LFGM!
Let’s spread the word that ASTR is THE ASSET of Soneium, everybody!
We need the community’s support to make it go viral! 
1 Like
I agree with the proposal since the treasury is not used. Even if the amount may seem a lot I think it is worth it to attract interest. However I would prefer that the campaign also focuses on these points:
- A balanced experience that does not require you to stay glued to the screen to remain competitive in the ranking. LFGM was ultimately considered full of tasks and a system that not everyone understood (different parameters for each week) and consequently they abandoned the campaign (at least from the Italian community side).
- An optimized system to block sybils or accounts that are Bots. With Yoki origins it happened very often to see accounts with a x10 of the points compared to the second ranked. This discourages participation, and I believe that the purpose of LFGM or physical prizes and too many tasks have driven away airdrop hunters.
- A focus on dApp staking to encourage its use and understand its functionality.
I remain very interested in reading the comments of others, LFGM!
1 Like
I understand your argument stating that the LFGM rewards have already been distributed according to the established rules. However, we are about to spend $6 million here, and a small allocation divided among at least the contenders who did not win anything would not have a significant impact on the reward pool, while it would be greatly appreciated by the participants.
I do not have the data, but I’m sure a proportion of the contenders were new to Astar/Soneium, participating with the mindset of any MegaChain testnet, hoping to earn at least points for mainnet campaigns. Remember that fewer than 100 participants won something out of hundreds.
For those who have not won anything, not providing at least a small allocation of ACS points would make Astar and Soneium look stingy. I can tell you that many current community members already feel this way after seeing the LFGM reward pool and its allocation (a raffle system), especially since the grand prize and its allocation mechanism have been kept secret for a significant part of the campaign for which many people were expecting a general distribution instead of just a few winners selected by raffle.
You mentioned that being bold is necessary to attract new users, but showing gratitude and consideration to current users is just as important for retaining them.
Regarding your last argument, I believe it is fallacious, as we are only discussing the Soneium campaign, for which only the LFGM and Surge campaigns have been organized.
Regarding this argument, even though stress tests have been conducted with test tokens that hold no value, contenders still invested their most precious currency in this campaign: TIME.
I have participated in many airdrops and blockchain projects, and LFGM has been one of the most tedious and time-consuming farming experiences I have ever encountered, with close to 50 daily tasks. When everything was running smoothly, it took a good 30 to 45 minutes to complete all tasks each day over the course of 90 days, totaling around 45 hours—more than a week of full-time work. Yet, many people received nothing at all, while the projects and Astar benefited from all that valuable data and feedback.
As you mentionned, we can indeed encourage projects to offer some kind of incentive, but in the eyes of users, it is Astar and Soneium who organized the LFGM campaign not the projects.
(mod - corrected typo, added coment on Maarten argument, corrected typo again)
2 Likes
LFGM campaign was already announced as non-incentivized initiative with educational purposes. I do not think Astar would be viewed stingy if we were to keep our original promises on lack of incentives.
The proposed ACS campaign will be transparently sharing total rewards amount. Hence, not including LFGM for ACS would not disencourage users for participation.
Recent trend indicates that not all testnet activities are rewarded. There are many protocols providing no incentive for testnet activations.
Astar, including core team, greatly appreciantes community’s interest in LFGM, but that does not mean rewarding from ACS is granted.
Astar Surge is very different. It actually contributed a lot for bootstrapping Soneium ecosystem, and currently ASTR is the largest asset on Soneium, thanks to Surge participants. This is clearly setting a foundation for ASTR to become representative asset in Soneium.
GM Everyone 
First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude to everyone and projects who worked on creating this proposal and to all those who have taken the time to share their thoughts and insights. It’s inspiring to see such collaboration and commitment to the growth of the Astar ecosystem.
Treasury Management
It is important to make the best use of our treasury instead of leaving it idle. Over the past four years, we have accumulated almost 400 million tokens in the treasury, with much of it remaining unused. This proposal presents a valuable opportunity to deploy these resources effectively for the benefit of the Astar ecosystem.
The “Flying Wheel” Effect for Astar Token
As Soneium grows and succeeds, it becomes increasingly feasible to attract leading Ethereum projects such as Uniswap, AAVE, and Curve. Integrating the Astar Token (ASTR) into these prominent projects would significantly enhance its global recognition and value.
