Age Of Chronos - treasury proposal

Zeus will deal with his father - again. It's only right and just, for such a project.

I’m aligned with the points raised by The Main Council.
https://forum.astar.network/t/lets-try-again-age-of-chronos-proposal/8446/55

While the team has clearly made technical progress and delivered a substantial amount of work, I believe the concerns previously mentioned — especially around go-to-market strategy and business development — are still very relevant and should be addressed more clearly before moving forward with funding.

Clarifying these aspects would not only strengthen the proposal but also give the community and the Council more confidence in the long-term sustainability and impact of the project.

Keep the good work! Thanks.

First, I'm glad this referendum is finally happening, it's been long overdue.

My vote is no because of a few reasons.

1. The numbers on Moonbeam's contract show that majority of mints have happened within a period of a few days, after which numbers completely stagnate. Doesn't seem smart to invest treasury funds into such a project.

2. Team's demeanor in the past, with constant forum spamming, creating fake accounts to drive their agenda, etc. It has been an energy drain, with basically nothing provided back; zero value for the network.

3. Team's demeanor now, which has been improved compared to the past, but still includes posting lots of unreadable walls of texts, with lots of complaining, whining for not getting the support they believe they deserve, etc. To be fair, making a good video game is hard. But working hard does not imply you've made a good game. If there's no support or new users, it probably means the product isn't interesting.

I hope this referendum will show to SFY team whether their product is wanted or not on Astar, and in case of a no, we go our separate ways until some other future time.

With that being said, I still wish the team best of luck and hope that with future iterations, they manage to make a great hit game.

EDIT: Any reply in the wall-of-text form will remain unread :)

Finally, this proposal is live!
This is a complete joke! Astar treasury shouldn't be used for a game built by hobbyists who are just leeching off grants on different ecosystems. Seems Moonbeam grant is completely used so now looking for a new one. There is absolutely no community behind this game, even though they are built on Moonbeam with their grants, nobody is interested in this. No traction on X, TG is closed, ... this is not a win for Astar.

Even if they had some kind of community, I would still vote no because of their past behaviour towards Astar. Why should Astar treasury support a project that was fudding for months when they got kicked out from dApp Staking. Don't understand why they even got a second chance from Community Council.

Good luck!
I truly hope you can get YOUR community to vote 'Yay' to support the game. Their voice might change others opinion.

I notice that the common front is particularly strong, but I regret to see that, as often happens, decisions seem to be in the hands of a few. I invite the representatives of the "no" vote to base their choice not on personal grudges, but solely on the good of Astar.I kindly ask that you justify your vote with concrete arguments, avoiding considerations based on personal sympathies. It would also be helpful to propose valid alternatives, which at the moment seem to be lacking.Let us remember that voting is not only a right but also a duty: the duty to act for the best interest of Astar, not to fuel personal conflicts.Thank you for your attention and your contributions

I haven't been following the extremely long discussions, just looking at metrics of the game and the amount of drama produced by its team is enough for me to consider that this proposal is not beneficial for Astar.

Voted 'Nay', same as I also voted against their new listing on dApp Staking when I was still part of the Community Council. This team is not worth any ASTR for what they are building!

We’ll keep going, don’t worry, even if only with the limited funds from dappstaking. We’ll also deliver something on ASTAr, then we’ll see who made the wrong assessment.

Truly hope you can maintain your dApp Staking position. By keeping toxic in the forum, you are not gaining any hearts or supporters. Support is already clearly visible in the ongoing voting (only two votes for your proposal). I hope you'll be able to find your community, if any, to support this treasury payment.

Sorry but NAY from me, to much fuss and toxicity around this project. Just my personal view on this case.

Since it is no longer possible to respond on the forum, we would like to thank all participants in the vote and take a moment to share some considerations.

Astar is currently governed by the voting power of just a few people. The global community is disengaged from the voting process and, in our case, from anything related to development.

It is unbelievable that in an empty chain, with no real development, we have to witness a vote driven by hatred and premeditation towards one team – the only team currently building something on L1.

It is enough to note that 20 million “nay” votes came from just four people, 15 million from a single person @aEjW...QRq2 who has voted only and exclusively against SFY proposals – clearly an account hiding someone influential.

Before starting the development of the proposed milestone (we’re talking about a $10,000 request for work whose value we leave to the experts to judge),
the SFY team discussed the phases on the forum and, following requests from both the council and the core team, decided to work in silence and without controversy for a month.

When the milestone finally became public in the referendum (after struggling for weeks with a process that, in our feedback, is currently very complex – feedback that, apparently, also upset some people, though it was never meant as an accusation), instead of discussing it on technical merits and debating what could be improved in the process of creating the only game proposed on Astar L1, we received gratuitous attacks based on the alleged “TOXICITY” of the SFY team.

