Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum

Our Snapshot vote is live! Big thanks to @coinflip for helping frame and posting it.

https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x1a9f2097b0b5a0021628e9edb0e7c9bffae4fdbb104f9996463e40a3129c7718

Introduction - Gaming Catalyst Program

Arbitrum has emerged as a leader in the competitive network race through a dynamic formula of innovation, robust technology, organic builders, and a variety of short and long-term incentives.

The proliferation of DeFi on Arbitrum showcases how quickly a snowball effect can onboard builders, users, and ultimately value for the Arbitrum DAO and other stakeholders (i.e. Offchain Labs, Ethereum, etc.).

This dynamic has not occurred within the web3 gaming vertical, but we believe that the same opportunity exists to attract the best builders that will in turn create sticky, quality games that bring and retain new users within Arbitrum.

The Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) is a model to rapidly accelerate Arbitrum’s support for game builders and also strategically allocate resources towards vetted experts to accelerate the onboarding and go-to-market of the best builders in the gaming industry.

GCP Hypothesis

Arbitrum has had immense success in the decentralized finance vertical, but the branding of Arbitrum as a home for gamers and game builders is nascent. As a network, Arbitrum falls behind several major competitors across total games migrated, games launched, and total gamers.

This educational post shares some of the pain points and metrics within the gaming ecosystem in regards to Arbitrum.

With the Gaming Catalyst Program, we believe that earmarking an aggressive budget to attract builders and retain talent will result in a few major wins:

Rapid Acceleration for Game Builders: The GCP aims to provide support and resources to game developers interested in building on the Arbitrum network. This includes access to funding, mentorship, and other forms of assistance to expedite the development process.

Strategic Allocation of Resources: By allocating resources strategically, the program can maximize its impact by focusing on vetted experts and promising projects within the gaming industry. This ensures that resources are used efficiently and effectively to foster the growth of high-quality games on Arbitrum.

Attracting Top Talent: Just as DeFi projects have flocked to Arbitrum due to its innovative technology and incentives, the GCP aims to attract the best game builders in the industry. By offering support and incentives, Arbitrum can position itself as an attractive platform for game development, potentially leading to a surge in high-quality gaming experiences on the network.

Creating Sticky, Quality Games: The ultimate goal of the GCP is to encourage the development of sticky, high-quality games that not only attract users but also retain them over the long term. A dedicated Venture Team and expert Council will serve as quality control mechanisms to make sure the best applicants receive the full support of the GCP.

Expanding the Use Cases of Arbitrum: While DeFi has been a major focus of Arbitrum’s success so far, expanding into the gaming vertical opens up new opportunities and use cases for the network. By supporting game development, Arbitrum can diversify its ecosystem and appeal to a broader range of users and developers, with results that include but are not limited to Orbit chain and Stylus adoption.

Proposal Summary

We are asking the DAO to earmark 200m ARB over a two year period to bolster the gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum and establish the network as the top choice for game builders across the landscape.

The GCP is meant to serve as a catalyst, not a comprehensive program, with a focus around onboarding and supporting high quality builders.

After the roll out of the GCP, the aim is to mature into a longer-term gaming program with a more comprehensive approach to game ecosystem growth.

Strategically, we believe that attracting, retaining, and supporting builders will be a key differentiating factor vs other competitive networks, and will lead to the highest probability of quality game launches that will in turn attract large numbers of engaged gamers.

Part of the fund will be utilized to co-invest into promising studios and games along with approved, Arbitrum-aligned publishers, with the belief that the business model, industry expertise, and track record of publishers will streamline the outreach, vetting, negotiation, onboarding, and support process for builders. The fund will also be available for all other game builders seeking to create games on Arbitrum.

Publishers and developers will be subject to a robust set of checks and balances to ensure alignment with this proposal’s goals and Arbitrum DAO’s values:

  • To participate in the GCP, publishers must be whitelisted and approved by the Council
  • A GCP Council of 5 individuals with deep gaming or / and venture experience will be elected by the DAO and will be responsible for holding the Catalyst Venture Team accountable - with powers including general oversight, hiring / firing of staff (think of them as a board)
  • A quarterly transparency report will be created with summary data on GCP performance
  • A venture team will be created under a Foundation subsidiary, and overseen by the GCP Council to facilitate deal structuring, due diligence, fund disbursement, etc
    • Venture Lead / GM
    • Project Manager / Ops Lead
    • Analysts
    • Legal / Compliance
    • Other Admin / Ops
    • BD / Marketing

Expected Outcomes and KPIs

The Gaming Catalyst program has an overarching goal to bring in talented builders, and help the builders accelerate their games through the lifecycle stages.

