Unstoppable Community Grants (UCG) Next Steps

Hola amigos y amigas,

I wanted to promptly set up a discussion for UCG. Being that dApp staking v3 brought some big changes, so too do we now need to reconsider this initiative. Continue, adjust and maintain, or discontinue it.

Thanks @you425 for bringing it up.

Metadomo - Unstoppable Community Grant Proposal - #62 by you425

I think we can collectively decide how to move forward with this as it pulls from the Community Treasury and relies on us, as a community, to vote and determine teams that utilize it. Some really rough ideas are to utilized UCG to reward 1 well researched team that applies within a certain time period.

What other ideas, adjustments and/or comments does the community have?


Thank you for starting the thread, Ramz!!
I have two opinions:

  • UCG should be continued: UCG is a good tool for onboarding projects to the Astar Network.
  • UCG grant content should be changed: Currently, the developer reward distribution method for dApp Staking v3 is being revised for improvement. Once this is fixed and the new method is deployed, I would like to discuss the content of the UCG grant.


Also, on a different matter, Metadomo received support from UCG during the transition from dApp Staking v2 to v3. As a result, the grant they were originally supposed to receive was reduced. I believe that projects that were adopted by UCG at the dApp Staking v2 stage should receive the grants they were originally supposed to receive. What do you all think about this point?



@0xRamz Thanks for starting the thread!

As a matter of fact, I knew I had to rethink UCG after the change to v3, but I’ve been putting it off, and the Metadomo thing was a good start.

As @bao mentioned, there may be some changes in UCG’s rewards depending on what is currently underway in v3. However, the structure of UCG itself may need to be changed, as it is clear that the amount of rewards will be less than in v2, and that there will be a large range in the predicted amount of rewards due to the structure of new model.

In that case, I think it is a good idea to review and reward teams that apply within a certain period of time, as Ramz suggested. However, how about putting a cap (i.e., a budget) on the amount of ASTRs for the entire period, not just one team, and determining the amount of reward from there?

For example, we have a budget of 100k ASTR for June, and we will subsidize one or more of those teams. Of course, you don’t have to spend the entire amount. There is some difficulty in determining the amount of grant money…but it may be a good idea to set certain criteria for each type of project.

Also, if bao is right and the UCG eligible project wants to, I don’t see a problem with giving the difference in compensation for the period.


We usually agree with your analysis, regarding UCG and the time limit for requests in our opinion is not right.
The fact that UCG is poor is directly consequent to the fact that v3 with Tiers is wrong and non-linear. This non-linearity has transferred to the UCG clearly, which has always been a right measure, today it has become scarce and in some cases USELESS.
If there is a way to make it effective again this is certainly related to the immediate change of v3 and abolition of the tier system.

We went from support sponsorship to unconditional dapps, where teams were told: Based on how much you raise, you will be rewarded at → unfortunately you are not part of a tier, even if you almost deserve a tip

Now you would like to get around the problem by doing the same with UCG, which was a linear measure for everyone, making it scarce and decisive only for a few chosen teams, which would then always have to pass through the judgment of a few people who have a certain level in the forum and not through a real vote of those who stake.

In short, to avoid spending, increasingly centralizing factors are included in all processes. I’m sorry but this is not the way. It is useless to profess that a dapp is voted by stakers, that vote currently and the numbers achieved by dapps really have no value if we apply these FILTERS.

Regarding dApp Staking v3, I think there is still room for improvement.
Improvements are currently underway to vary the amount of rewards even within tiers, but there should also be discussion regarding the basic parameters of the tiers.

Depending on that, we can improve the UCG so that it can play the same role as before while keeping the current tier system. i will suggest more details on the v3 parameters in another thread, but i think we can do the following for example.

This would change the slot potion and reward distribution for each tier so that when you get to tier 4, the rewards are similar to what they were in v2. This will allow the UCG to play the same role as before.

Furthermore, the model can be made quite close to linear by changing the coefficients for each rank.

However, changing the parameters may require careful discussion. So, a hybrid proxy proposal would be to maintain the staking by UCG as before, but pay an additional monthly subsidy. Exactly the kind of supplement proposed by bao this time, but on a permanent basis.


