Astar uses Polkadot governance v1. Similar to Polkadot, all ASTR tokens on Astar Network can be used to vote in governance, not just tokens that have been staked in dApp Staking. The only tokens that cannot be used are those locked in Defi protocols, smart-contracts or held on CEX.
Hi @Maarten
Iām disappointed to learn that this discussion has been held behind closed doors and only among Astar Foundation members. I thought that with the opening of open governance, the community would finally have a say in Astarās direction and decisions, and that community requests would ultimately be discussed in public to reach consensus following debate and, when necessary, negotiation and reasonable concessions on both sides.
At the very least, a poll (YES or NO question) for each individually proposed amendment could have been opened to ask all people involved in the discussion for their opinions on the various proposed amendments suggested by the team and the community. The rejected ones could then be dropped, and a consensus could be reached on the accepted ones based on open discussions and negotiations among all community actors (the team, Astar Foundation, and other Astar holders included), rather than just a few people behind closed doors. This would have been the perfect example of what a democratic process and governance could and should be for Astar, as well as proof that the team is genuinely trying to implement open governance.
(correction : typo)
1 Like
Hello, @Mouthmouth68
Being as neutral as possible I want to comment that I understand the current position of the Astar foundation in keeping important decisions under central management (for now). While we are in a transition there is decentralization of decision making there are still processes and actions that need a clear initiative from those who lead, in this case, the Astar foundation.
The recent launch of the Soneium mainnet is also something that needs a lot of attention from this team, which I understand Maartenās message and is to be supported.
3 Likes
I do respect your opinion on this, @Mouthmouth68, but as stated many times before in a lot of threads. Some discussions keep going without any improvements. For example dApp Staking, discussions have been happening months now, some do research and share strong points, but nobody is actively trying to change itā¦ so again Astar Foundation decided to gather all feedback and propose something and execute, more to come about this later and shared here on the forum. I also hoped this would come from community.
This is similar, we can discuss this for weeks or months but Iām sure some will still not be pleased. So Astar Foundation decided what points raised will improve this proposal, changed it, set the direction moving forward, created the proposal, so we can start moving forward with execution and change on the way with the support of community.
I understand your point, but we need to start somewhere, correct? The proposal is out, letās lock on the direction and work on it with the community towards whatās best for ASTR in the future.
Astar Foundation is only one stakeholding in the direction it has set with the Astar Evolution 1.5: https://astar.network/blog/astar-evolution-phase-1-5-from-blockchain-to-collective-66. Astar Foundation is only one entity or stakeholder in the collective, so everyone is open to propose direction with polls, change things based on data and proper research, etcā¦
3 Likes
Thank you all for sharing your valuable comments. They were very insightful, and the discussion process was a great example of a decentralized governance system.
The voting is now open! Please make your voice heard by casting your vote:
Treasury Proposal for ACS Campaign
1 Like
Hi @Maarten,
I do not have any issue with the Core Team or Astar Foundation stopping the debate to push the proposal to the next step. I acknowledge that proposals must move forward and that, especially for this time-sensitive proposal, extending the debate can be problematic.
What I do have an issue with is the way it has been handled. The Core Team and Astar Foundation could have:
- Announced that, since the proposal is time-sensitive, the debate would end in 1 or 2 days to initiate the next step.
- As mentioned, a poll should have been organized, ideally at the end of the allocated time for debate, to identify which proposals the Core Team and the community want to push forward.
- Held discussions between the Core Team and Astar Foundation publicly (which would have been essential for transparency), using recorded talks on X or other platforms for instance, regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the proposed amendments.
Iām aware that, at the end, the Core Team and Astar Foundation still have the power to cherry-pick the amendments they choose to push forward. However, with this process, the final proposal would have had much stronger legitimacy, as a proper democratic process would have been followed.
1 Like
There is no mention of vesting, is it a policy not to do so in ACS?
It doesnāt mean with the launch of this proposal that, discussions couldnāt happen further and being fine-tuned along the way during the execution. The campaign will run for many months and Iām sure that changes will happen along the way in a transparent way. We now need to move forward to hit the timeline of this campaign and to start executing actions towards the value of ASTR.
We can keep the debate going but at the same time, letās get things started and moving forward. Iāll ask our community team to start thinking more about opening up governance discussions, Iām happy to participate. cc @cryptoium
Vesting is not added in the current ACS proposal. Depending on the progress of the campaign, things can always change.