We are hosting a series of open office hours to help connect the dots between gaming industry standards and the best practices / outcomes that we aim to achieve with this program.

The highest level metric we will be tracking is studio / builder onboarding into the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, there will be a variance in the realized outcome due to publisher applications, types of builders targeted, and variables from network competition.

Primary expected outcome:

Within the initial time frame of the program, establish Arbitrum as a de facto leader for on-chain gaming:

  • 200-300 applications
  • 20%+ of all web3 games selecting Arbitrum as their network
  • Win net migrations to Arbitrum vs other L2s
  • 25+ new Orbit launches

An additional outcome that the program aims to achieve is incremental movement through the gaming lifecycles illustrated by the Helika presentation on 2/2/24 during our open office hours.

Initiatives

We are asking the DAO to earmark 200m ARB to develop the gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum and establish the network as the top choice for game builders across the landscape.

The funding will be allocated towards the following initiatives over the span of a two year period:

1. Builder Onboarding & Growth (160m ARB)

  • Publisher grants to accelerate growth of Arbitrum’s gaming ecosystem by sourcing / acquiring builders, and scaling publishing support
    1. Publishers may become eligible through a council vote (whitelisting process), with council member decisions made public
    2. Publishers must match a minimum of 10% of the overall grant ask
  • Independent game builder grants for builders that do not have commercial relationships with publishers

2. Infrastructure Bounties (40m ARB)

  • Allocated by RFP or decided by the Council on a per proposal basis for any tooling and infrastructure needed to support gaming within Arbitrum (i.e. account abstraction solutions and gasless transactions for games, payment rails, web and game engine SDKs, data analytics and attribution, etc.)
  • Promote Orbit, Stylus, and other development and infrastructure growth on top of new Arbitrum technology releases

The numbers proposed represent an upper bound of ARB that could be deployed to catalyze gaming on Arbitrum. In the event there is unused ARB at the end of the GCP across any of the three initiatives, funds will be transferred back to the DAO.

A. Builder Onboarding and Growth

Budget: 160m $ARB

Use of Funds: This funding is proposed to be reserved for established publisher ecosystems and independent builders on Arbitrum to help scale the DAO’s ability to attract, secure, and accelerate talented teams on Arbitrum.

Thesis / Experiment: We are allocating a large majority of the budget to empower growth of publishers and studios on Arbitrum.

These publishers and studios are the DAO’s subject matter experts who have existing gaming know-how and resources to be able to effectively onboard new projects and users to the network. Publisher ecosystems typically have a concentration of multiple games that fall underneath a single umbrella connected by a shared community, unified infrastructure, and a social fabric that can provide games with greater chances of success. Publishers will need to submit a proposal to be whitelisted within the program and to submit individual deals to the Venture Team for consideration.

Funds can also be deployed as grants to builders that do not have active publisher relationships to encourage independent studio and builder growth. Each proposal will be submitted directly for Venture Team review and approval.

Funding Guidelines:

  • Publishers will be required to publish a public proposal on the forum based on the Publisher Application Template to be whitelisted as an approved publisher
    • Publisher history
    • Team backgrounds and composition
    • Success stories and portfolio
    • Arbitrum contributions
    • Plans for Arbitrum network growth
    • Once whitelisted, publishers may bring deals forth to the Venture Team for grant consideration
  • (20m ARB earmarked) For grants under 500k, builders / publishers are not required to have a commercial agreement and may approach the Venture Team grants allocator (separate from traditional Venture Team deals) for a faster track to grant funding
    • Foundation may be involved here
  • (140m ARB earmarked) For grants over 500k or flagged by the GCP Council, builders or publishers must agree on a commercial agreement value share through tokens, revenue, or other pathways
    • Publishers must allocate a minimum of 10% capital contribution to the overall deal
    • A waterfall structure will be followed with the following high level breakout (the Venture Team will add necessary details):
      • Revenue capture up to the total size of grant will be split more favorably towards the DAO - this is a general rule, but each specific deal may see different percentages and deal structure
      • After the initial cost of the grant is covered, revenue share will be split according to agreed upon milestones dependent on time, total revenue, and other unique aspects - on a per deal basis
      • A time factor of 1-2 years will be considered based on the type / structure of the deal
  • Publishers will be free to approach any game builder but cannot poach from other Publishers within the Arbitrum Network
  • There is no size limit to grant distributions
  • More detailed deal structure guidelines will be created by the Venture Team upon its formation
  • By the end of the program term, any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO

