Astro Galaxy Pools offered automatic or manual compounding of ASTRO rewards
Astro Galaxy Pools gave ASTRO holders a choice between automatic reinvestment and manually harvesting and restaking rewards. Auto ASTRO handled reinvestment within the pool. Manual ASTRO left that action to the depositor. In AstroSwap’s original Velas design, the comparison also involved transaction costs and early withdrawal conditions.
Automatic reinvestment and manual reward control
Reinvesting rewards without managing each harvest was the purpose of Auto ASTRO, while Manual ASTRO let depositors decide whether harvested tokens returned to their stake. Both choices belonged to the original Galaxy Pool staking model, which accepted ASTRO directly. That direct deposit distinguished these pools from Solar Farms, which accepted liquidity provider (LP) tokens. Astro Pools supplied the underlying trading liquidity. Choosing a Galaxy Pool therefore concerned an ASTRO staking position, without requiring a separate contribution of paired trading assets.
Deposits, rewards and wallet balances
A deposited balance and its rewards describe different parts of a staking position, even when both use the same token.
The existing stake
The original deposit supplied the balance earning pool rewards. Adding tokens from elsewhere increased that deposit through a new contribution. Reinvesting rewards increased it using earnings from the existing position. Those actions could produce a larger stake, but only the latter represented compounding. A stake increase alone therefore did not measure how much the position had earned.
The destination of rewards
Rewards inside the position
Reinvested earnings join the balance capable of earning further rewards. Later reward terms govern those additional earnings, so compounding does not establish a fixed growth rate.
Harvested tokens outside the position
A harvested reward balance held in the wallet remains separate from the deposited balance. Counting those tokens as both wallet holdings and reinvested principal would overstate the position. A depositor’s total ASTRO value can include holdings outside the pool, even though those holdings are not earning that pool’s staking rewards.
APR and APY
A simple annual rate leaves out the effect of compounding. APR means annual percentage rate; APY means annual percentage yield. Annual percentage yield incorporates the effect of compounding over a year. Comparing rates requires matching their calculation assumptions, including reward reinvestment and the period involved. A projected APY describes a calculation, not tokens already credited to the stake. Different assumptions can produce different percentages without demonstrating different underlying reward rates.
Velas transaction costs
Transaction costs mattered whenever a depositor used the wallet to change a pool position or claim rewards, because AstroSwap’s original staking environment ran on Velas. Velas uses VLX to pay network transaction fees. A spendable ASTRO balance and enough network currency for execution answered separate requirements. Holding the reward token alone did not supply the gas balance needed for a transaction. Manual reinvestment involved user-directed activity, so its frequency affected transaction spending.
While a pool continued distributing rewards, earlier reinvestment gave those tokens more time in the earning balance. Comparing those effects requires expressing the costs and additional rewards in a common value unit. The wallet’s gas estimate reflects the proposed action and the gas price at that time. Automatic reinvestment reduced the need to manage rewards, while deposits and withdrawals still involved the wallet.
Early withdrawals from Auto ASTRO
The original Auto ASTRO pool specified a 0.1% charge for unstaking during the first 72 hours. This was a pool withdrawal condition, separate from the network cost of executing the transaction.
The historical charge therefore belonged beside any comparison of reinvestment benefits and access to tokens. It did not establish a universal fee for every Galaxy Pool action. A comparison with manual staking also needed that pool’s applicable terms; the Auto ASTRO condition alone could not establish a fee-free alternative.
Harvested rewards ready for another deposit
A harvested reward balance, rather than an unclaimed reward display, supplied the tokens available for manual restaking in the original design. Consider a hypothetical position with 842 tokens already staked and 12 tokens in harvested rewards. All balances and transaction conditions in this example are hypothetical, and the pool is assumed to accept the additional deposit.