It is worth emphasizing that the reputation of Sony and Soneium has been instrumental in bringing notable applications like Chainlink, Layer0, Across, Circle, Velodrome, Solv or OpenEden into our ecosystem. Currently, nearly 50 projects have committed to listing ASTR within their ecosystems—a number close to surpasse the active protocols in the entire Polkadot ecosystem, all on a single chain. This highlights the strategic importance of Soneium’s reputation.
Attracting New Users
Astar’s growth has been fueled by initiatives such as parachains, crowdloans, and lockdrops, which attracted individuals who believed in the project. Many of these participants have remained loyal, holding onto their tokens for years. However, on-chain activity remains relatively limited. For instance, 30% of the ASTR supply is tied up in dApp Staking, while a significant portion remains on centralized exchanges.
All current ASTR holders are expecting an increase in the token’s price. However, this additional buying power will not come from existing holders, as they are unlikely to purchase more tokens. Instead, it must come from individuals outside our ecosystem. Most of the current participants entered through token distributions during lockdrops and crowdloans. This new incentivization would not only attract fresh interest but also bring in new holders of ASTR.
Additionally, with the higher multiplier for ASTR tokens, this campaign offers existing ASTR holders a fantastic opportunity to actively use their tokens on-chain. They can benefit from the campaign without needing to buy new tokens to participate, unlike other crypto users.
Justifying the Budget
Allocating 100 million ASTR to this campaign is reasonable in my view. Although it represents a substantial portion of the treasury, these funds are currently underutilized. Comparatively, other major ecosystems (Layer 1 and Layer 2) often allocate millions of dollars to similar campaigns. A campaign with only $1 million in rewards, as suggested by some members, would not achieve the desired impact, particularly in today’s competitive market in Q1 2025. Abstract, Monad, Movement, Unichain, or Ink chain are all launching this quarter.
That being said, we could optimize our approach by utilizing the 20 million unused ASTR tokens from the Old dApp Staking Wallet. This could reduce the direct contribution from the treasury to 80 million. Alternatively, these tokens could be burned to create scarcity, increase visibility, and demonstrate our commitment to reducing supply while stimulating on-chain activity.
Conclusion
This campaign is a unique opportunity to establish ASTR as a key asset within Soneium. It aligns with our growth objectives and addresses the need for enhanced on-chain engagement. I fully support the proposal but recommend that we also consider the following:
- Utilize the 20 million unused tokens from the Old dApp Staking Wallet as part of this campaign to reduce the treasury’s direct contribution to 80 million.
- Burn the 20 million tokens to create scarcity, generate visibility, and highlight our commitment to reducing the token supply before launching the campaign.
Open to other thoughts. 
6 Likes
I believe that the ACS campaign + burning would be essential to draw the market’s attention to ASTR — it’s time to take advantage of the liquidity frenzy sparked by the TRUMP token in the market, which will soon rotate into other altcoins. Burrrrrrrn!
1 Like
So what your propose is ultimately to reduce contender rewards budget for the campaign by 20M astr to burn them instead.
I don’t understand, core team members, you included, mentioned that 6M$ campaigns is in the averages budget of all thoses superchain projects and that if we want to make a noticeable impact and compet with them, such a level of reward budget is required. But in the same time you propose to reduce budget to rewards contenders to burn it… i’m a bit confused here…
Why not burn those 20M from old wallet (they seems to be deemed for this kind of marketing event anyway) + spend the 100M on the campaigns to maximize the impact as stated by the discussion & the proposal?
2 Likes
This is exactly what I’m proposing:
- Option A: Burn the 20 million tokens from the old wallet and use 100 million from the treasury for the ACS campaign.
- Option B: Use the 20 million tokens from the old wallet and 80 million from the treasury for the ACS campaign (Total = 100M ASTR).
I realized this may have been unclear in my previous message, so I hope this explanation clarifies it.
4 Likes
Hello everyone, Tatsu from Startale here.
I would like to firstly appreciate all of you to be taking part in this topic, in a constructive and respectful manner. I would also like to express my sincere support for this initiative.
ACS could open up an unprecedented opportunity for Astar- for $ASTR to be positioned as a core community token of a leading network in the Ethereum ecosystem by contributing to the growth of Soneium. Not only will this lead to granting various utility for $ASTR, I also believe this is a crucial step for Astar’s growth and to achieve the ultimate vision of bringing web3 to the mass.
