Failing to act, on time, is also a failure.
You loose competitive edge as time goes by. Have you heard of first movers advantage?
1 Like
You do realise that even after getting the funding a team would take time to develop a game, right?
Other ecosystems like Immutable started funding teams long time ago with 500 million or so. I have no idea how many of their games are ready and how many are going to be released in next 6-12 months.
If Arbitrum starts funding 3-4 months from now, all this would start only then. Now, add the game development time on top of it.
Do you think other ecosystems will not be ahead of Arbitrum and hence, by definition, have advantage over it?
1 Like
This article highlights the exciting potential for catalyzing gaming ecosystem growth on Arbitrum. The innovative solutions and opportunities discussed here have the power to revolutionize the gaming industry and create new possibilities for developers and players alike. I am thrilled to see how Arbitrum is paving the way for a more efficient and inclusive gaming ecosystem. Exciting times ahead!
Iām truly excited about Arbitrumās Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) and its potential to reshape blockchain gaming. With a hefty 200m ARB investment over two years, the GCP is set to provide more than just funding; it offers a robust support system including mentorship and access to technology, vital for fostering innovative game developers.
This initiative could turn Arbitrum into the preferred platform for blockchain gaming, similar to its success with DeFi. By prioritizing quality and innovation, the GCP aims to enhance the blockchain gaming experience, attracting a broader audience and enriching the entire Arbitrum ecosystem.
The GCP is not just an investment in gaming; itās an investment in the future of blockchain entertainment, signaling Arbitrumās commitment to its community. Iām eager to see the transformative impact this program will have on the blockchain gaming landscape.
This proposal is generally positive for Arbitrum overall and the overall feedback thus far appears to be aligned with that view. Its also clear that Treasure has played a significant role in driving interest in gaming on Arbitrum. They succeeded initially at bringing a massive amount of liquidity into their ecosystem, raising $30m+ through sales of their token and receiving the largest allocation of $ARB during the initial airdrop to DAOs.
However, its also clear that Treasureās track record has not been great. If we evaluate how much theyāve spent using any reasonable metric for performance, Treasure has definitively proven to be ineffective at deploying large sums of capital.
For these reasons, The TreasureDAO team should NOT be directly involved in any decision making related to the use of funds resulting from this proposal. I believe this will produce the best outcome for all stakeholders, including Treasure.
On the contrary, Treasure is a perfect example of how to make every dollar go further and this is the reason why they have successfully, survived and continued building in the midst of bear market while attracting games from other ecosystems, including from Polygon and Solana.
In fact, they are capable enough of launching their own chain and attract even more games using their capital.
The funding will allow them to do all of the above, at scale, which will benefit Arbitrum the most. They have every bit of right to get everything they deserve. Unlike many others.
3 Likes
This is badly misinformed and objectively incorrect. Itās also in poor taste to put down one of the leading game ecosystems and communities who helped not only bring gaming to Arbitrum, but users to Arbitrum. Treasure and their studios will and should be eligible for this grant just like any other applicant. As an early supporter of Arbitrum, they will and should be involved in the decision-making process. The $ARB allocation received has been used for Arbitrum governance, not filling their own coffers. The token? Fairly launched and bootstrapped from $30k liquidity. Mis-use of capital? No one would question nVidia on mis-use of capital when they were investing in chip technology and talent to reap rewards later. Itās incredibly short-sighted to say as much for Treasure, although Iād implore you to post evidence of such. Itās clear there is an agenda by your post, whereas the community should be supporting the builders here and attracting MORE good builders. The forum should be used for thoughtful replies on the proposal, not baseless conjecture.
4 Likes
If XAI applied and approved for 50M fund, how the fund flow-in into XAI system, I mean, budget in $ARB, so you have to sell $ARB on the market and send the money in term of $USDT to XAI team, to pay for expenses, or XAI team will be paid in $ARB, and if so, is there a lock duration?
cc @karelvuong
The cultural identity of Arbitrum rests in new explorations in web3 gaming, which largely started from TreasureDAOās decision to launch here in 2021. While there is certainly a focus on traditional DeFi activities on the chain, I feel we are at a crossroads when it comes to Arbitrum committing to more than that.