Thanks for creating this thread Ramz

Really grateful to be a part of the UCG program. I want to add my perspective for improvement…

Rewards should have tiers based on scope of project

  • Projects have different thresholds on how much support it needs in order to take off and start sustaining itself, this is based on the scope of the project
  • Eg. a DEX is able to launch MVP faster than a 3d blockchain game
  • Thus, I suggest treasury ASTR for UCG to be split in tiers, similar to v3 staking, where teams can request for higher staking amounts (for higher rewards), and justify it by stating their project scope.
  • Contrast this to current v3 system where projects need to request enough to hit T4, there is only 1 level of reward

Rewards should consider labor market rates for result output

  • Tying this into my first point, Astar community should think from the project’s perspective; with the budget given, can they afford what the project promises?
  • This applies to both cases: 1) team can complete everything themselves, thus must pay themselves to live (if they are working on it full-time), or 2) Team must hire third parties to complete tasks, thus must pay contractors
  • So when evaluating UCG applications, should consider what market rates are for tasks before allocating treasury. Eg. if one of project’s promise is to build website, and they must hire third party to do that, what is the market rate? Does the UCG rewards cover that amount? or if the members are working full time, does it effectively cover their living costs…? Because if not, they will be forced to take other work, which means reduced effort, reduced results.

A side effect of UCG in our experience, aside from the financial support, having passed the scrutiny of community and receiving public support is incredibly beneficial to us when we are talking to other parties for investment/partnership, etc. It serves as a point of validation from public. Many good questions are raised from community in thread, we actually use our UCG thread as a memo for interested parties to read. Many of them find it very helpful.

I’m not sure how this will help with future UCG policy, but wanted to share the importance of it. For projects reliant on partnerships and investment, this validation aspect helped us a lot even though rewards were significantly rewards when moving from v2 to v3, and we were able to generate a lot more momentum, faster than we anticipated for Metadomo.


There is currently a proposal to increase UCG funding.

This may change the environment for UCG.
The additional financial resources are sufficient to raise the Tier to 3, as few projects currently apply to UCG.

However, a fundamental review may be necessary on an ongoing basis, as we do not know what will happen in the future.

1 Like

I agree, if UCG can offer enough support to reach T3, eligibility parameters as well as metric for review and follow-up of a dApp under UCG must be redefined and be restricif enough to support only projects with potential lead by serious and hard working teams. UCG must not be a freeloader support programm but an elite selection programm


If the community decides to allocate staking rewards from the genesis allocation to UCG, then it would be a great way to use resources for network and ecosystem growth, bringing additional synergy to UCG.

With this allocation, current recipient dApps can be immediately getting more financial support, expediting their development over an extended period. To be a win-win program, at the end of the UCG, we might consider organizing an AMA or X Space as one of the final steps to be done to successfully conclude the UCG.

On top of it, the staking rewards could be more than 10M after a year if the entire 74M ASTR are allocated to UCG, which could directly be used to incentivize the top-performing dApps of the year based on meaningful metrics, for example, DAU, TVL, social growith, and category-specific performance.

To increase awareness in the crypto industry, it would be beneficial to mention/explain the UCG program regularly through our social media channels, for example, X. Just noticed that the following tweet seems the one tweet mentioning ‘unstoppable grants’, correct me, if necessary.

Very excited to see how the vote goes and the value it brings to UCG!


Given the current focus on the UCG program and the potential addition of the 74M ASTR, I propose to work on revitalizing this program.

While I’m working on an update proposal, I’d be interested in input from the community on what’s wrong, what needs to be improved and solutions to make the UCG better.

Off the top of my head, I propose:

  • Instead of staking 2M per dApp, increase to 15M per dApp to boost a dApp directly to Tier 3 for 3-6 months.
  • Create more content and education on this topic, instead of a simple pitch deck, create blog article, include it in Astar documentation, include it in Astar network onboarding package, video, etc.
  • More education for Astar users, as they have to be very selective about which projects join UCG, as support will be limited to 5-6 projects with a 15 million stake.

The idea is to retain the central idea of this program, but to make it more attractive and recognized in our ecosystem. It’s important to keep the program fundamentally the same and improve on what surrounds it, as UCG shows what’s good about dApp Staking to new projects. It’s a good introduction to our ecosystem and our core values.

I’d also like to involve the ecosystem agent in the first version of the update proposal before sharing it with the rest of the community.


I fully support your ideas, G! I particularly agree with the need to create more educational and informative content about the program, not just a pitch deck document; this is absolutely necessary. To add to this, I would like to suggest the following:

I think the system of delivering monthly reports and a quarterly report serves to provide a macro view of the progress made by the proposing project, but it is not sufficient. I would like to see a system that allows us to set parameters (proposed objectives) and obtain results within a more concise timeframe.


Yes, I fully agree.
With the addition of the new funding, we will be able to raise it up to Tier 3. However, the quota is limited and should be carefully targeted.

I also think it is a good idea to put it on the document as there is not much documentation on UCG.

As @Juminstock said, it would also be a good idea to have targets set.


I would recommand to offer 16M for 2 complet cycles in order to give enough time to build the project and grow their community.
(16M instead of 15 would be to give a minimum margin with threshold fluctuation)

In exchange for longer duration, i would add a UCG early termination criteria which would be if the dApp can sustain itself at Tier 3 with its own staker community support (17M or more excluding UCG), then UCG would automatically be terminated for the second cycle only

1 Like