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.
Gaming is the defacto way of onboarding the mainstream, and Arbitrum is perfectly positioned to be the premier HOME for on-chain gaming. The GCP is paramount for arming our builders and gaming ecosystems to realize this vision. This is especially true given the web3 gaming landscape of 2024, and even more so in 2025, as game studios that have been developing over the past 2-3 years prepare to release alphas, betas, and worldwide launches. In Web3, speed and timing are of the essence, and it’s imperative that we seize the moment. Let’s ensure we get this right, ArbDAO, and swiftly pass this proposal!
The essence of this proposal is really to encourage involvement from groups like Treasure, as well as other developers and builders, in the Arbitrum ecosystem.
Saying “nobody” is playing Treasure’s games is a bit harsh. They’ve been champions for Arbitrum from the start and have seen genuine engagement with some of their titles. For instance, take a look at The Beacon—it’s still in Alpha but has shown promising traction.
The lively discussion and differing viewpoints underscore Treasure’s influence in the space. The intention behind the 200MM ARB is to significantly enhance efforts like these. Whether it’s Treasure, Xai, or any other game publisher or developer, the goal is the same.
For a clear picture of what Treasure has contributed so far, checking out Karel’s tweet might be enlightening.
Given your statement about not planning to build on ARB, it’s understandable where you’re coming from. Your passion’s great, but we’re really trying to get everyone on the same track and make things happen. As Soby pointed out on Telegram, aligning stakeholders, ensuring proper economics, and pushing forward with actionable steps is key.
As long as the DAO is receiving proper economics from these deals we’ll be able to push forward
imo best mental model is to think of the DAO as a sovereign wealth fund that works closely with key stakeholders to fund verticals that increase arb usage / adoption
Discussions are valuable, but moving from talk to action is what will truly drives progress, and this is what Arbitrum needs, now.
As I mentioned on Telegram;
Nuances and definitions discussions won’t get the ball rolling nor attract more game developers.
Honestly what I’m mostly worried about is getting stuck into semantics and “analysis paralysis” whilst others are busy building and attracting both talent and players.
Xai can be game charging for web3 gaming as xai progressing day by day it can be hub for gaming xai holds community trust which is very important in gaming sectors
Thank you for your initiative. I see that the proposal is clearly structured and you have a plan of action. The GameFi industry is one of the most in-demand and fastest growing industries. Let me make one suggestion? How about we create some kind of incubator for the most interesting projects? We can pick a few of the most interesting projects and run a pilot funding program before doing it on a large scale. What do you think of that suggestion?
Nobody has been more pivotal in bringing attention to Arbitrum and Gaming than Treasure and Smol. Both projects deserve consideration for funding to accelerate growth here. Battlefly as well.
I’m personally a big fan of gaming & need some better games on web3 . htf companies are raising millions just in the name of web3 & making subway surfers & decade old games really . we need better dev with enough resources to build something great , Xai got my attention with their quality games & their support fr their community hoping to be a part of this exciting journey with arbitrum & Xai
The program is open to all publishers, even publishers that intend on building on Arbitrum but have not yet.
It’s up to the Venture / Council to decide on which publishers are whitelisted.
There is no shortcut for publishers who want to apply. Yes, contributions to Arbitrum as a network is valued, but that doesn’t mean others don’t get an opportunity given they show enough commitment to build in Arbitrum’s ecosystem.
Yes, agreed - and that’s the point that I was making; and that it’s not about Treasure - and shouldn’t be.
I wasn’t using that in the “collective” sense. There are games that nobody is playing; not that nobody is playing all games on Treasure. Hyperbole aside, I never intended for it to come across that way.
I believe that we all agree on this?
I am not - have never commented on their contribution or lack thereof. In fact, as my posts clearly state, part of my advocacy is indeed for the barrier of entry not to be higher for contributors like Treasure and others who have been here since day one; and that there shouldn’t be a barrier of entry - at all.
I am a gamer and a game dev, I have designed, funded, released over a dozen games, and worked with a myriad of industry teams. I have been doing precisely that for 40+ years. For my foray into Web3, I created a startup back in 2021 specifically for Web3 games, separate from my primary studio of 30+ yrs. It was a bet that I made - with my own money and products - because I love gaming and all the communities around it. Though it took some convincing, I saw an opportunity to try and to do something new - in Web3 gaming. And so, I believe that it’s safe to say that just because I don’t have the opportunity to build on ARB at this moment in time doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t do so in the future. Even though I am 60 now, I still have a few games left in me. lol. Plus, multi-chain, if it came to that, is totally a thing.
Trying to get everyone on the same track is all well and good; but what’s wrong with pointing out a dislodged track? After all, isn’t it of benefit to all that we ensure a smooth rail track or is the plan to just run the train through anyway, then deal with the consequences down the track? That’s not a good plan, is it?
And if getting 200MM to deploy based on just those elements alone was easy as stated, then investors would be lining up to give all of us who have those contacts, money. It’s not happening. Getting funding for games is super hard - especially in this moment in Web3 gaming phase. The crazy money has all but dried up amid a swath of bad bets and failed games. And it’s precisely why such an impactful proposal such as this from Dan needs to be solid.