The comments about limited playability in current titles is reasonable - but whatās important to grasp is the difference between building game economies and creating games themselves. These economies take time, failed experiments, and finally clarity about how on-chain interoperability really works. Viral games with a token slapped on & no path to any sort of decentralization get farmed away quickly.
If āgaming ecosystem growthā is to be a focus, my view is that an acknowledgment is required that we are experimenting with an new type of digital space. Itās not web2 games with a token to farm, itās not DeFi ponzis with some artwork, it is a colorful new ecosystem greater than the sum of its parts. Arbitrum should allow for that journey into the unknown to happen, only to the extent that the chain feels this ethos is true to its identity.
2 Likes
I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful answers.
I am FOR this proposal with the caveat that we need to be very thoughtful and selective over who sits on the council overseeing this venture. Although, the guidelines set for the council can be determined after this is voted as to not further postpone on this proposal - just that we keep these challenges in mind during the next step.
1 Like
Tell me where this information comes from?
I look at the official Optimism data and donāt see 800M OP allocated for games
There is no first movers advantage in this regard. ARB is already playing catch-up in the gaming sector. Hence this impactful proposal. And given how long it takes to make games, coupled with the fact that financial incentives are no longer the edge that they once were in attracting good games, my guess is that GCP already has serious challenges ahead. But I am confident that, depending on who they hire, and how the plan shakes out, that it will - if nothing else - have some positive impact in the long term.
To be clear, there are many ways to look at this, and thereās no point in making light of raised concerns, but we could spend the next six months discussing minutia when what really needs to be the focus are the core and key foundations of the proposal. Without a solid foundation, nothing built on top will survive because itās usually all about the best laid plans of mice and men.
Immutable thus far has 270+ games. And I am aware of several more because most of the guys with currently deployed games, as well as some games about to deploy, are friends of mine who work on them.
What most people donāt realize is that a lot of trad [Web2] game devs are making the migration to Web3 in the background. Unless youāre a notable (e.g. my friends over at Neon/Shrapnel) founder or team, thatās not the sort of thing that makes the news. And that transition is growing now more than ever due to all the layoffs in the game dev sector because nothing says āGo find something challenging and build a bridge while youāre at itā than being laid off; because it gives you an opportunity to explore new avenues.
Other ecosystems got this far in simple ways. I know this because for the past few years I have been engaged with all the key players.
-
Investors funded games, and those portfolio games ended up building on chains that are already part of an investor group portfolio.
-
The [sensible] chains put together BD teams to curate games from builders; mostly regardless of experience because, shockingly, very few trad [Web2] game devs cared about Web3 due to the resistance by gamers as well as the blight from all the crypto shenanigans and get-rich-quick [games].
-
The [sensible] chains specifically created toolsets which would be attractive to game devs because without a solid foundation, who would want to build on your [zombie] chain? And in doing that, even the game devs who didnāt need grant funding, were able to on-board to a chain and ecosystem where they could thrive if they had a good game.
This was the core of my earlier dissent that if the ARB Foundation (herewith AF) actually cared [enough] about gaming, they would have engaged in similar activities by now, and so, the community wouldnāt have required such a proposal from @Djinn and others. Especially not to the tune of $400MM. But here we are.
If you take Steam v Epic Games Store for example, the former had such a lead that itās unlikely that any other storefront will ever beat, let alone match its success. At least not in our lifetime. And theyāre a private company. EGS, on the other hand, even with gobs of money thrown around, didnāt even make a dent in Steamās chokehold. And they threw a LOT of money at it. Scroll up to one of my posts for the links to some stories that I shared about this phenom. So, ARB isnāt likely to make a dent in Web3 gaming just because it somehow allocated $400MM to the effort. The best that the community can hope for is that the money is deployed wisely by those in control of it, and for what itās worth, we donāt end up in a situation whereby the onus and priority are placed on Treasure and others just because they are the de facto āfacesā of the ARB gaming scene. That would be a patently unfair - and risky - proposition, as Iāve stated before. Youāre absolutely not going to grow a balloon without pumping more oxygen into it. The decision then is, are you pumping in oxygen (legacy) or helium (next gen) into the balloon?
Going forward, and given whatās at risk here, I expect that the people who get voted into the Council will be mindful of the fact they need to come up with different plans to curate game builders because just because they have $400MM to play with doesnāt mean thereās going to be a successful deployment in the short-term, let alone the long-term. Why? Those other chains already have momentum - and theyāre not sleeping.