As Jay’s initial post highlighted, there are dozens of leading Soneium ecosystem projects that are planned to participate in ACS, with each of them bringing various unique usage of $ASTR. It is in projects’ interest to also expand the usage of $ASTR in their app, as this will funnel in more Astar community’s participation. I also believe the distribution mechanism (proportional to TVL for DeFi projects, and discretionary logic that reflects the usage of the dApp, hence the usage of ASTR too) will also ensure that ACS is distributed fairly to actively promote the dApps with effective usage of $ASTR.
I believe this is crucial if Astar were to achieve the vision of mass adoption. The current time period is a crucial moment for Astar to be able to capture its value in the Soneium ecosystem, which is a newly launched ecosystem. There is a high level of interest for what kind of projects are getting built there and how they are bringing benefits to the users. If we can showcase that Astar/$ASTR is the centric force that drives the growth of Soneium at the beginning phase, there will be a strong incentive for future builders to also adopt $ASTR as well. Soneium, with the vision of going mainstream, will aim to bring use cases that can penetrate the adoption by the non-crypto native audience. I believe $ASTR earning a dominant presence in the Soneium ecosystem by then will retrospectively benefit Astar in the long term as well.
ACS, though ambitious, is an effective approach for Astar to earn a strong presence in a highly anticipated ecosystem, and I’d like to express my support for this reason.
3 Likes
I am for option A, as I have already written, the market requires courage and audacity. we have launched the mainnet, we need to be aggressive and push as much as possible right away.
Hello everyone participating in the Soneium ecosystem! This is YS, Director of Sonova. I’m thrilled to learn about the innovative ACS Campaign and would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the Soneium team and community for spearheading such an initiative.
At Sonova, we started our journey on Astar zkEVM and have successfully launched the Soneium mainnet. To date, we have achieved a remarkable milestone with over 50,000 Sonova Genesis NFTs minted. This success would not have been possible without your interest and active participation, for which we are truly grateful. Your involvement has been instrumental in the growth and success of the Soneium ecosystem.
Once the ACS Campaign is approved by the community, it will be a significant milestone for all dApps. At Sonova, we are committed to designing the best UI/UX to ensure the campaign’s success and attract more users to the Soneium ecosystem.
Additionally, we are continuously preparing and striving to enhance the user experience and support NFT launches effectively. Please look forward to the exciting developments ahead!
Thank you.
5 Likes
Very interesting proposal. This campaign should help with traffic to some extent. If I may, I’d like to ask a few additional questions:
-
In terms of numerical targets, what numbers is the team aiming for?
-
Regarding sybil attacks, what preventive measures does the team have in place?
As a long-term ASTR holder (since Plasm or PLM), I must express serious concerns about this proposal:
1. Token Inflation and Dumping Cycles
- Looking at similar campaigns in the L2 ecosystem (Arbitrum Odyssey, Optimism’s Quests), they consistently led to massive token dumping by initial participants
- Notably, OP price dropped approximately 40% following Optimism’s Quest program
- Base’s initial airdrop volume also resulted in immediate selling pressure
- ZkSync’s airdrop campaign showed similar patterns of immediate value deterioration
2. Lack of Genuine Ecosystem Value Creation
- These campaigns primarily attract “farmers” rather than genuine users
- Historical data shows user retention rates below 10% post-reward period
- Creates artificial metrics rather than sustainable growth
- Similar to the BASE bridge farming that led to inflated TVL without real adoption
3. Disregard for Existing Holders
- Holders have experienced continuous value dilution from similar campaigns over the past year
- L2 protocols’ token values have dropped an average of 35-50% post-campaign
- Deteriorating trust among long-term holders
- The proposed ASTR distribution scale seems excessive compared to market cap
4. Data-Backed Concerns
- Galxe’s recent report: 73% of campaign participants sell entire rewards within 2 weeks
- Nansen data: Average retention rate of 8% post-initial incentive programs for L2 protocols
- DeFiLlama: Average 45% TVL decrease following similar campaigns
- Binance Research: High correlation between large-scale incentive programs and subsequent price depreciation
5. Alternative Suggestions
- Reduce reward scale to 30% of current proposal
- Implement extended vesting period (minimum 12 months)
- Focus on KPIs measuring real usage rather than transaction counts
- Consider tiered distribution based on user engagement quality
While I understand the intention to leverage Soneium’s momentum, we must consider the empirical evidence from similar campaigns. The current proposal risks repeating the same mistakes we’ve seen across the ecosystem, potentially harming ASTR’s long-term value proposition.