While it’s evident that most of Web3 is littered with the failures of many a dreamer and even the most successful planners and builders, the fact remains that if the goal is to BE impactful with such a proposal, you absolutely MUST get it right FIRST time. Unless of course the focus is in lining the pockets of friends and contacts and not really on the success of the games and hardworking builders who would come here. We have seen what happened when the investors gave funny money to a slew of people who never built a game in their life, and who envisioned that they totally could do it just because they happened to be sitting next to a game dev once. In college. Five years prior.
At the end of the day, we all want the same thing, and perhaps in different ways. e.g. most of you passionate and dedicated ARB folks want to move into gaming in a big way. Believe me, I feel your pain because I have fought this very same fight at my ApeCoin DAO - without success. And all my posts are still there. Out of decorum, I won’t link them here; but anyone is free to DM me on TG and I will provide the links to those and my social media posts and articles about this specific issue. For the longest time I pushed and pushed and pushed for the DAO to embrace gaming because without it, adoption and growth for our community is nigh on impossible. Myself and other experienced devs and publishers (the links are in one of my missives in Dan’s education thread) did our best. Then we all just gave up and moved on because, aside from having a voting system controlled by a few whales, without a concerted effort and concensus by the population, your vote is patently meaningless and inconsequential. As the saying goes, you can force a donkey to the river, but you can’t force it to drink.
In comparison, other chains which today are leading the Web3 gaming wave, all figured out earlier on that gaming was - and has always been - the gateway to community building. And so, they created their own funds, and even outside of those funds, investors aligned with those chains, funded projects that build on those chains. I know this how? Because I have spoken to ALL of them, have contacts and friends at all of the key chains and groups. It’s neither magic nor happenstance that those chains planned it this way.
Arbitrum is trailing in a genre that one would think should have been a priority given that they came along after those other guys. So, what changed? At which point did you guys all figure out that your ecosystem was trailing behind, and that Treasure wasn’t going to be able to save everyone?
Let me be blunt here. Treasure can’t do this alone. Ever. You’re not going to somehow throw good money after bad then expect to reap rewards that aren’t commensurate with the efforts that came before. They’re neither publishers nor do they have anyone - not a single person that I know of - on the team who has the all encompassing experience required to pull off something as massive as what this proposal is suggesting. And it’s precisely why I believe that the slant in this proposal is short-sighted - and even if this proposal passes as written - we’d be having a different discussion in two years when everyone starts asking where it all went wrong back in 2024.
Not that I need to stress - again - that I believe that Dan has done a remarkable job with this proposal. But the fact remains that there are other [external] forces at play here and who are looking, listening, and watching - while not saying anything publicly. I personally have no less 9 conversions going on right now about this proposal; and not just from people I know, but from others I don’t know but who reached out to me after reading some of my posts about GCP. In fact, some of my industry friends who I sent the TG link to, have since joined that channel. So, to sit around and think that delegates are just going to vote in a 200MM proposal, regardless just because a group of frens are chanting “This is gud!! LFG!!!” is short-sighted and irresponsible.
Excellent!! That should be made clear in the proposal because you absolutely do NOT want any voter having unanswered questions lingering. More [info] is good, and clarity is even better.
To that end, I believe that in exchange for a grant, you absolutely have to build on Arbitrum - and there have to be requirements in the grant docs to ensure that this is the case. Then again, if someone moves off after getting funding, then GCP/VT would obviously have to be prepared for legal recourse because the viability of a contract is only as good as your ability to enforce it.
This hits the nail on the head for me.
While I do agree with several things brought forward by thedereksmart above, the grant is needed now and most issues/concerns can be solved by the affected parties in an prelude phase.
Nothing will bring users to web3 like gaming will. Half of the world’s population or more play games. There are simply no competitors to it.
Possibly the best catalyst for all of crypto for the next few years. I am looking forward to seeing the Treasure ecosystem really take over the web3 world, as well as onboarding millions of people from web2 to get onboard. JP and the smol team are putting together the flywheel to onboard the next generation of gamers. We have seen some great work by the POP team also with Pirate Nation. So much potential here. This is the most logical step to move a protocol that is based on defi to a system which can bring non-crypto natives to the table
Gaming is what brought me to Arbitrum (through Treasure) in late 2021, and I believe gaming is what will bring millions more to Arbitrum. This proposal is critical for the growth and expansion of Arbitrum. There hasn’t been a game on the blockchain that has captured the attention of the world yet, but there will be. Let’s make sure the world hears that it’s on Arbitrum. Game on Arbitrum.
I am Fully support to TreasureDAO, I am very excited to see the Xai and Arbitrum in the top position of web3 gaming and crypto history, I love Xai and Arb
Funding the gaming sector would further propel ARB to be one of the leading chains in the industry, especially with gaming being an industry that has a large target audience.
I have been a gamer for many years and played competitively when I was younger and many of my friends who are still actively gaming is interested in web3 gaming. I strongly feel that XAI’s no wallet concept would be the final prod that they need to take the leap. I strongly feel that this would attract web2 gamers who are not familiar with creating wallets etc
XAI actually captured and surprised the market with its tokenomics and node reward distribution. This a nice idea and we should keep one or two games that is for socials and with rewards to keep a good number of players that will play, stream and stay through the whole cycle even the bear season. The test of each gaming ecosystem relies on having the community incentives and having constant events to maintain loyal followers. I hope XAI can find that sweet spot to maintain a big community that can go through many cycles and still be innovative to stay as the Arbitrum lives on.