The normal case begins with those 12 tokens available in the connected wallet on the correct network. The wallet also has enough network currency for the transaction. If the deposit credits all 12 tokens without deductions, the arithmetic is 842 + 12 = 854 tokens staked. This result excludes other deposits, withdrawals and subsequent reward changes.
Change the reward input to 12 tokens still awaiting harvest, while keeping the existing stake unchanged. Those rewards do not yet supply the wallet balance for the proposed deposit. The stake remains 842 tokens in this comparison, and harvesting must make the rewards available before their restaking can proceed.
A transaction identifier alone does not establish the larger stake. Wait for successful execution and verify the credited amount in the recorded deposited balance before continuing; signing or submitting the request does not complete reinvestment.
Token growth and market value
The value of a staking position depends on the token quantity and its market price, so compounding can increase holdings while their market value falls. Multiplying the quantity by the price per token gives a value in the price’s quoted currency. The reward percentage alone does not capture that price movement.
Automatic and manual compounding both retained exposure to ASTRO when rewards returned to the stake. Harvesting changed where tokens were held, without automatically converting them into another asset. Selling rewards would introduce a separate exchange decision. A higher token balance and a higher sale value describe different results.
Both pool modes relied on their staking contracts functioning correctly; automating reinvestment did not protect deposits from contract failures.
Which compounding mode matched the intended use of rewards?
Rewards intended for continued reinvestment matched Auto ASTRO, while using harvested tokens elsewhere matched Manual ASTRO’s user-directed compounding.
The automatic option removed recurring harvesting and restaking decisions from the depositor’s routine. Its convenience came with continued reinvestment into the staking asset and the applicable withdrawal terms. Managing fewer actions did not establish a better net return, since costs, reward rates and token prices still affected value.
Manual staking allowed reinvestment timing to reflect the amount available and the cost of taking action. Frequent restaking could give rewards more time in the pool, while repeated transaction spending reduced their net contribution. The value of waiting changed with reward accrual and transaction costs.
Keeping harvested rewards outside the pool remained a distinct alternative to reinvesting them. That choice retained access to those tokens while leaving them outside the balance earning pool rewards. Automatic compounding served continued accumulation within the position; manual control left the next use of harvested tokens open.
Practical questions
Could only part of a harvested reward balance return to Manual ASTRO?
The original staking interface allowed a depositor to choose the amount of ASTRO to add. Restaking therefore did not require committing every harvested token. Tokens left in the wallet remained outside the deposited balance and did not contribute to that pool’s compounding.
Did Galaxy Pool deposits delegate ASTRO to Velas validators?
Galaxy Pool staking concerned AstroSwap’s ASTRO reward pools, while Velas validator delegation used VLX. Sharing an execution network did not make these the same staking mechanism. Validator delegation requirements and its activation or withdrawal periods should not be applied to Galaxy Pool compounding.
Would ASTRO held on another network count toward an original Velas pool deposit?
A token balance on another network was separate from the balance the original Velas pool could use. A matching ticker or wallet address did not merge balances across chains. The relevant balance belonged to the connected account and the token contract on the pool’s execution network.
Can harvested Solar Farm rewards fund a Manual ASTRO deposit?
Harvested ASTRO could supply the token balance for direct Galaxy Pool staking in the original design. Solar Farms earned ASTRO from deposited LP tokens, whereas Galaxy Pools accepted ASTRO itself. Adding trading liquidity was not part of that direct staking requirement.
Does disconnecting a wallet withdraw a Galaxy Pool stake?
Disconnecting a wallet changes its connection to the application without executing a pool withdrawal. An existing deposit remains part of the contract’s account state. Disconnection also does not revoke existing token allowances, so it should not be treated as a transaction that changes staking balances or spending permissions.
If the wallet confirmed only a token approval, did that establish a Galaxy Pool deposit?
A token approval alone grants spending permission and does not establish a staking deposit. Where an interface requests an allowance, the approval and the pool’s deposit accounting serve different purposes. Only an executed deposit credited by the pool establishes the additional staked balance.
Updated