B. Game Infrastructure Bounties

Budget: 40m $ARB

Use of Funds: This will be allocated by RFP or per proposal for any tooling and infrastructure needed to further support gaming within Arbitrum (i.e. gaming-centric boilerplates for Arbitrum Orbit, game contract libraries built via Stylus, account abstraction and gasless transactions solutions, payment rails for games, web and game engine SDKs (Unity, Unreal, Godot), etc.)

Thesis / Experiment: Web3 gaming is still nascent and there exists key gaps for game builders to build games and bring them to market. By incentivizing development for such infrastructure projects and tools, or accelerating development of Stylus as an Arbitrum native framework, this will help set Arbitrum further ahead in the competitive network landscape.

Current Gaps: A non-exhaustive list of gaps that currently exist within the Arbitrum ecosystem:

  • Custom gaming-centric implementations of Orbit chains
  • Mobile App Infrastructure with wallet that is optimized for games and asset management (See Ronin Wallet on mobile as an example)
  • Web and game engine SDKs (Unity, Unreal, Godot) that allow for in-game contract calls
  • Desktop launcher and distribution solutions
  • Game analytics, optimization, and related tooling (tying together on-chain, off-chain, social, and player activity)

Funding Guidelines:

  • The Council will establish initial RFPs and funding guidelines
  • An infrastructure specific rubric will be established by the Council to assess proposals
  • Independent proposals that do not fit within RFP guidelines are welcome to apply separately for Council consideration
  • By the end of the program term, any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO

Next Steps

  • [Done] Post Open Draft (Shared on 2/15/24, link within Arbitrum Gaming Education Post [Arbitrum and the Future of Web3 Gaming)

  • [Done] Post GCP proposal to forum (3/11/24)

  • [Done] Snapshot vote (3/15/24) for general delegate agreement on GCP commitment, start entity setups, and to receive detailed feedback: Snapshot

  • Tally vote / ratification (April 2024)

  • GCP Council Elections (April - May 2024)

  • GCP Venture Team formation (April - May 2024)

  • Grant applications and RFPs open (April - May 2024)

Total Cost

We estimate the total cost to equal 200m $ARB + operations costs detailed below under Program Administration & Operations.

This is a two year program and forecasted amounts may change / require amendment(s) as the program evolves.

[The current Program Administration & Operations budget is being verified by working group team members and will be adjusted prior to the Tally vote.]

  • Total Incentives: 200m ARB
    • Builder Onboarding and Growth: 160m ARB
    • Infrastructure, Tooling & Stylus Development: 40m ARB
  • Program Administration & Operations - $10m in ARB
    • Council Members (5): $25,000 per year ($250k total)
    • Initial Legal Structuring: $250k
    • General Legal / Compliance: $2m
    • Fund Manager / Venture Lead: Up to $2m per year ($200k base + bonuses)
    • Analysts (3): $125-$200k per year
    • Proposal Authors and Key Collaborators: Retrofunded from administration flex fund, determined by council
    • Program Insights and Analysis: TBD
    • Multisig Signers (5): TBD
    • Flex Spend - Remaining amount earmarked for any additional staffing needs, vendors, ops, retro funding, and research

Proposal Contributors

Djinn (Dan) - Author (Co-Founder, Vela Exchange)
Karel - Author (Co-Founder, Treasure)
Xai Games - Advisor / Contributor
Helika - Advisor / Contributor
Jason Lee - Advisor / Contributor (ExPolygon Games, current web3 gaming founder)

Resources & Content

GCP AMA / Open Office 3/15/24 - https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1RDGllYMYvOGL?s=20

45 Likes

Imo gaming is one of the best gateway drugs to bring new people into the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Wouldn’t have found Arbitrum without Treasure & its exciting gaming opportunities. Before that I wasn’t even really active on-chain or didn’t even use the Ethereum network much. 2 years since finding out about Treasure, I have over 30K+ transactions, have interacted with 100s of protocols, joined dozens of communities, worked in the space and can call Arbitrum my On-Chain home.

