Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum

[Griff]

@GFXlabs

There is no legitimate reason why 225,000,000 ARB needs to be transferred to a multisig. That prevents any governance oversight. In theory governance can claw it back, but the history of DAOs is littered with such promises. Cayman and other offshore jurisdictions do not provide easy environments for DAO governance to exert its rights. It is better to keep control unambiguously with governance – which means the funds should stay in the treasury.

I have to agree. But if this was completely the case I would be voting no on this proposal.

However

@Djinn

Since the multisig will be receiving the ARB in lump sum to fund both the program and operations, we added a section to specify how we approach underfunding or overfunding of the operational cost.

The funding for operations will be calculated at the USD value of ARB at the time of the Tally vote setup (5/21/24). In the case of overfunding, the program will return any funds to the DAO treasury.

In the case of underfunding, the GCP team will have two options to continue operations:

• Utilize any earmarked amounts for investments or grants to close the gap on funding up to the total allocated amount for operations
• Stand up a vote to add additional operational funding to continue running the program

I am in full support of this proposal, I believe it can help Arbitrum dominate the gaming market, and I believe in the future of on-chain gaming. However, if ARB’s price escalates greatly, we should consider clawing back the funds for other verticals.

I’m voting to support this proposal on Tally