3 Likes
100M ASTR could lead to inflationary pressure and potentially diluting the tokenās value if the campaign doesnāt deliver strong results. High risk, but also high rewards if will be successful.
On the other hand, this campaign pushes early adoption of the Soneium ecosystem.
The communities (Astar, Sonieum, and its ecosystem projects) should all come together and push this kind of initiative forward.
2 Likes
Doing nothing simply because it might lead to selling pressure is one of the most foolish approaches we could take.
Astarās current winning strategy lies in its strong alignment with Soneium, and we should leverage every resource to ensure Astar becomes the central token of the Soneium ecosystem.
Saying āthereās riskā or āit might create selling pressureā is easy, but logically, thereās no way to use ASTR effectively without taking on some level of risk or selling pressure. (Inaction itself is the real risk.)
4 Likes
Hi @shnshkw
This is why, community requested the addition of a vesting period or a split distribution for rewards in order to mitigate this risk to an acceptable level.
This is very easy to do and Iāve never heard any farmer complaining about this kind of practice because they are aware that it protect their interest as well as the current holders ones, so i do not understand why this proposal have been rejected by the core team & Astar foundationā¦
We all remember the Shiden airdrop to Astar holders right?
There was no vesting schedule and it was non stop dumpingā¦.we should throw a long vest period on this (2 build and earn periods?) and direct new users to lock their tokens in dApp staking projects
Edit: then itās win-win, and we may actually be able to convert airdrop recipients into long term Astar holdersā¦.and dApp staking projects gain from new user base to try and attract
You are very right about this, splitting the disbursement of the total funds of the proposal would defend Astarās interests, it is very true, but being honest we donāt have a defined model for this, it would take more time to create it, send it to debate for the community, accept/reject it and then we can put this proposal under that modelā¦ this I donāt see it real.
But yes, totally, I would like to see a fractional model in the future in our community proposals.
2 Likes
This is still possible to discuss further. The proposal now is to set the first direction and get the āup-toā amount approved.
I would propose the following: if an alteration is needed, it is always possible, but it has to be a demand from the community, and they can do this with a systemremark through governance and have the community āsecondā the voting to have this fast-tracked. I feel that more users prefer to vote than comment on the forum.
Another thing to highlight: itās an up-to budget. It could be that we are not using the whole amount. We will be using it with clear reports and in the best interest of ASTR token value management. All remaining tokens will be moved back to the treasury.
4 Likes
Hi @Juminstock,
I would have preferred that everything be discussed and finalized before the vote occurred. However, since we are at the last minute, as mentioned by @Maarten, some of the smaller details can be addressed while the ACS campaign is ongoing. The proposal does not set a rewards distribution date anyway.
What we need at the moment is to agree on the main points, specifically the addition of a rewards vesting mechanism (and, if possible, its duration).
Following that, we can decide later on the distribution frequency (linear or monthly/bi-monthly/quarterly or whatever) and method (manual claim or airdrop). Even the vesting duration can be determined later if there is significant divergence of opinions.
4 Likes
Understood, thank you very much.
I have no problem with the current proposal regarding the āup-toā amount of compensation, so I vote āAyeā.
As for the amount of distribution and vesting, perhaps a clear subsequent plan would be easier for everyone to agree on (a concrete plan, not a theoretical, idealistic, or emotional one).
Perhaps there is some post-ACS Soneium and Astar campaign and other plot points, and this plan is based on that. There are probably many things we canāt say due to constraints and strategy, but I think itās better to tell what we can as much as possible.
1 Like
Do we still have a way to participate in Astar Surge? If not, then for me, this is just a game for those who had prior access to information. If we agree to the above proposal, weāre merely getting diluted for nothing (as the treasury has minted a large amount of ASTR)."
Okay, I understand, how do you propose we agree? Perhaps, as Maarten mentioned, a vote would encourage more community members to participate.
The proposal will last many months so we have a wide enough space to work with but I think this distribution should be decided as soon as possible. The ideal here is not to neglect monitoring the success of the campaign because we are looking to lower the risk.
Hi Astar Community,
I am writing this to share some thoughts, feedback, and concerns from the Korean community regarding the ACS campaign. As an Astar ecosystem agent, I feel a strong responsibility to provide constructive insights that can contribute to the healthy growth of both the ecosystem and the broader community. While some of the points raised may be direct and critical, I hope they are received as valuable material for discussion and improvement.