Strongly support this GCP to help keep Arbitrum competitive vs other chains and to onboard the next wave of Arbitrum users.

24 Likes

We will make Arbitrum great again. god bless you , and good night !

9 Likes

Let’s do this guys. We’ll position Arbitrum as one of the best gaming chains out there.
We’ll do our part with The Beacon :saluting_face:

11 Likes

Extremely bullish on Arbitrum becoming the de-facto home of web3 gaming.

This program is fantastic, I hope to see it pass and take our network to the next level.

15 Likes

Firstly, thanks to everyone involved in crafting, contributing, and critiquing this proposal. The discussions at ETH Denver and in the Arbitrum Gaming telegram group over the last few weeks have been invaluable.

Here are my key points regarding this proposal from the perspective of a Gaming Studio on Arbitrum (we have been building Footium, a multiplayer football management game, for the last 2 years):

Efficient Runway Extension : Startups often face runway concerns. The GCP offers a streamlined way to access capital, removing the need for extensive fundraising efforts which really can be entirely consuming for months at a time for studios which receive funding through the GCP. This frees up founders to focus on shipping good games and marketing them, which is what they really should be doing.

Accelerating Game Development : Additional capital can expedite game development and improve its quality. The team building Footium is currently 7 people, and we are all stretched across multiple roles. Hiring more developers, a game economist, and marketing personnel would enable us to deliver a better game faster, as well as grow more rapidly, all of which bring benefits for the wider Arbitrum ecosystem.

Onboarding web2 Users: Gaming presents an effective pathway for introducing web2 users to web3 due to the familiarity of gaming. The proposal’s focus on infrastructure + seamless onboarding is crucial for facilitating this transition and it is great to see it included here. User acquisition through gaming is more efficient than through other channels such as financial apps, and will allow the entire Arbitrum ecosystem to grow and benefit from the effects of that growth.

While the proposal could be refined, speed is essential given market dynamics and competition. Acting decisively is crucial to ensure timely access to funding for game studios.

Competitors are actively seeking to attract games to their platforms, and we receive at least one message each week currently from an Arbitrum competitor who are trying to attract games to their chain via lucrative grants + .

We are committed to building on Arbitrum, but I can absolutely see how these offers could be enticing for those studios in need of capital right now. This further highlights the need for swift action to maintain Arbitrum’s position as the market leading L2. Maximising network effects within Arbitrum gaming and the broader ecosystem is vital, and the GCP can significantly contribute to this goal.

7 Likes

The Venture Team overseen by the GCP Council comes into place to precisely mitigate that, allocating funds to the “right” teams.

I fully agree that the proposal could be refined, yet speed is essential.


It’s great to see that things are moving towards the right direction.

Hopefully, the proposal will be in full swing by Q2 2024.

7 Likes

Hope this gets approved and finally DEFI people realise GAMING is the future in blockchain and a key factor to attract the masses ( You remember AXIE INFINITY right??)

I’ve joined Arbitrum back in 2022 , all thanks to TreasureDao and their ecosystem and stayed thanks to the same thing. They are the REAL OGs of the chain and should finally get the love they DESERVE.

15 Likes

This reads well, but still needs some more work. I am particularly pleased that Dan took some of the suggestions in the education thread and incorporated them here. That said, here are my thoughts.

  1. This GCP / Venture Team structure adds nothing tangible - other than [unnecessary] pay checks for additional people, with added bureaucracy.

    A single GCP/Venture Team (5 people is more than sufficient for this) voted in by the community based on merit, experience etc. is a better path. There’s literally nothing that a combined team can’t do. So, why split it and create more red tape and friction? That’s not conducive to expediency. And it doesn’t need a “board”. This team could focus specifically on all the tasks mentioned herein, while hiring third-parties for external activities such as legal, compliance, taxes, marketing etc. Just because you have 200MM doesn’t mean you get to spend 1MM when 500K would work just as well.

