This reads well, but still needs some more work. I am particularly pleased that Dan took some of the suggestions in the education thread and incorporated them here. That said, here are my thoughts.
-
This GCP / Venture Team structure adds nothing tangible - other than [unnecessary] pay checks for additional people, with added bureaucracy.
A single GCP/Venture Team (5 people is more than sufficient for this) voted in by the community based on merit, experience etc. is a better path. There’s literally nothing that a combined team can’t do. So, why split it and create more red tape and friction? That’s not conducive to expediency. And it doesn’t need a “board”. This team could focus specifically on all the tasks mentioned herein, while hiring third-parties for external activities such as legal, compliance, taxes, marketing etc. Just because you have 200MM doesn’t mean you get to spend 1MM when 500K would work just as well.
-
Why must publishers be white listed? For one thing, that basically excludes a swath of publishers who aren’t even involved in Web3 - yet. e.g. what purpose would it serve to have e.g. TreasureDAO be whitelisted? This is just friction.
-
Why does a publisher have to put up 10% matching funds? What problem is that initiative trying to solve? So, a publisher asking for a $1M grant to “build up the Arbitrum gaming ecosystem” has to put up $100K. Why? If it’s about having skin in the game, that goes against the very concept being sold in this initiative. And that’s not how grants of this type are designed to work. You want to attract gamers and publishers. And that means “little or no friction”.
Not only that, why should the barrier of entry be higher for publishers? I foreseen the end result of this being: Studio A wants to get a GCP grant. So it approaches Publisher A who then explains that they (Studio A) have to put up the matching 10% in order for their grant to be submitted. So, all this does is create a pass-through event for the studio.
-
There is no need for a separate carved out 40M ARB. I don’t see any reason for this. Especially since the process for getting a grant for those very same initiatives isn’t any different than a game studio or dev looking for a grant. And so, why not go through GCP/VT rather than - again - going through an RFP voting gauntlet? This - again - is friction and red tape.
-
There is no need to have a carved out 20M ARB for “grants under $500K”. That again serves no purpose other than to create more unnecessary work. In the education thread, I provided industry best practices which could be adopted in a manner that caters to various types of grants with a min and max. No need for carve outs because what that inevitably does is create a situation whereby once the $500K is fully deployed - the end. Then what? There’s absolutely no reason - none whatsoever - to create a carve out that’s just going to create a two-tier system. You have 200MM to spend. Go spend it. All welcome. That’s it.
-
Outlining considered terms without the DAO having the benefit of those disclosures means that voters don’t have insight into what exactly those terms are. So, GCP/VT gets $200M - then goes and makes up any rules it wants after the fact. That leaves voters with this: “wait! I didn’t vote to that!”. That’s not goodwill. So, what needs to happen is spell out exactly the range of funding that are commensurate with the venture benefits. Again, I created an entire industry standard structure which can be adopted as-needed, and understood by all. e.g. we give you $2M, we [GCP/VT] get a 30% share of the revenue for 2 yrs.
This doesn’t tell the voters anything as it lacks clarity: “Revenue capture up to the total size of grant will be split more favorably towards the DAO - this is a general rule, but each specific deal may see different percentages and deal structure” erm, wot?
Neither does this: “After the initial cost of the grant is covered, revenue share will be split according to agreed upon milestones dependent on time, total revenue, and other unique aspects - on a per deal basis” That entire sentence is rife with pre-requisite KPIs. So, spell them out for clarity so that, at least, there’s a template understanding of what it is voters are in for. Then nobody can’t say they were in the dark about what the proposal was pitching and what it is they voted for. Spell. It. Out.
-
This is absolutely anti-competitive (and dare I say a lawsuit waiting to happen) and narrows the playing field. It serves no purpose in a grant such as this, and it shouldn’t be the role of GCP/VT to police external events related to BD: “Publishers will be free to approach any game builder but cannot poach from other Publishers within the Arbitrum Network”
-
And this is too ambiguous: “More detailed deal structure guidelines will be created by the Venture Team upon its formation”. A proposal such as this needs to have all its ducks in a row and every single data point and KPI laid out so that the voters know what precisely is involved in doling out 200MM ARB to such an entity. I mean, nobody could go to any DAO and ask for $10K and there’s an ambiguous line like that in there. It will ultimately fail at vote due to unanswered questions. Again, it just ends up with controversy down the road whereby something happens that wasn’t previously disclosed or understood in the proposal, then has some voters up in arms about it because they never voted for “that” one thing that’s now being outlined after the fact. Why risk this? You’re asking voters (and delegates) for a significant sum of money. Just like investment decks, publisher pitches etc. you need to have every single detail outlined and clear.
-
“By the end of the program term, any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO”. erm, why? Despite what most seem to think, 200MM isn’t a lot of money for an initiative like this. There will always be deal flow for which money needs to be spent. Adding this just creates unnecessary angst and expectations. To wit: end of yr 2 the GCP/VT published reports come out and, whoa! we have 25MM left; yet we blew through 175MM and have nothing to show for it. But great, at least we didn’t spend the last 25MM. Don’t do that. GCP/VT gets the grant, that’s where it ends. Whatever funds remain can certainly continue to be deployed as per this proposal’s mandate.
-
I am not all that familiar with the Arb Foundation (AF) structure, but I don’t think having the GCP/VT as a subsidiary of the AF is a good idea. All that does is create added risk and complexity to an otherwise insulated structure. It’s specifically why, in the education thread, I had suggested a completely separate entity with zero ties to the AF. You could spend 15 mins with a good [Web3] attorney who will - right off the bat - explain why this is a terrible idea.
There’s so much more, but I decided to just stop at 10.
As an investor, gamer and game dev, this is an essential proposal. But it’s clear - at least to me - that it was done in a hurry (to meet what deadline?). Which probably explains a vote in 2 days even after an almost month-long education thread yielded minimal interest and metrics. There’s no need to rush through this. So, I highly recommend that you work through this some more, add needed clarity etc. The more info/data presented, the better the understanding of the voters (esp. the delegates). I can’t imagine any investor forking out $1M for a proposal in this form, let alone $200M. Then you have DAO voters - who, as diverse as they are, usually stay silent and unengaged until it’s time to vote. Then boom! Fail. The End.