While the gaming industry is an interesting vertical, the significant budget required for this initiative and the various unsolved issues raised, albeit late in the proposal cycle, are concerns for us. Specifically, the GCP’s main focus and budget are dedicated towards investments (135m ARB) and grants and bounties (65m ARB). Despite this, there is no clarity on the legal structure to be used for these investments and the legal liabilities are unclear even though they are critical elements to the foundation of the program. Operational expenses are also considerable ($25m) and various delegates have raised concerns around this point. The specifics around the obtained funding are also vague. The funds’ management appears to be delegated to the Arbitrum Foundation with no ringfencing of assets or separation of risk and the clawback mechanism appears missing.
Additionally, we prefer to see an organic strategy aimed at the sustainable growth of the Arbitrum ecosystem rather than standalone allocations of funds. This proposal represents a large disbursement for the Arbitrum DAO to be added to the already high annual spending impacting the Treasury.
Although we are not opposed to opening Arbitrum to the gaming ecosystem, it’s difficult to endorse such a large ask without clarity on the issues identified above. We believe it is critical to address the legal, funds management and treasury considerations before supporting this proposal.
For these reasons, we have voted against it.