The basic dApp Staking criteria are described here.
However, it is a bit old and voting is to be done in Forum. It has now been changed to Townhall.
As for AoC, I honestly don’t know because I don’t remember what was going on at the time. But if you, the person in question, say that you had not yet launched, then you had not launched. And that means that a blurring of judgment has occurred. In other words, it was a mistake that the AoC vote passed and was listed. The voters need to be sorry about that.
As for the UCG, it has not yet been added to the document, although it is supposed to be added in the future.
It is from v1, but the guidelines are on the following page. This is the same as the one written at the beginning of this thread.
UCG and dApp Staking are two separate programs; although the dApp Staking mechanism is used by UCG, just because it applies to UCG does not mean that it meets the requirements of dApp Staking (and is therefore listed in a dedicated category).
Regarding dapp staking we know that this rule exists, in fact we have nothing to say about it.
We only confirm that in any case both AOC and many other dapps have taken advantage of the listing even without having a dapp ready yet. And this is undeniable.
So we made our proposal on donkey gang in the same way, and after 1 month of useless technical discussion on what it was or wasn’t, on what we aspired to build, we were told that it is not possible.
This is very serious. It is therefore yet another interpretation of 1 or a few people. For us it is an oversight masked to avoid a clear contrast. However, the lack is not towards the idea that is shared now (used to justify the listing of those who have not yet published anything on astar), but the lack is towards an idea that is equal to that of dapp staking, because UCG leads to dappstaking and therefore having a different rule means going into conflict with dappstaking too.
Having said that, and having dotted the i’s, not for a particular reason, but for the umpteenth attack suffered in the ways above all (1 month of waiting), the thing that we want to say is that personally we are not against dappstaking or UCG of dapps that have even just one idea if truly innovative, but this is our subjective idea.
However, as always, we do not like the ways and also the obvious attempt to mask errors. Remember where we come from, from an AOC that was one of the projects that unfortunately highlighted the shortcomings of dappstaking v3 for its position, even in that case things were said and done in contrast with both the logic and the rights of a developer who commits to certain conditions.
Add this to this, make us understand why we should stay silent or as is happening now, be ignored in everything we write. Congratulations to everyone for the attitude and the ways, but at least everyone avoid talking about decentralization.
Yes, I checked again and found several that do not have a dApp. This is a problem and something we need to reflect on and change.
I think we need to scrutinize all the dApps once listed and discuss the delist. There are some projects that were active in the past but currently have no activity.
I would like to start a different thread on this as it is separate from this discussion.
As for this one, I believe the thread was intended as a temperature check on moving the Donkey Gang to Astar in the first place. dApp Staking itself was different from the proposal, so I believe that using Townhall’s polling feature to check the interest of the holders was something you needed to do yourself.
It is certainly a problem that it is not in the document, but as for the UCG guidelines, they have been presented from the beginning (the fact that they were difficult to reach is also a problem).
Yes, it leads to dApp Stkaing. However, it is not strange to have different rules. Because if you don’t meet the requirements for dApp Staking after the UCG is over, you can just delist. UCG is a grant program that uses the dApp Staking reward distribution system, which is different from the significance of dApp Staking itself.
If they are being listed even though they do not meet the dApp Staking requirements, then we need to change our mindset as it means that we are not in control.
Perhaps this is related to the first part of this comment. I will put this in a separate thread, as I wrote earlier.
For us is strange, in 8 months, difficult to not see any improvement in development. Technically also a simple smart contract remain you in the list. And… There is no rule for delisting after ucg, you lose funds, not listing. Tell me the opposite! And if a dapp after 8 months is in the second month of build and earn, you lose the ucg staking funds, but you SURE not lose the people staking funds. Because no one will change in that phase (just see what is happened in the last cicle)
Ucg for us is really in contrast with dappstaking.
simple, either change ucg introducing a rule equal to that of dapp staking that has simply been forgotten, or change dappstaking, changing the current one (which has been ignored several times).
When you are listed with ucg, at the end you are not delisted. You lose the funds, but not those following your listing, even if you have not yet produced anything on astar.
Currently no one can decide which dapp is truly innovative and deserves to be listed, if not a restricted list of ambassadors who most of the time have conflicting interests (and I won’t go further). I would prefer that this list of amabassadors be defined with a maximum number and that they receive rewards, since today they do not receive any, in the same way as dapp staking, with tiers based on activity and that they could, if not active, leave the list. None of them should be involved in any project.
There is also a problem with decentralized voting, instead of losing ourselves in useless discussions, we should encourage this. It’s not good that a project with very important aspirations is practically in the hands of 30 people + the core team at a decision-making level.
I generally understand your point of view, but we can’t move forward without creating something that reflects it. If someone else creates it, it may not be what you think it is. You need to create your own specific proposal.
For example, I previously created a thread to propose improvements to dApp Staking v3 rewards. And then we actually proceeded to talk about improving it. The conversation probably would not have proceeded if I had not created a new thread and formally submitted it as a proposal (as in this case, I had initially proposed the improvement in a thread on another agenda item).
I understand that you have many different opinions about the Astar situation, but just voicing your opinions and waiting for them to be fetched is not going to make a difference. You need to make concrete suggestions and take the lead on change.
I am sure you are aware of this, but it is not a decentralized or DAO where everyone’s opinion is accepted unconditionally. We need to think of a logical way to get it through.
Make sure to summarize the content and make your proposal so that it is easy for many people to understand.