References:
- L2Beat: Analytics on L2 incentive programs and their market impact
- Messari: “The Incentive Paradox in Web3” report
- Token Terminal: Post-campaign metrics across major L2s
The data consistently shows that large-scale incentive programs often lead to short-term inflation followed by significant value deterioration. I strongly urge the community to reconsider the scale and structure of this proposal.
Please Note: While these data points are based on real cases, I encourage the community to verify and conduct additional research.
5 Likes
As @ambassadors, it’s time we transcend beyond rubber-stamping and blind endorsements. Our responsibility extends far beyond the monthly compensation we (I used to) receive – we have a fiduciary duty to both the ecosystem and its stakeholders.
Recent governance proposals demonstrate a concerning pattern: ambassadors collectively supporting initiatives without critical analysis, seemingly driven more by consensus bias than genuine conviction. This behavior not only undermines our credibility but potentially jeopardizes the ecosystem’s long-term sustainability.
We need to cultivate an environment where ambassadors can voice dissenting opinions without fear of repercussion. The true value of an ambassador lies not in unconditional agreement, but in their ability to provide balanced, honest perspectives – even when those perspectives challenge popular sentiment.
Let’s remember: being an ambassador means being a steward of the ecosystem’s future, not just a recipient of its current benefits. The courage to say “no” when necessary is as vital as the enthusiasm to support promising initiatives.
It’s time we align our actions with our responsibilities and start engaging in more nuanced, critical discussions about the ecosystem’s future. The age of reflexive consensus must end.
9 Likes
Now, Dear Astar @community,
I’d like to share some observations about our current governance metrics that warrant discussion:
- Total ASTR holders: 829,627 accounts
- 63 whale accounts (>0.1% supply) hold 73.69% of voting power
- This represents 0.0076% of accounts controlling nearly 74% of decisions
While the community is consistently encouraged to participate in governance voting, these numbers suggest our current tokenomics structure may not fully enable the decentralized decision-making process we aspire to achieve.
When such a small number of accounts hold such significant voting power, it raises questions about whether our governance process truly reflects the diverse perspectives of our entire community.
Perhaps it’s time for an open discussion about how we might evolve our governance structure to better serve all stakeholders in the Astar ecosystem.
(pause and sigh)
Lastly and again, I’d like to raise several points of concern regarding project eligibility criteria and the overall campaign structure (while keeping in mind that our governance system is fully centralized):
1. Project Eligibility Criteria Transparency
- The current list appears arbitrary without clear qualification metrics
- No historical performance data or user retention metrics provided
- Lack of clear criteria for how projects qualify as “important for maintaining liquidity”
2. Risk Assessment of Listed Projects
- Many listed projects are extremely new or even pre-launch
- Limited track record of successful operations
- Insufficient due diligence documentation shared with the community
- No clear risk mitigation strategies presented
3. TVL Distribution Concerns
Current proposal: 700M ACS (70%) based on TVL
Risk: This heavily favors short-term liquidity farming over sustainable ecosystem growth
Reference: Similar campaigns on other L2s showed 80%+ liquidity exodus post-rewards
4. Project Evaluation Framework
Proposed improvements:
- Implement minimum operational history requirement (e.g., 3+ months)
- Require transparent user metrics and growth data
- Establish clear qualification/disqualification criteria
- Include community feedback in project selection
5. Alternative Distribution Model Suggestion
- 40% TVL-based distribution
- 30% User engagement metrics
- 20% Developer activity
- 10% Community governance
Given these concerns, I propose:
- A more transparent project selection process
- Regular community review periods
- Graduated distribution schedule based on milestone achievement
- Clear performance metrics for continued eligibility
I believe these modifications would better serve Astar’s long-term interests while maintaining the campaign’s core objectives.
Looking forward to constructive dialogue on these points.
Best regards,
Rhee
*P.S. After carefully reviewing the 75 comments, I’ve noticed a striking pattern. Nearly all commenters are either Council Members, Core-team members, Ambassadors, or project-affiliated individuals who have been pre-selected by ACS to validate this proposal. With the exception of three genuinely independent community voices - @Marroz, @Jonathan, and @Eraki - the majority seem more inclined to sell Astar tokens rather than support the community’s interests.
This raises serious concerns about the proposal’s integrity. Why should the community and token holders be expected to sacrifice their interests for the project’s growth? The lack of authenticity from these internal stakeholders makes the proposal’s legitimacy questionable.