Added to that, bureaucracy, unfairness, short-sightedness and all the attributes that lead to failure, will absolutely kill this initiative before it even gets off the ground. And itās why I was initially opposed to the council + venture structure; until @karelvuong recognized the concern, and subsequently explained the reasoning while changing the name to fit a more broader narrative and understanding. Suddenly, it was all very clear (at least to me).
I think thatās a patently unfair assessment. Things break. We fail. Game over. We try again.
Just because Treasure has the appearance of failure in some areas (e.g. arguably, game curation), doesnāt mean that they donāt deserve a seat at the table. These arguments (one of which I vehemently opposed on TG) are counter-productive because it means that people donāt deserve a chance to either grow or to learn from mistakes made. I mean, if weāre talking about scammers, yeah, who would want them at the table - or any table for that matter?
I need to stress this again: This proposal is not about Treasure. And it never was. At least thatās not what I took away when I first read it. However, the appearances are there simply due to Treasureās exposure and notability within the ARB gaming ecosystem. And so, when some people read a proposal like this, they see all the glowing adulation from some people (all with new accounts on the same first day of posting), itās easy to see how one would think that Treasure is front-running this effort.
That Treasure - though Karel has explicitly stated that his opinions/suggestions are his alone (note: he is the face and name attached to Treasure, so we can all just disregard - out of hand - that disclaimer) is a huge supporter of this proposal should be a plus in terms of gaming. Why? Well, they are already the goto platform for games on ARB. To disregard that would be to say that Fortnite being a hit on EGS is due to the game, and not a combination of the game + the community that play and build on it.
And Treasure isnāt responsible for allocating or deploying funds. And I certainly donāt expect that anyone in Treasure would be in the Council, let alone in the Catalyst team. I believe that outfits like Treasure, XAI et al are better off on the outside, and being filters to help curate the games likely to be successful on the platform. How they get compensated (nothing comes for free, nor should their involvement) is a different issue. So, hopefully your concerns in this regard are premature.
Launching your own chain isnāt a measure of success or ability. I could send you a list of [ghost] chains if youād like. And they too had great aspirations.
As Iāve stated previously, I certainly believe that Treasureās involvement would be a bonus; especially given that a large swathe of the ecosystem already know who they are, have experience with them etc. However, I donāt see how deploying on their chain is more beneficial than just deploying directly on ARB. At least not without incentives for doing so. But thatās a decision for the builders. If a term were deploying a game on ARB, for reasons of community exposure, I would most certainly suggest that they consider deploying within the Treasure ecosystem. Itās not only free marketing, but itās also how you can curate an immediate community to your game.
I agree.
I disagree. Thatās the job of the Council and Catalyst teams - not Treasure.
Irrelevant to this discussion, and inconsequential to anything related to this proposal.
Their board and investors certainly would. And they have. I would know, I am a legacy nVidia investor.
Valid concern. But the fact is, why would there be a lock when the money needs to be spent? None of the things needed to build or promote a game, can be paid for in $ARB.
Absolutely agreed. Itās why I was also asking how the curation of the team would be done ahead of them being put up for vote. I mean, theyāre certainly not going to send up 100 applications in a bid to send them up to vote in order to pick the team.
Yeah, I was wondering about that myself, as I would certainly have heard about it.
1 Like
Our Snapshot vote is live! Big thanks to @coinflip for helping frame and posting it 
1 Like
Meaning, not be a part of the Council or Catalyst groups. I just assumed that this would be obvious, seeing as I stated that clearly in the missive.
They can apply for a grant, deploy it to the games in the Treasure ecosystem, curate new games for that ecosystem etc. Again, this was clear in what I previously wrote.
This was the statement made: āNo one would question nVidia on mis-use of capital when they were investing in chip technology and talent to reap rewards later.ā
Not sure what you were going for there, but my response was to clearly state that the nVidia board and investors - just like any corp - would most certainly question things like āmis-use of capitalā. And that, as an investor, itās precisely the sort of thing (as stated therein) that I would be concerned about.