  2. Why must publishers be white listed? For one thing, that basically excludes a swath of publishers who aren’t even involved in Web3 - yet. e.g. what purpose would it serve to have e.g. TreasureDAO be whitelisted? This is just friction.

  3. Why does a publisher have to put up 10% matching funds? What problem is that initiative trying to solve? So, a publisher asking for a $1M grant to “build up the Arbitrum gaming ecosystem” has to put up $100K. Why? If it’s about having skin in the game, that goes against the very concept being sold in this initiative. And that’s not how grants of this type are designed to work. You want to attract gamers and publishers. And that means “little or no friction”.

    Not only that, why should the barrier of entry be higher for publishers? I foreseen the end result of this being: Studio A wants to get a GCP grant. So it approaches Publisher A who then explains that they (Studio A) have to put up the matching 10% in order for their grant to be submitted. So, all this does is create a pass-through event for the studio.

  4. There is no need for a separate carved out 40M ARB. I don’t see any reason for this. Especially since the process for getting a grant for those very same initiatives isn’t any different than a game studio or dev looking for a grant. And so, why not go through GCP/VT rather than - again - going through an RFP voting gauntlet? This - again - is friction and red tape.

  5. There is no need to have a carved out 20M ARB for “grants under $500K”. That again serves no purpose other than to create more unnecessary work. In the education thread, I provided industry best practices which could be adopted in a manner that caters to various types of grants with a min and max. No need for carve outs because what that inevitably does is create a situation whereby once the $500K is fully deployed - the end. Then what? There’s absolutely no reason - none whatsoever - to create a carve out that’s just going to create a two-tier system. You have 200MM to spend. Go spend it. All welcome. That’s it.

  6. Outlining considered terms without the DAO having the benefit of those disclosures means that voters don’t have insight into what exactly those terms are. So, GCP/VT gets $200M - then goes and makes up any rules it wants after the fact. That leaves voters with this: “wait! I didn’t vote to that!”. That’s not goodwill. So, what needs to happen is spell out exactly the range of funding that are commensurate with the venture benefits. Again, I created an entire industry standard structure which can be adopted as-needed, and understood by all. e.g. we give you $2M, we [GCP/VT] get a 30% share of the revenue for 2 yrs.

    This doesn’t tell the voters anything as it lacks clarity: “Revenue capture up to the total size of grant will be split more favorably towards the DAO - this is a general rule, but each specific deal may see different percentages and deal structure” erm, wot?

    Neither does this: “After the initial cost of the grant is covered, revenue share will be split according to agreed upon milestones dependent on time, total revenue, and other unique aspects - on a per deal basis” That entire sentence is rife with pre-requisite KPIs. So, spell them out for clarity so that, at least, there’s a template understanding of what it is voters are in for. Then nobody can’t say they were in the dark about what the proposal was pitching and what it is they voted for. Spell. It. Out.

  7. This is absolutely anti-competitive (and dare I say a lawsuit waiting to happen) and narrows the playing field. It serves no purpose in a grant such as this, and it shouldn’t be the role of GCP/VT to police external events related to BD: “Publishers will be free to approach any game builder but cannot poach from other Publishers within the Arbitrum Network”

  8. And this is too ambiguous: “More detailed deal structure guidelines will be created by the Venture Team upon its formation”. A proposal such as this needs to have all its ducks in a row and every single data point and KPI laid out so that the voters know what precisely is involved in doling out 200MM ARB to such an entity. I mean, nobody could go to any DAO and ask for $10K and there’s an ambiguous line like that in there. It will ultimately fail at vote due to unanswered questions. Again, it just ends up with controversy down the road whereby something happens that wasn’t previously disclosed or understood in the proposal, then has some voters up in arms about it because they never voted for “that” one thing that’s now being outlined after the fact. Why risk this? You’re asking voters (and delegates) for a significant sum of money. Just like investment decks, publisher pitches etc. you need to have every single detail outlined and clear.