As a representative of the 26.31% of smaller holders - the “cute dolphins and ants” who stand in contrast to the 73.69% of whale holders - I believe this proposal should not be pursued. While I acknowledge the significant effort, research, and potentially substantial operational costs already invested, the seeming disregard for community sentiment is deeply troubling.
If substantial resources have already been committed under the presumption of this proposal’s automatic approval, it would be a stark demonstration of disconnection from the community’s voice. Therefore, I firmly oppose this proposal.
The core issue here is not just about the specific proposal, but about the fundamental respect and consideration owed to the broader token holder community.
7 Likes
I would like to contradict this statement.
Your statement here is not correct, I took the time to look at the top 5 of those wallets. Top 5 is already +50% of what your are pointed at as 74% controlling the decision.
Let’s me share the wallets:
- This is an exchange wallet
- Another exchange wallet
- Another exchange wallet
- Onchain DAO allocation from genesis
- Onchain Treasury
…
moving forward in the list, we have wrapped ASTR smart contract, Foundation wallets, other exchanges, investors, … and indeed some individual whales.
All those accounts (top 5 50% of what you pointed out) are not used or can’t be used in governance. Your statement can be misinterpreted if you don’t share the correct context 
If you would check current onchain governance you will identify that this is currently not happening in our current governance system. This kind of information is not correct as a statement based on the data its built on.
Please understand how this 73,69% is build of
You can check everything onchain to identify the whales.
4 Likes
We are excited to contribute to the ACS Campaign and appreciate the opportunity to collaborate in driving $ASTR adoption within the Soneium ecosystem. SynStation is committed to ensuring that all allocated ACS rewards are distributed transparently and in ways that maximize user engagement and the utility of $ASTR. Here’s how users can earn ACS through SynStation:
-
Deposit $ASTR to Earn ACS:
Visit portal.synstation.org and simply deposit $ASTR to start earning ACS. The deposited $ASTR assets will be deployed into SynStation’s prediction markets, helping to support the platform’s liquidity and user engagement. Additionally, a portion of these assets will also be allocated to other DeFi protocols (e.g. Kyo, Sake, SoneFi) on Soneium to fully maximize the yields for our users. -
Predict and Earn with $ASTR:
At market.synstation.org, you can use $ASTR to participate in prediction markets on topics that interest you. $ASTR will be converted to $GM, an internal token used for making predictions on SynStation. This ensures seamless participation while enhancing the utility of $ASTR within our platform. The more you use SynStation for predictions, the more ACS you can earn!* -
Transparent Distribution of ACS Rewards:
All ACS rewards allocated to SynStation will be distributed transparently, ensuring fairness and clarity for our users. Additionally, higher engagement and usage of SynStation directly contribute to greater ACS earnings, reinforcing the value of active participation.
With SynStation having already accumulated $3M in TVL, including $ASTR derivative tokens, we are confident that our platform can make a meaningful impact in driving $ASTR’s growth. By empowering users to engage with our prediction markets while earning ACS rewards, we aim to create a sustainable and thriving ecosystem for $ASTR within Soneium.
We look forward to continuing to collaborate with the community and other ACS participants to maximize the success of this initiative. Together, we can achieve greater adoption and utility for $ASTR!
2 Likes
Thanks for raising an accurate data about governance power dynamics. Even if we acknowledge that a significant portion of those top token percentages are effectively neutralized, there’s still (as you know) a compelling argument about conviction and engagement levels among token holders
When we look at governance participation, it’s natural that those who have invested more substantially—both in terms of token quantity/holding duration and emotional investment—tend to be more actively engaged in the decision-making process. Long-term holders typically demonstrate a deeper understanding of the project’s ecosystem, strategic direction, and potential challenges. Their prolonged commitment suggests not just financial investment, but intellectual and emotional stake in the project’s success.
Your suggestion to check the current on-chain governance process is particularly interesting indeed. It’s encouraging to see a more discerning approach to ecosystem management—not just blindly approving proposals, but critically evaluating their merit and potential impact. The steps being taken to delist non-contributing dApps demonstrate a maturation of the governance process.
Maybe implementing some mechanisms thatcan foster a more balanced, transparent, and community-driven decision-making environment. It’s a delicate balance between leveraging insider expertise and preventing potential conflicts of interest, such as:
- Invalidating votes if community participation falls below 50%
- Preventing internal team members from voting on their own proposals (verified with onchain-id)
Regardless of such mechanisms, I believe the key is creating a governance model that respects both substantial token holders’ insights and the broader community’s diverse perspectives. It’s about building a system that encourages informed, strategic participation rather than pure token-based dominance.
