executed, you’ll need to take ownership by creating proposals on Astar Gov and informing the community for voting, similar to how AstarHood proposed to delist Ceres from dApp Staking.

For more details on this process, including a step-by-step guide to creating a proposal on Astar Gov, please refer to the Astar documentation: Astar Townhall - Off-chain Governance | Welcome to Astar

If you proceed, I’ll be glad to vote on your proposals.

1 Like
25

look i almost completely agree with you. just one clarification, i’m not pointing fingers, it’s the dapps that have stolen funds and continue to do so with impunity. the core team obviously can’t follow everything, that’s indisputable. I really appreciate Astarhood for what he is doing if i understand and read something that is wrong or that i don’t understand i will tend to tag him, let’s see what happens in the future.

But it is also true that if a user brings a real problem with a dapp to the attention of an Ambassador, he could also be the one to do this… currently the role of control, critical discussion and also taking action, is missing from their part. They all tend to ignore critical discussions. Have you thought that a user or a group of them will tend to never create such a high number of proposals? We had an example with staking, users tend to ignore everything around them, they are not really active, if we leave the control and all the burdens to profiles like mine, you can be sure that over time the malicious dapps will have won the game, because no one will take on this ongoing burden over time. If instead reports come from the forum and these after discussion are real, I believe that it could also be the role of the ambassador to do this. In short, with the right rules, the role of the ambassador is truly precious. Without double roles, and with alternating presence on the forum, a lot can be done. In theory, a lot should have already happened in the past. VLS for example has created a precedent that should be discussed before being voted on, because it is very rare. but there is no discussion. I will certainly proceed to create the proposals where I believe there have been more errors, but I also expect real collaboration.

26

Hello,

Although it is late, I am responding to the initial post.

I won’t write here about which dApps should or shouldn’t be featured on Soneium, but I will list some factors that I believe are important. Some of these may overlap with others’ opinions.

  1. Uniqueness and innovation
  2. Sustainability
  3. A certain level of reliability for dApp or project operators/developers (e.g., proper code audits, some due diligence done on the team)

While this might be speaking ideally, and it may not be possible to meet all these criteria right away, I believe it is important to demonstrate and execute a roadmap and approach that at least meets these criteria.

1 Like
27

Agree, I also think that the use of milestones it’s a valid idea