  9. “By the end of the program term, any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO”. erm, why? Despite what most seem to think, 200MM isn’t a lot of money for an initiative like this. There will always be deal flow for which money needs to be spent. Adding this just creates unnecessary angst and expectations. To wit: end of yr 2 the GCP/VT published reports come out and, whoa! we have 25MM left; yet we blew through 175MM and have nothing to show for it. But great, at least we didn’t spend the last 25MM. Don’t do that. GCP/VT gets the grant, that’s where it ends. Whatever funds remain can certainly continue to be deployed as per this proposal’s mandate.

  10. I am not all that familiar with the Arb Foundation (AF) structure, but I don’t think having the GCP/VT as a subsidiary of the AF is a good idea. All that does is create added risk and complexity to an otherwise insulated structure. It’s specifically why, in the education thread, I had suggested a completely separate entity with zero ties to the AF. You could spend 15 mins with a good [Web3] attorney who will - right off the bat - explain why this is a terrible idea.

There’s so much more, but I decided to just stop at 10.

As an investor, gamer and game dev, this is an essential proposal. But it’s clear - at least to me - that it was done in a hurry (to meet what deadline?). Which probably explains a vote in 2 days even after an almost month-long education thread yielded minimal interest and metrics. There’s no need to rush through this. So, I highly recommend that you work through this some more, add needed clarity etc. The more info/data presented, the better the understanding of the voters (esp. the delegates). I can’t imagine any investor forking out $1M for a proposal in this form, let alone $200M. Then you have DAO voters - who, as diverse as they are, usually stay silent and unengaged until it’s time to vote. Then boom! Fail. The End.

11 Likes

Arbitrum is severely lagging in terms of overall attention and specifically, gaming.

Every other ecosystem is trying to catch the next wave of users via gaming and might even leverage AI to achieve it.

Gaming seems to be a real use case which can survive outside the boundaries of crypto cycles and might even help to push other areas like DeFi with stable user base.

It’s already quite late for Arbitrum to start on this proposal and the DAO should expedite the approval if we have any hope of capitalising on gaming before other L2s eats away majority of share.

8 Likes

I believe Gamefi is the future. Treasure is full of the most bullish communities and projects I know. This program would take both Treasure and Arbitrum to the next level. EEEEEE

15 Likes

The Treasure Ecosystem brought me to Arbitrum in the first place and this grant will play a big part in bringing many more, games and players alike!

I think the proposal could be clearer and better expanded upon and really should include or be followed up by user/player incentives and advertising in my opinion.

A new gaming era is upon us

17 Likes

My whole web3 journey has began on Arbitrum with Treasure DAO creating communities and vibes.
Its grown so much since the early days and i dont think Arbitrum would be where it is now without Treasure bringing in many many players to play their games , and inturn use the Arbitrum Network.
This grant would play a massive role in onboarding newer members to play and enjoy these beautiful games made my a mulitued of teams. EEEEEEEEE

12 Likes

Fully supporting this proposal. TreasureDAO and gaming are the key to success for Arbitrum!

8 Likes

TreasureDAO, onboarded me and my friends via smol/swol 2 years ago and we have been loyal arb users ever since. I believe that with this funding, Treasure have what it takes to onboard the future wave of gamers and game devs.

lastly.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEE

14 Likes

I’ve been on Arbitrum since before Treasure moved on, but it’s the main reason I never left and still hold all of my $ARB.
I strongly support this proposal, other L2 like Base are gaining users but have almost no games or teams building games there, just speculators. We need to keep the edge we have in gaming and expand our user base fast before others catch up!

10 Likes

Allocating 200M $ARB to gaming is undoubtedly a correct bet. As a supporter and user of TreasureDAO, I hope Arbitrum will allocate enough resources to gaming-focused projects, especially TreasureDAO, for the following reasons:

  • TreasureDAO as a Web3 Gaming Launchpad: It acts as a gateway for diverse web3 gaming projects, hosting several notable games already.
  • The Importance of Sustainable Gaming Ecosystems: Given that games typically have shorter lifecycles than DeFi protocols, without a vision for long-term infrastructure, it’s easy to fall into a cycle of game launch → token launch → hype → death. Through its meta-game, Bridgeworld, it encourages inter-game resource competition, enabling the ecosystem to naturally select the strongest games. This approach promises a sustainable web3 gaming platform in the long term.
  • Efficient Allocation of Resources: Therefore, this 200M $ARB investment by Arbitrum must be carefully considered and allocated to the most efficient projects. In my view, TreasureDAO stands out as the prime candidate.