I hope on-chain governance vote for this proposal can truly reflect the diverse voices within the Astar ecosystem. Rather than relying solely on internal stakeholders just like tons of replies/comments from internal members/affiliates above, I encourage a more proactive approach of reaching out to the community, educating members, and genuinely understanding their perspectives.
Given the careful thought behind the ACS initiative, it would be most valuable to see a transparent, inclusive process that brings everyone along. The goal should be meaningful participation, not just achieving a predetermined outcome. By creating opportunities for genuine community engagement and education, you can build trust and ensure that any decision truly represents the collective insight of the Astar community.
I trust in my ex-colleagues’ commitment to maintaining the highest standards of governance integrity, where every voice has the opportunity to be heard and considered.
(… and moving away from the governance and whale account topics && back to the main topic regarding the proposal above)
By the way, the timing of this ACS proposal feels particularly precarious. At a moment when the Astar token has seemingly lost its value narrative across multiple regional communities, introducing such a proposal risks further eroding community confidence. It’s almost akin to administering a complex medical procedure when the patient is already critically weak.
The ecosystem appears to be at a crossroads, sadly. Rather than artificially propping up transaction volumes or forcibly injecting contracts from less likely qualified (early stage) projects into Soneium, the focus should be on the genuine utility and value creation part. Soneium represents an incredible opportunity—a potential renaissance for the projects directly from Sony Group—but it requires a strategic, disciplined approach as what Startale has been always working on.
However, it seems that Startale’s analogy of Astar being a “low-hanging fruit” that can be constantly being picked at is poignant. Instead of treating Astar as a temporary life support system for Soneium (the same manner we treated prev. Astar zkEVM), the team should demonstrate a clear, committed pathway. If Soneium is the future, then commit to it fully. When the time is right, I can tell a transparent, legal integration of Astar could be a natural progression. If not, then that’s how it is meant to be.
This isn’t about dismissing Astar’s current infrastructure, but about having a forward-looking, honest strategy. We all know that the community-trust isn’t built through complex governance proposals or artificial transaction mechanics, but through clear communication, demonstrable progress, and a genuine commitment to solving real-world challenges from the ecosystem.
The current blockchain space is littered with projects that lost their way by trying to maintain multiple, diluted narratives. Soneium offers Astar a chance to redefine its core value—but that requires laser-focused execution and transparent communication with the community.
I sincerely hope that my heartfelt concerns, and the underlying message of support that accompanies them, will reach the Astar core team and Startale—the team I deeply care about and respect.
9 Likes
While I support the ACS campaign, as @rhee mentioned, the impact on the price of ASTR tokens cannot be denied.
I believe that if tokens are distributed, there won’t be many users who continue to hold tokens that don’t increase in price.
Therefore, to maximize the effectiveness of the ACS campaign, how about burning 100 million ASTR tokens in parallel with the ACS campaign that distributes 100 million ASTR tokens?
The breakdown would be 20 million ASTR from old wallets and 80 million ASTR from the treasury.
If the price of the distributed tokens rises, I think more users will continue to hold them.
1 Like
As stated by @rhee, I believe his concerns and proposals regarding $ASTR are both valid and relevant.
The current method of distributing tokens is unlikely to enhance engagement or metrics for $ASTR. Many participants seem to be merely leveraging Soneium without genuine commitment. Historical data from various Layer 2 projects shows that those relying on airdrops and incentives for rewards tend to see only temporary engagement during promotional campaigns (as evidenced by projects like Blast, Manta, and Taiko).
Therefore, I believe that basing 70% of our strategy on Total Value Locked (TVL) is not an effective approach and could weaken the position of $ASTR. I am skeptical of growth hacking strategies that may inflate metrics in the short term but ultimately harm the chain in the long run.
Instead, I advocate for a strategy similar to what Base has implemented. I was initially excited to hear that Soneium intended to adopt a similar approach, but the current execution does not align with that vision.
Base’s growth has been driven by the expansion of social finance (SocialFi) platforms like Farcaster, community sharing/airdrops, and meme culture. Given that $ASTR is positioned as a builder-oriented chain, I believe we should adopt a strategy similar to Base through Soneium, especially considering our strong backing from Sony. This partnership opens significant opportunities for collaboration and partnerships, positioning us to leverage Sony’s extensive network and resources effectively.
In conclusion, I am positioning myself against the ACS campaign for the growth of $ASTR.
1 Like