Thank you for your contribution. I really like this idea!
Although it may seem “implied,” it is important to make this clear in the guidelines to avoid comments like, “Where was this written?”
I like this idea. Reducing the number of dApps while increasing the allocation of ASTR to each seems like a balanced approach. Utilizing the treasury’s 100k ASTR with a fair split among four UCG dApps (25k each) would create more impactful funding and drive better outcomes.
IMO, as long as a project is delivering and genuinely benefiting the ecosystem, it should continue receiving dApp staking support. However, once a project grows significantly and becomes self-sustaining, it no longer requires this support.
3 Likes
Please read the Soneium Spark article carefully. It says “up to $100,000 per team” but does not necessarily say they will give away $100,000. Unlike hackathons, winning a prize is not the goal of an incubation program, and the support you receive often depends on your progress and conditions afterwards (this is not just true of Soneium Spark).
Therefore, it makes more sense to consider each project according to the support it is receiving, rather than limiting it to Soneium Spark (or Astar Surge). If it is receiving $100,000 in support, then just reject it.
Again, I don’t want to apply the UCG to projects eligible for Soneium Spark or Astar Surge. I am saying that there is no need to limit it to those projects, and if it is to be clearly stated as a rule, it should create a more flexible basis for thinking about it.
In other words, if you are going to make it explicitly about support status, it would be more clear to say “projects that receive incubation programs or grants outside of the UCG or are funded by VCs are basically not eligible” instead of “Soneium Spark winners are not eligible”.
3 Likes