Addressing the Issue of Blast Gold Distribution 2 to abandoned projects in Distribution 2 and support active projects

Gold Feedback
1

Executive Summary:
This proposal seeks to address the current issues in the Blast Gold distribution process by advocating for increased support of active and innovative projects within the Blast ecosystem. Specifically, we recommend a more thorough review of projects to ensure that those receiving Blast Gold are genuinely contributing to the ecosystem.

Our project, Treasure Dwarf Battles, has been a strong advocate for the Blast ecosystem from the beginning and create strong community. We have submitted multiple applications for Blast Gold but have yet to receive any feedback. We are eagerly awaiting a response and marketing support as we prepare for the launch of our open beta on August 14th.

In contrast, the project Blast Penguins received 25,000 Blast Gold despite appearing abandoned. Their Discord is closed, with no open discussion threads, and their social media has not been updated for several months. We believe this situation highlights the need for a more transparent and equitable allocation process.

Motivation:
The current distribution of Blast Gold raises concerns about fairness and the effectiveness of the allocation process. Projects like ours, which are active and continuously building on the platform, are struggling to gain the necessary support, while seemingly inactive projects are receiving substantial allocations.

In Distribution 2, only 4 new projects were included, with one of them receiving a staggering 87% of the Blast Gold. Meanwhile, hundreds of other projects were left without any allocation. This limited approach may discourage new teams from joining the ecosystem. We propose increasing the number of new projects receiving Blast Gold to 20-40, which would motivate more teams to join and contribute to the Blast ecosystem. This would likely lead to greater audience growth and improved ecosystem metrics.

By ensuring a more thorough review process and increasing the number of new projects that receive Blast Gold, we can foster a more vibrant and innovative ecosystem. We trust in Pacman and his talented team to address these issues and improve the distribution process.

Proposal Details:

  • Increase Support for New Projects: Allocate more Blast Gold to a broader range of new and active projects, potentially increasing the number of supported projects from 4 to 20-40. This will motivate new teams to join the ecosystem and contribute to its growth.
  • Thorough Review of Existing Projects: Implement a more rigorous review process to verify the activity and contribution of projects before awarding Blast Gold. This includes checking the status of social media updates, the openness of community channels, and overall project engagement.
  • Support for Treasure Dwarf Battles: As a native dApp on Blast, we are requesting marketing support and feedback on our applications as we gear up for the launch of our open beta on August 14th.

Implementation:

  1. Immediate Review: Conduct a thorough review of the projects currently receiving Blast Gold to ensure they are active and contributing to the ecosystem.
  2. Enhanced Application Process: Improve the feedback loop for projects that apply for Blast Gold, ensuring that all applicants receive constructive feedback and know how to improve their chances in future rounds.
  3. Expand Project Support: Increase the number of new projects receiving Blast Gold to 20-40 in future distributions to attract more teams to the ecosystem and improve overall growth metrics.
  4. Community Engagement: Encourage more community involvement in the decision-making process to ensure a fair and transparent allocation of resources.

Associated Costs:

The primary cost would be the administrative effort required to enhance the review process, expand the number of projects receiving support, and provide feedback to applicants. This could involve additional staff time or the implementation of new tools to streamline and improve the application and review processes.

Conclusion:

Our goal is to ensure that Blast Gold is distributed in a way that truly supports the most active and deserving projects within the ecosystem. By supporting projects like Treasure Dwarf Battles, which are committed to building and growing within Blast, and by increasing the number of new projects receiving support, we can ensure the long-term success and vibrancy of the platform.

We invite the community to support this proposal and join us in advocating for a fairer, more transparent Blast Gold distribution process that truly benefits the ecosystem as a whole.

5 Likes
2

Definitely Blast’s reward system needs more transparency and community involvement. At the moment it is completely centralized, Blast just puts before the fact its decision, which is not clear who makes and not clear on what criteria.
I believe that the reward system should be as transparent as possible and resistant to abuse and cheating, both by Blast and the users

3

this has been talked about since distribution 1 and 2. I wouldn’t bank on it happening any time soon.

if the foundation agreed, a change would have already been made. IMO

4

I don’t see the point in over-incentivizing certain apps. Even top applications need 500k maximum. This would motivate as many people to participate. Demand is inelastic. Therefore, you can reward more applications with gold and they will bring more users

1 Like
5

Agree. It’s just crypto frens doing crypto fren stuff. Just like some council members earning $50,000 for doing absolutely nothing.

The amount they gave to predict as a new dapp, with only 1 tweet, proves that. Yeah its prob the guys from Fantasy, or whatever. And Blast claims to review them all and score it based on potential impact.

But what about similar projects that have been working, and trying to improve during this growth. Loyal to Blast since since the start etc. It’s basically pushing the small guy down (or the new dev) in favor of what youre familiar with, sad story.

In some cases, its a complete slap in the face. Suppose the devs have the option of leaving, but seems there could be a better solution as you mention.

1 Like
6

I’ve joined to acknowledge how relevant this post is. Blast team declares nice principles, but on practice they act on opposite unfortunately. Declaring to support ecosystem growth and stimulate new projects, but insted Blast developers seem to favorize small pool of large or affiliated projects. This is so frustrating for developers with new promising projects. Despite putting significant effort into their work and development, not getting the right recognition doesn’t stimulate to stick with Blast. IMO this makes it worth think about migrating to other blockchains.