Overall sentiment
There is a shared agreement that a campaign like ACS is necessary to incentivize adoption and establish a strong foundation for ASTR within the Soneium ecosystem. However, several concerns have been raised regarding the execution and communication of the proposal, which could have been handled with greater clarity and transparency.
Key points of concern
1. Unclear proposal objectives and perceived lack of community involvement
It was not entirely clear whether the proposal was meant to seek approval for the ACS campaign itself or simply to confirm the details of an already finalized plan by the Astar Core team. This ambiguity led to concerns within the community about whether their voices genuinely matter in shaping such initiatives.
Additionally, while the proposal was being discussed in the forum, there were already some tweets mentioning that there a new campaign a confirmed plan. This created the impression that the forum discussion was merely a formality rather than an open space for discussion and engagement.
2. Limited transparency in decision making and voting process
Many community members expressed concerns about the lack of openness in the decision making process. While discussions were ongoing in multiple threads (e.g., Treasury Proposal for ACS Campaign), the voting had already started.
It would have been beneficial if the core team had provided advance notice before initiating the vote and clarified that discussions would continue in parallel. Even if the vote was intended to set an initial direction and approve a maximum funding amount, there is a perception that many details of the ACS campaign were already fixed, leaving little room for meaningful community participation.
3. Absence of clear, measurable goals for ACS campaign impact
Currently, the ACS campaign seems not outlining any specific numerical targets, apart from the broad expectation of attracting new inflows to ASTR.
To strengthen the proposal, it would have been helpful to define short-term (e.g., Q2), mid-term (end of the year), and long-term (one year post-campaign) targets for metrics such as TVL, DAU, daily Txs, or social engagement. While setting precise targets can be challenging, providing reference points would enhance credibility and allow for better performance evaluation.
4. Treasury funded rewards and potential ASTR dump risks
The campaign allocates up to 100M ASTR from the treasury, which comes from dApp staking rewards. However, at present, Astar L1 primarily serves as a mechanism for earning staking rewards with minimal direct impact on utility.
Clarifying the relationship between Astar Network and Soneium L2 is crucial to avoid unintended consequences, such as increased pressure on ASTR. Without clear safeguards, distributing such a large amount of ASTR could introduce significant sell pressure in the market, which might be difficult to absorb.
5. Unclearity of Sony participation and risk of ASTR farming
At the time of writing, there are no publicly listed dApps developed by Sony in the campaign. Without clear indications of such a foundation, some worry that the campaign could primarily attract airdrop farmers rather than long-term ecosystem participants. If rewards are distributed without proper safeguards, ASTRās value may face a sharp decline once the campaign ends. This concern has already been discussed in the forum, but it remains a key issue raised within the Korean community.
6. Insufficient discussion and voting period for a high-impact proposal
The duration of discussions and voting should align with the significance of a proposal. While some proposals, such as delisting or reimbursements, may warrant shorter timeframes, a major initiative like the ACS campaign could have benefited from a longer discussion period.
A 7-day window may not have been sufficient for thorough community participation, especially for those outside the core forum contributors. Extending the discussion phase could have allowed for broader input and more refined decision-making.
7. Lack of communication on dApp stakersā position and opportunity cost
Approximately 30% of ASTR (2.394B ASTR) is currently staked in dApp staking. Given that the ACS campaign primarily targets new inflows from the Ethereum ecosystem, it would have been helpful to provide additional explanations for existing dApp stakers. For example, clarifying how the campaignās launch date was determined or explaining why participation in ACS might be preferable over simply maintaining dApp staking rewards would have addressed some concerns within the existing community.
8. Guidance on prioritizing dApps for participation
With over 30 dApps currently listed, and potentially more in the future, users may struggle to identify which dApps to engage with first.
Providing clearer guidance or suggestions based on participantsā interests could improve the user experience. Instead of presenting all possible options, a structured approach, such as category-based recommendations, could be beneficial. For reference, the Optimism airdrop framework offers an example of how this could be structured effectively.
The ACS campaign presents a significant opportunity to drive adoption and growth within the Astar and Soneium ecosystems. However, to maximize its success, transparency, clarity, and community engagement should be prioritized. Addressing the concerns outlined above, particularly regarding governance processes, measurable goals, and the potential impact on ASTRās value will help strengthen trust and long-term sustainability.
I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the Astar Core team and contributors and hope this feedback serves as constructive input for future initiatives. Looking forward to further discussions and engagement with the community.
8 Likes
100% agree with @shnshkw
2 Likes