Hmm thanks for sharing. I wonder how many team members the Blast project has, and how they communicate.
What’s easy to see in these different screenshot examples, is a lack of cohesive instruction and feedback to the devs.
It’s hard for me to comment much further not being a dev, but the optics have def changed for me seeing these messages.
I hope the team does right, cause the devs are the key to S2 and beyond.
2 Likes
Hey Derek here, founder of Uncharted, which has launched 2 games on Blast:
- Blast the Balloon (Big Bang runner up)
- Gangster Arena (New Dapp in S2)
Note: Posting on behalf of myself, not the company.
We chose Blast partially due to the idea that there would be developer incentives, and this very quickly turned out not to be true.
Personally I believe that Blast needs to incentivise developers beyond giving them a uncertain and retroactive UA budget in the form of gold.
The reason for this is simple: to be competitive with other chains, which offer things like grants, integration support, and more.
Right now its a big risk to build on Blast, and as a developer, I’m not sure if its worth it. If I’m thinking this, its likely others are as well.
With that said I have a few proposed changes:
1. Non linear scaling
I would propose an alternative to the distribution calculation which is to scale it based on points & gold of each DAPP (e.g. cubed root of weighted points/gold). This better accounts for ‘bigger’ dapps getting more, while still ensuring all projects get something.
See example here: Copy of Season 1 Eligible Developers - Google Sheets
Note: I think this disadvantages my own project but is better incentive alignment.
2. Exclude season 2
I would propose to exclude Season 2 from the vote (incentivising additional development is a big topic, and I don’t think 1.25% is enough)
3. Add vesting
Suggest 12m vest that starts at BLAST TGE
8 Likes
Your point about excluding Season 2 is a good one. That seems like a can they do not want to open. Plus, they’ve already committed to launching a fund to invest in projects so it is still possible to do something of that nature.
But overall, S1 dapps/devs were promised something they did not end up getting. They brought a lot of users, TVL, and attention to bootstrap the chain. They deserve something.
2 Likes
- Interesting, seems fair to me
- We could do another blip, but I think we need to figure this out asap
- Legit
Curious to hear the Blast Foundation’s thoughts on the blip
2 Likes
Agree with you here - Especially the part about choosing Blast over other chains. The airdrop to developers was the specific reason we chose to build on BlastL2 and not another blockchain. We all kept waiting for details on HOW to be eligible for the dev piece, but as we all saw, it quickly became a “100% of your BlastGold must go to users and you can’t make fees off the users that come to farm BlastGold…”
The not making fees was pretty crappy too since the largest receivers of BlastGold are clearly making fees, the deposit fees on JUICE vaults were extremely lucrative for them (as one example).
3 Likes
Nearly all projects that came to build on Blast were attracted by the Developer airdrop potential. At a minimum, Blast needs to publicly address this and explain why we should build on Blast when there are many other exciting blockchains emerging that have better developer incentives.
5 Likes
I vaguely remember reading that developers and creators would be rewarded gold as incentives to create for Blast. I’m surprised and disappointed to hear they received nothing for their work. If these dapps weren’t live on Blast, there would be no Blast. It’s time to address this and give these people their well-earned financial reward for providing Blast with dapps.
3 Likes
I support Adam on this decision. Devs are the main fillar of the ecosystem
2 Likes
Season 1 attracted devs with airdrop (didn’t happen), TVL (already 40% down) and users (probably more than 40% down).
If there are no changes to developer incentives, I don’t see how Blast will attract new devs or even get existing devs to stay.
Building on Blast comes with significant risks and sacrifices now.
2 Likes
I think this is a really interesting conversation.
Will share some personal thots-- also just want to be clear that after reviewing this it doesn’t fall under tokenholder purview based on the governance bylaws (sec 4)
But I did bring this up with the Foundation directly- they do actively review the forum proposals and find the community feedback helpful!
So I actually remember when I was first covering Blast that it was 50% of the airdrop to the community and 50% to the devs. There was a point around when testnet was shifting over to mainnet where teams were announcing commitments to distribute points & gold back to users and imo it just kind of became the norm.
I never noticed the official shift in comms, but there was a lot going on. I don’t necessarily agree with the execution of this proposal, but I do think it could be interesting if we see a grant program get created specifically for dapps to apply to- I think we are seeing a version of this play out with the information we have about the next big bang (Foundation will have optional cash investments for big bang winners).
Dev revenue vs blast gold distro was kind of confusing in Phase 1, so excited to see what happens in Phase 2 now that we have a bit more clarity.
4 Likes
Is there an airdrop tracker for Blast to see which addresses received the airdrop and their corresponding involvement in the Blast ecosystem?
Excellent topic. There is a really big and unfair gap between those teams that received Blast Gold and those that did not. This gap could at least be reduced by increasing the number of projects covered by Blast Gold distribution. There are a couple of dozen projects that receive Blast Gold, and 4-10 new ones, although I think we can increase new projects to 20-30 at least every month
1 Like
I fully agree with it, its been hard for Blast OG devs in Blast since day one and completely overlooked and mistreated