(Sharing the 1-pager discussed on this week’s open governance call)
Game Development and Incentive Program (GDIP)
Goals
- Fund game studios for development costs
- Distribute ARB incentives through games on Arbitrum
- Acquire data and metrics associated with growing gaming on Arbitrum
- Learn best practices for incentive programs run through the Arbitrum DAO
Methods
- Milestone based funding centered on KPI’s
- WAU, MAU, Average Session Length, User Retention, etc.
- Cycles of proposal review, 25 proposals per 3 week cycle
- Raffle system to decide which proposals fall into which cycle
- Transparency into development spend
- Monthly burn
- Who’s handling funds
- Expected impact
- Even more invasive transparency on spend (which developers, how much, etc.) if the DAO deems it necessary
- 2 Separate categories (projects fall under 1 of 2)
- Arbitrum native projects
- Projects looking to migrate to Arbitrum
- Maximum Funding Amount for the entire GDIP agreed upon before the proposal goes live
Questions
- How should the voting process differ from the STIP to avoid issues such as over-allocation?
- Should proposers delineate their dev cost % VS their incentive % themselves or should it be an amount set forth in the proposal itself? (An example being 50% for dev costs and 50% for incentives)
- Where is the line between ARB incentives being a temporary boost to grow the user base and it being a farmed for those incentives? Do we require any time:incentive guidelines therein?
- Does the funding get approved all at once, or do we incorporate goal posts (or sth of the like) to be met and reviewed after a certain amount of time? How does this differ as to where the funds are going (dev cost/incentive/marketing etc.)?
- Does the cycle of proposal review also mean that funding timelines will be different for projects in different tranches? What if the funding is depleted before another cycle of proposals can be reviewed?