I strongly recommend that the Arbitrum foundation invest resources into TreasureDAO to maximize the efficiency of these resources, focusing on teams with the right culture, community, and potential.

13 Likes

Gaming is sticky and will be the largest catalyst in bringing new attention, excitement, and users to crypto. While I was already involved in defi on Solana and ETH Mainnet, it was the attention Treasure brought to Arbitrum that led me to take the plunge and bridge over. Since dipping my toes in Treasure’s ecosystem back in late 2021, I’ve found myself moving almost all of my liquidity to Arbitrum and utilizing exclusively Arbitrum-based defi protocols from GMX to VELA to Hyperliquid to Dopex and on and on. Imagine the increased liquidity compelling games will bring to Arbitrum if they’re given the opportunity and funds to flourish.

Gaming has the strongest community, and Treasure’s impressive community played a significant role in making Arbitrum my preferred chain. It wasn’t a conscious decision to conduct most of my crypto transactions on this L2, and that hints at the power of what a strong investment in gaming can contribute to Arbitrum. Most people don’t want to be spread out across 20 chains and various L2s. They, like me, will first be drawn to compelling games and the communal conversation around them, and they will undoubtedly explore other protocols and products on their favorite games’ native chain.

Gaming is the flash to defi’s smash, and strong games will reduce the friction present in onboarding new DAUs. If Arbitrum chooses not to put some portion of its considerable war chest into developing gaming on its chain, it is in essence choosing not to market to consumers of the highest grossing entertainment industry, and it will do so at its own peril. Every other chain has made gaming a priority, so why would Arbitrum cede this ground to everyone else without a fight, especially when it already has Treasure, Hytopia, XAI, and many others who have put in the work and are primed to succeed?

While this proposal might benefit from some improvements, we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember that while 200m $ARB sounds like and frankly is a lot to the average person, a typical AAA game can cost $80-$100M. I’ve read other comments suggesting that this proposal is not without its flaws, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s only the beginning. Does it make sense to quibble over the minor details of an ambitious and well-thought out proposal designed to attract top-tier talent when the race to be the premiere gaming chain has already begun?

13 Likes

As someone who’s been with Treasure since its inception, I’ve witnessed firsthand how it has not only been a catalyst for my journey into Arbitrum but also for many others. Treasure stands out as more than just a platform; it’s a vibrant ecosystem that encapsulates the true essence of innovation and community engagement in the blockchain gaming world.

The impact of Treasure and its suite of games on the Arbitrum network is profound. It has been instrumental in attracting a diverse player base, fostering a community of builders, and channeling liquidity into the network. This isn’t just about a single game or platform; it’s about supporting an entire segment of the industry that has the potential to redefine gaming within the web3 space.

Granting support to Treasure, and by extension the gaming sector, aligns perfectly with the vision of fostering a rich, diversified, and thriving ecosystem on Arbitrum. It’s not just about the financial backing but also about recognizing and encouraging the innovation and community-building efforts that have been a hallmark of Treasure’s journey.

I strongly advocate for the allocation of grants to Treasure and the broader gaming community. This isn’t merely an investment in a platform; it’s a strategic move to nurture a segment that has consistently demonstrated its potential to bring in new users, create engaging experiences, and build lasting value in the blockchain space.

By supporting this initiative, we’re not just fueling growth; we’re actively participating in shaping the future of gaming on the blockchain. The stories of engagement, community, and innovation that come from Treasure are testaments to its impact on the network. It’s these stories and experiences that highlight the importance of passing this proposal and reinforcing the belief that the future of gaming on Arbitrum, driven by communities like Treasure, is bright and full of potential.

11 Likes

Two years ago, I became a member of TreasurDAO after doodling a monkey with big brain on a post-it note while seated on the toilet. Since then, I’ve stayed dedicated, seeing it as a preview of what lies ahead.

We are the future!

11 Likes