Thanks for all the feedback guys. I just wanted to share some thoughts in response to the questions around the overall budget as well as a timeline of the GCP communications.
Feedback is always welcome so please feel free to reach out to me or any other working group member if you have any additional concerns or want to deep dive into any of the GCP topics.
The working group has been super transparent about collaborating with delegates, the Foundation, and DAO members across many AMAs, open offices, and smaller discussions - so dialogue is extremely important to us.
I also don’t want to downplay the size or challenges that this program will face.
Just like any trailblazing effort, there is risk associated with this effort. But we added many checks to make sure the DAO has insight into performance and has a voice in the future of this program. These include but are not limited to an oversight council, transparency reports, and of course the ability to clawback funds.
The multi-sig that would hold funds (should the vote pass) currently consists of five trusted Offchain and Foundation signers. If we need to increase the total count of signers, let’s do it.
This is our chance to make a big difference for the Arbitrum gaming community, and the strong signals that propagated the crypto space after the successful Snapshot vote tells me people are resonating with the potential the GCP brings to what I believe could be the best gaming network in the small, but rapidly growing web3 gaming ecosystem.
#1 Why did the operational budget change from $0m on Snapshot to $25m on Tally?
The operating budget for the GCP was never set at $0M.
$10M for operating expenses was clearly noted in the proposal draft.
See the original post here.
The $10M figure was not included in the headline number for Snapshot, but was in the details of the budget breakdown. We recognize that more consistency should observed in terms of adding opex in Snapshot votes (proposals including the STIP for example also did not include the operational costs in the temp check proposals Arbitrum's Short-Term Incentive Program (Arbitrum Improvement Proposal) - #102 by tnorm). Honestly even the naming and details included within the Snapshot text itself were debated between myself and @coinflip in terms of what made the most sense.
#2. Why the increase from $10m to $25m in operational costs between Snapshot and Tally?
After the successful Snapshot vote concluding on Mar 22nd, the working group consisting of Dan Peng, @Soby from Xai Games, @karelvuong from Treasure, Helika, and the Arbitrum Foundation (as facilitators) continued to harden the existing proposal, which included a hard look at the timeline and budget needed to execute on an ambitious 200m ARB multi-use program.
We also started to bring in potential candidates for the GCP team to get feedback. These extremely experienced operators who came from top venture and gaming firms worked closely with us to battle test the operational setup and bring theory to reality.
What we found after speaking to these potential team members and a variety of industry advisors:
- 2 years was not enough time to thoughtfully deploy capital and see significant results in an industry with multi-year development cycles - especially if we are targeting serious games and developers. The decision was made to increase the program to 3 years.
- The $10m allocated to opex in the Snapshot vote was not adequate for several reasons:
- Timelines were updated to 3 years
- Salaries + bonus structures would need to be adjusted due to the lack of carry as compensation for GCP investment team members (carry typically starts to come into play 5+ years after the start of a fund).
- The program includes a mixture of investments, grants, and RFP creation / management and would need a more diverse staff than a typical fund
- Immutable X, Ronin, and other competitors in the space provide extensive Developer Relations and Support to drive success in development, live ops, community activation, etc… ,The GCP does not need to match Ronin or Immutable but it does need to support its builders
- Legal costs were better scoped after several calls with Foundation legal partners
The timeline of updates and public communications are detailed below.
Timeline
Gaming Research Forum Post (Feb 15th)
Link: Arbitrum and the Future of Web3 Gaming
Other communications:
Arbitrum Gaming AMA (Feb 12th): x.com
Eth Denver Working Group Onsite (Feb 26th - Feb 28th)
Initial Forum Post (March 12th)
Link: Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum
Details:
- 200m ARB
- $10m opex budget
- 2 year program
Snapshot Vote (Mar 5th - Mar 22nd)
Link: Snapshot
Details:
- 200m ARB
- $10m opex budget
- 2 year program
Other communications:
Treasure GCP AMA (3/15): x.com
L2Beat Gaming Interview (3/21): https://twitter.com/Sinkas_/status/1770818902408282124
Updated Draft for Tally v1 (Apr 18th)
Link: https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/catalyze-gaming-ecosystem-growth-on-arbitrum/22368/173
Details:
- 200m ARB
- $20m opex budget (+$10m)
- 3 year program (+1 year)
- Updated with additional advisory from former / current publisher and studio executives, former / current venture partners, potential GCP team members
Other communications:
Arbitrum AMA (May 8th) : x.com
Updated Draft for Tally v2 (May 10)
Link: Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum - #176 by Djinn
Details:
- 200m ARB
- $25m opex budget (+$5m)
- 3 year program
- Updated with additional advisory from former / current publisher and studio executives, former / current venture partners, potential GCP team members
Tally Vote (May 24 - Jun 7)
Link: Tally | Arbitrum Proposal
Details
- $25m opex budget
- 3 year program
Last note:
This is one of the first (if not the first) DAO programs that will stand up a professional, full time team ready to deliver grants and invest in game developers within Web3.
I believe that transparency is going to be key to maintaining trust, and as delegates like @krst @thedevanshmehta @Frisson @gauntlet and many more who voted FOR have mentioned, there are going to be lots of diligent folks ready to hold us accountable. This program cannot succeed without an open line of communication and results driven execution.
The potential GCP team members and working group embraces this call for transparency and I believe it has the potential to pave the way for future DAO incentives and programming if done correctly. Thank you again everyone for the support!