Frankly, this is absurd.

@Dino , who is part of the core team and is probably one of the few worth responding to because it’s important to understand the approach of those who built this place, raised some points:

1)The AoC numbers on Moonbeam compared to the non-existent numbers of any other dApp on Astar are not only exceptional, but the result of technical work that Astar should be aiming for – and yet it rejects it, likely because of a lack of trust towards any proposal outside the usual ambassador and agent funding. This is very sad. He wrote that he doesn’t like the game because it has little value.
We can’t convince everyone, but the data we’ve achieved says otherwise. The game is built on Unity, uses 21 smart contracts, an innovative NFT protocol like RMRK, is free for everyone – which makes it great for today’s discouraged community – and has created the first equipable 3D NFT collection in the world.
There’s not much to argue about on the technology side; as for the game in terms of entertainment, we’re talking about something old-school, like Legend of Grimrock.

2)and 3) Points that again call into question SFY’s past behavior. Now, it’s fine to discuss this, but didn’t we all agree that SFY should propose its development without any reference to the past and that evaluation should be based solely on the current proposal? These were the requests made to us – and we respected them, not posting for an entire month before delivering this milestone.

Other people are not even given a right of reply. We cannot respond, for example, to people who have personally created 2–3 fake dApps like Matt with non-existent teams, taken community funds, delivered nothing, and yet come here to talk about “toxic behavior.”

The alleged toxicity of SFY has certainly not brought Astar to its current state as a development platform. You would all do well to take responsibility for that.

Denying $10,000 in funding to a team that delivers ahead of schedule, with a game already online and playable – especially considering the past track record of almost all dApps on Astar – is unbelievable. Scams have been funded for two years, millions of dollars given to thieves, and now we witness a storm in a teacup over a tiny funding request for a ready-made dApp?

A special mention goes to the “go-to-market” idea mentioned by the council and repeated here by @Pitcoin . It’s an idea we do not share, but at least it’s a technical point. Fair enough – although it has never been required for anything else, including the quarterly activities of agents – but fine, we will take it into account. You must admit that, since it is currently just an idea, we could have easily invented a fake plan without any certainty and submitted it. We were honest and consistent in telling you that, for the current Astar community, it is not possible to plan AoC’s development on Astar in a way that ensures guaranteed sustainability.

Our idea was to start launching the game, revive at least some NFT transactions, and then figure out together with the community how to move forward. Always keep in mind the current state we are all starting from – a chain where even NFT marketplaces no longer exist. (Something else we could have helped with.)

The level of our dApp – considering the use of NFTs, innovative protocols, game development platforms like Unity, and above all the community impact, which could have exceeded that of any recent marketing expense – is very high for the Astar ecosystem.

AoC numbers summary:

30,000+ transactions on Moonbeam

3,000+ unique mints

500+ unique players
in the first saga of the game (Nomindio Labs).

Moonbeam’s investment with verified milestones: $30,000.

Our request to Astar: the same amount, without a contract, having already started development in the hope of an objective vote based solely on our work. No one expected this kind of outcome – and that’s why we were also accepted into dApp staking. Unfortunately, my team is very serious, and our ability to build the game is beyond doubt. Once that became clear, as soon as the referendum started, the discussion shifted straight back to the “TOXICITY” of SFY – despite the public agreement with the council that we would keep silent for a month.

A truly decentralized network, run by the community, obviously can’t be perfect. But when you see the autocratic behavior of a few prevailing over everything else – even when we should be looking only at numbers and objective growth – you understand where the problems come from.

Astar funded a team developing an NFT game for two years with nearly $100,000 – a team we became “unpopular” with after telling the truth, partly because we had a similar idea but with actual skills. They never published a single line of code; the community was shown AI-generated screenshots for two years.

SFY built an MVP in 3 months, would have created a complete game on Astar with an exclusive saga in just 3 months, and asked for less than one-third of that amount – from a community that currently approves only ambassador and agent expenses.

The game will be completed in any case, using tips from dApp staking. They won’t be enough for the idea presented in the referendum, but it will still be free for everyone.

We are truly sorry. We restarted with the best of intentions, but today everyone will have understood two things:

why SFY is “unpopular” with many,

why there are no truly active dApps bringing on-chain transactions to this network.

AoC is not and will not be the AAA game of the year – but it is a real product, built according to what has always been asked of developers.

Everything else is politics, pointless controversy, and baseless moralizing. If we behave badly, it’s because, despite producing work useful to all, we have been sabotaged here for three years.

SFY Labs