Mechanism would be dependent on the grant or deal terms but could come in the form of: equity/tokens, treasury swap, revenue share (on microtransactions, marketplace revenue, sequencer revenue), etc.
On the enforcement, the “Catalyst Team” (Venture Team) to stood up would broker these deals and the associated commercial arrangements / terms with either the game developers or the publishers on behalf of the DAO with it being a beneficiary of the value capture. With the Catalyst Team being (potentially) structured an Arbitrum Foundation subsidiary (TBD following more fulsome entity structuring analysis), this group, like the Foundation, should operate for the benefit of the Arbitrum DAO.
—
On the token swap approach, this could work for some deals and feels cleaner but the majority will likely be too early to do this and prefer a long term lock or vesting structure. With tokens entering into the equation, the upside would need to be captured through a plan to divest those tokens at some point in time. The divestment strategy should likely be driven by the Catalyst Team as the folks being closest to the respective game teams and their progress but should work in concert with the DAO’s treasury management council.
Both strategies could work. The latter depending on timing does also make sense and could fall in line well with the proposed quarterly transparency reports to evaluate progress. In either case, the DAO will always have the rights to shut things down if needed. What I like about the latter vs. it being streamed over time is that it could be deployed in a treasury management strategy to generate yield vs. remaining fully dormant (a wasted opportunity given the magnitude of the funds)!