Hola all,
Firstly apologies for the time away in participating in discussions in general. I will be more active on this forum especially as we move to a more pragmatic, open governance model. I’ll also be more frank about my opinions, and always in a respectful matter. The following views are my own and I do not speak on behalf of any other core-team member, the network, a dapp, or ambassador/agent. As web3 allows, and can benefit from, open discussion and criticism are important. In this sense I will speak from the POV of a initial contributor of the UCG program structure. I’m open to criticism in regards to any activity and program I’ve help mold - such as UCG. As any builder can attest, its not always easy building, and even more so with commenters who aim to tear down, instead of building up. To those offering ideas and solutions, and other data that can help improve UCG, I thank you kindly. A separate thread will be created for this shortly.
Its nothing new, but it always saddens me to see the countless baseless accusations, off-topics discussions (mainly hijacking of the main thread points), assumptions of the actions of ambassadors/agents and core-team members, and other speculative (even inflammatory) comments all without merit or proof.
In my years in web3 this is nothing new, and points rather to the mud-slinging nature of certain users, and what their intentions are. You need only look at the Polkadot proposals comment section to see that users like these are a guarantee to happen - just as guaranteed as taxes are in our life. Imo I don’t think their aim is entirely to actually “clean-up” or other higher moral stance as some of they state, but rather sow discontent, stir anger, and exaggerate monetary gains/losses in a way to bring down builders, competition, or other. This approach is not inductive to real growth, only slows it down. I don’t actually know their intentions, and who am I to make unfounded accusations as well. But what Im sure about is that when we do read accusations and/or assumptions of intentions of builders, core-team members and/or Astar agents, it speaks more loudly about the poster, then the the actually substance their arguments are formed around. Anyway, just a thought.
Experience has thought me that this will continue to happen - no matter the actions, the words, the feelings shared, the proof shown or not shown. Again, this will keep on happening, but it should happen in a more productive manner. Any and all disrespectful comments and blatant accusations without proof will not be tolerated. My reminder to builders, and supporter of those builders, keep the focus on the goal, even when experiencing vitriol.
I rather move to actions, next steps. I’ll create new threads to focus on SkyLabs and UCG respectively. For the reminder of this post I’d also give some context about UCG for any new readers and further action on that front.
UCG: Context
UCG was started as a a means to support builders at the early stages of development. It gave an allowance of rewards based on projected milestones presented by the participating teams, and for a limited time basis. As an added benefit it allowed users to also stake on those dapps at their own discretion. It also form an avenue for dapp teams to take when looking to grow their reputation, user base awareness, and involve others (user and/or builder) in their build. As I’ve seen firsthand, UCG not just help filter teams, but also showed the teams themselves the complexities of building in the web3 space. It’s educational as much as its a means of financial support. The core of UCG is, and will always be, to support builders aiming to bring value to Astar and its users.
In the start, these UCG financial gains were minimal, almost non-impactful to any semblance of runway for the builders. In the early days it didn’t even mount to 4 figures over a month. Now, even at Tier 3 support, its still hard to envision a competitive dapp and funds to support a multi-disciplinary team in web3. (Any web3 builder knows that its a costly effort and there is more working against web3 builders than for them, especially in the this fast changing space with security a constant concern.)
I’ve helped structure the UCG framework in the early phase. Promoted it in the Astar discord, publicly on X spaces and in private groups when wearing my bd hat. Was it or is it perfect? Absolutely not. Will it be better? Yes, it can be, though now there are many moving parts, ever-changing markets, and narratives that grow and disappear that can bring new builders and interest to the chain, or push them out. Making “improvements” is a added task for many, including me, since it means constant observations and analysis and even experimentation and adjustments.
UCG and its Future
The current iteration of the UCG model can be said to still be a work in progress. While it was seeded and grew from the internal teams efforts, now it should be considered a public tool. The criticism to the original creators is deserved and in this I’ll take full responsibility on not making a more extended effort to make it known as a community own program - but I state now that it is - and input is welcomed.
I’d like to also state now that it should enter a new phase, especially since Astar Governance is here. Makes sense to me. UCG can be powerful, not just as a support system for new teams, but also as a means to attract and compete for new builders. As a contributor to Astar, I’d like to help lead the next iteration along with those that look to improve it. This means we make proposals and content around it that can help educate builders so they are better informed of expectations and outcomes.
As stated I’ll make a separate thread where anyone is invited to propose changes, rules, guidance, and any other comment that helps improve the program.
SkyLabs: Next Steps
For SkyLabs, my previous comments here remain true. I support this team because I know they are consistently building within a field that I personally think will be key to web3: Gaming. Not only has it been difficult for gaming teams throughout this space to hit it on the nose - and this can be attributed to many factors - but I rather grow a relationship with a team that is focused on this now and committed to a chain and community that has supported them, even if there are obstacles and hiccups. Imo a committed builder is more valuable than a chain to chain hopper or one-and-done (gives up fast if not successful at first). I have a lofty expectation that they will fill in a gaming void thats is present on Astar, and could contribute to a developing sector along side Soneium and gaming teams that join there. But their listing should not and will not be dependent on my voice alone, but rather only if theres community consensus around it.
That being said, its apparent that we need to address the impasse we are at. Skylab was voted onto UCG based on milestones and deliverables stated in the initial UCG application. SkyLabs needs to clearly respond to:
- the current status of the milestones, and NFT migration
- outcome and impact of what has been built, what has not been built and why
- next steps with dates of what will be delivered, other actions that is beneficial to them and/or Astar
- justification of why to remain a dapp, or otherwise why be removed/delisted
- justification of any other actions that bring value to Astar
As a reminder, anyone can make a motion to delist any dapp from the portal, UCG or not. Its up to us as a community to begin taking ownership of this process. For sake of advancing this conversation, and reach an outcome, I’ll push for a sentiment vote in the new tread after 2 days with the following simple options:
- Maintained SkyLabs as a dApp in the Astar portal (not UCG, but regular dApp)
- Remove and delist SkyLabs as a dApp in the Astar portal
My general hope is to use this as an example to improve the current UCG program by highlighting what the program is lacking. Also, I’d like to highlight users and even dapp teams who want contribute to it. My aim is not to vilify teams or discredit what they have built so far, knowing how hard it actually is from the 3 years of talking and helping some myself. To add, we must set a basis for what metrics we choose to evaluate UCG and dApp teams on, individually and/or based on the project category. This should be done alongside users. We also need to address steps being taken to ensure transparency and accountability for a teams funding and progress. Dapps, as much as our community, should both be held to this: Clear process and clear consequences if not met.
Please use the following thread where I will push SkyLabs for clarity in current efforts and next concrete steps/actions that need to be immediately taken:
SkyLabs: Next StepsUCG: Analysis & Updates
For UCG, its future and some of the points mentioned above, please feel free to comment on any current issues and possible solutions. Use the following thread:
All other topics
For any other topic mentioned here, perhaps relevant to specific teams, please open up a new thread and outline the specific context and discussion points that you’d like to discuss. Please tag me if you’d like to hear my opinion/feedback. My responses will first and foremost always be centered around whats best for Astar its users and builders.
Thank you for reading and being part of this effort to build up Astar into the best it can be.