1 Like
I voted for this proposal, because I think standing up a vertical that can move quickly on gaming is important and this proposal is a worthy effort that has sufficient participation from the ecosystem and safeguards/process via the Foundation. At this stage of the DAO, I am in generally in favor of reasonable proposals that get things moving. A lot of work has gone into this proposal and Iād like to see it move forward.
With that said, I think Devansh makes some important points. I think the quarterly transparency work is important. Also, Iād like to see an optimistic governance solution like what we are working on with @Immutablelawyer deployed as an addition security/transparency mechanism on the multisig.
1 Like
As Questbook, we are for this proposal! Having run the gaming domain grant with a cap of $25k, weāve seen the need for higher funding. In our Gaming Domain we received high number of proposals even though @Flook as the DA was only looking out for Indie games, there were still high interest for so many game devs and small studios to enter the Arbitrum ecosystem.
In addition, Questbook would love to support the proposal in setting up the program, and offer Questbook as a tooling to setup any of these programs and help support the program operationally if needed.
āValid concern. But the fact is, why would there be a lock when the money needs to be spent? None of the things needed to build or promote a game, can be paid for in $ARBā
If no lock, the team who received $ARB will eventually sell for $USDT to spend for their expenses, which is no different from The Treasury sells at the first place?
Cc @thedereksmart
Hello,
Great spaces! Firstly, thank you for presenting this proposal. Iām relatively new to the Arbitrum DAO community, and this marks my first participation in any discussion. Exciting moment for a first post. By way of introduction, Iām currently involved with Crypto Unicorns, a gaming ecosystem and DAO on Polygon. Weāre gearing up for a migration to XAI by the second quarter of this year. Given this timing, this proposal couldnāt be more relevant to us!
From Arbitrumās standpoint, this proposal is exceptionally promising. It offers a strategic opportunity for Arbitrum to forge a strong connection with the gaming space, repositioning itself as a gaming-focused blockchain network. This strategic branding, beyond the grant itself, has the potential to draw significant interest from a wide array of stakeholders, including developers, builders, and users.
Looking at it from the lens of a project on the cusp of migrating to XAI, the benefits are equally substantial. Throughout our migration discussions, weāve witnessed remarkable synergy between teams and experienced firsthand the robust support network that both Arbitrum and XAI extend to builders and developers.
Encouraging Developer and Builder Engagement
The proposal acts as a catalyst for attracting new talent. It lays down a welcoming groundwork for developers and builders, signaling that Arbitrum is ready and eager for innovation.
Fostering Grassroots Initiatives
This proposalās commitment to providing financial support, mentorship, and additional resources is pivotal. It ensures that nascent ideas are nurtured into high-quality projects. Mentorship, in particular, is crucial for those transitioning from traditional web2 gaming development, offering them the essential knowledge and technological aid they require. The financial aspect also plays a significant role, enabling developers to focus on their projects without the immediate pressure of securing additional funding.
Bridging the Web2 and Web3 Divide
The emphasis on welcoming web2 developers into the web3 fold is commendable. This initiative not only immediately gives them access to the technologies but also imparts the necessary knowledge for web3 game development, which is pivotal for the web3 gaming spaceās growth.
One aspect that piques my curiosity is the relationship between the GCP Council and the Catalyst Team mentioned above. At Crypto Unicorns, where Iām involved, we also operate under a DAO structure with a community-elected Council. In our setup, the Councilās responsibilities include ensuring that the DAO receives a comprehensive breakdown of implementation steps before anything progresses to Snapshot voting. This process enables the DAO to hold any author accountable should there be any deviation from the agreed-upon steps. Given this context, Iām interested in comparing the designs, especially with the mention that the Councilās role for GCP includes maintaining the Catalyst Teamās accountability. How will the Council members be decided and what would be the nature of actions the Council can take if thereās disagreement with how things are being implemented?
Overall, this proposal, in essence, represents a significant leap forward for both the Arbitrum ecosystem and the broader web3 gaming space, promising to pave the way for innovative developments and higher quality projects and Iām excited to see its implementation.
The difference is the ARB isnāt putting up the funds from the treasury. This is a grant asking for those funds - from the treasury. But even in both cases, the end-result would be the same: convert from ARB in order to pay for expenses.
Welcome! We were all n00bs once. 
They will be voted on by the DAO community here.
1 Like