I think some of these guys think that this is a bailout of sorts for Treasure, and that these funds are somehow going to help them by way of Treasure. While I have no experience with Treasure, what I do know is that - as I have mentioned, and as seen in the metrics - they’re sitting on a library of underperforming games - that nobody is playing. If Treasure needed funds to expand or to curate games and promote them, they could very well have put up a proposal to do just that. This proposal isn’t that. And they certainly didn’t need a 200MM play to do it.
So, that it was written in a manner that leads some to believe that, somehow Treasure - which for some reason has pivoted from developer to publisher (or portal depending on who you ask) - is going to be at the head of this effort, is why we’re seeing all these posts about Treasure. That, to me, is an issue in and of itself that speaks to the fact that the proposal wasn’t written in a manner befitting a wide array of external builders. In fact, in Dan’s original education thread which was the precursor to this, it clearly stated that this effort was geared towards builders and publishers already in the ARB ecosystem. As I pointed out, that’s a terrible idea because you want outsiders to come here, because clearly those who are already here, are in the minority and aren’t likely to make any meaningful impact, let alone spark growth in gaming on ARB ecosystem.
I believe that this misconception is a terrible disservice to both Dan and Treasure because it unwittingly gives a rather skewed perspective on this proposal and its intent.
As my analysis above points out, certainly, everyone needs a seat at the ARB table, but it has to be equitable and fair to all; and all must be treated equally without fair or favor, backroom deals or any of that because otherwise the end result is that it will end up being the same people in the same churn - achieving very little, if anything.
I need to stress this, it’s not relevant how many voting delegates spoken to at eth Denver because anyone with enough clout or trust to be a delegate bag holder knows the responsibilities and risks of being part of an effort to pass a vote for 200MM ARB which isn’t likely to yield the expected results in the long-term. It’s no small amount, and it’s precisely why I am advocating for this proposal to be revised and all the concerns outlined and discussed, rather than rushing it to vote. Then again, this could all be a waste of time and the powers that be already figured out a way to get 200MM ARB regardless of merit.
Getting 200MM ARB in a hurry due to some imaginary sense of urgency, then going to try and figure out what to do with it, isn’t a solid plan. It just isn’t.
As I’ve said several times, including earlier today, it’s not my fight and I currently have no plans to build anything on ARB. I just want to see Web3 gaming succeed everywhere - including here on ARB - and not just on AVAX, IMX etc because competition is good for everyone involved - even token farmers. lol
For the record, and as someone just asked me on Telegram DM, below is my reason for engaging and to help this succeed.