Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum

Camelot will vote “against” the Tally proposal, despite having voted “for” in Snapshot.

Although the proposal will pass due to quorum being reached and support shown by other delegates, we believe it requires a signal of disapproval. The problem does not lie in supporting games, both in crypto in general and in Arbitrum in particular: we are quite favourable towards pushing for a sector that can potentially create asymmetric returns for our ecosystem as a whole and drive growth. This is the main reason why we voted in favour during the temp check in Snapshot, despite the proposal being imperfect and incomplete in our view. However, we do not think this motivation is sufficient to give the proposal a free pass.

Specifically, we are against such dramatic changes between Snapshot and Tally: while understanding that the scope has changed from 2 to 3 years, moving from $10M to $25M in costs is something that should have been better highlighted and explained during the interim period, assuming it was even necessary. This huge compensation package, updated between the two votes, is something that should not happen, in general, for proposals in our DAO, especially for important and sizeable ones like this.

Among other things, we are not favourable to the lack of tranches and the performance bench-marking (accountability) that would be expected when discussing one of the largest gaming-specific funds in the industry, such as the explanation of the legal model or how the DAO is going to effectively manage assets from companies in which it invests. We believe that for a proposal of this size, $250m, it’s imperative to have in-depth structures and clarity laid out before a tally vote. We believe that a proposal of this type should provide more flexibility, proving execution and performance before unlocking further funds.

While we realistically know that this proposal will pass despite our vote, we want to signal that a proposal of this scale should have further oversight and not have such significant gaps between its initial snapshot vote and the tally vote. In addition to the lack of legal, overall structure, and accountability details, we believe this does not give us enough certainty to vote FOR. This proposal is for a significant amount over a long period of time in an area that is new for the DAO, and therefore we believe it needs to be broken down into much more flexible periods and funding that is more closely aligned to clearly defined performance metrics. Instead, we hope that despite the positive vote, this proposal will be addressed with either a re-vote, or specific sub proposals to fix the issues highlighted above by us and other delegates who are raising questions and have reserves.