Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum

[thedereksmart]

@aepac

While their success and player base may currently seem modest, especially when compared to traditional mobile gaming benchmarks, it’s important to remember that these efforts preceded the establishment of the Gaming Catalyst Program. The potential for growth and traction once the GCP is fully operational is significant.

Can you explain how you see the potential for growth and traction being significant under the GCP?

From my perspective and experience, I have always found that access to money isn’t a litmus test of success or failure. Most especially in gaming. The GCP is merely a funding vehicle which has no involvement in the viability, let alone the success or failure of a game project. I brought up this comparison before, in that a traditional publisher tends to do a lot more than just provide funding. It’s why indies self-publishing on Steam or EGS tend to have to do all the things - including marketing - that publishers would otherwise do. And yet still, it’s a hit or miss.

My view of the success of the GCP is transient to that of the games funded by it because at the end of the day, even those that don’t have an ROI requirement, won’t succeed by just their mere presence on ARB.

@aepac

The frequent mention of AAA games, while ambitious, shouldn’t overshadow the program’s immediate goals. Our focus should be on attracting, guiding, and nurturing builders and game developers. This approach will not only enhance the gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum, but also introduce more players to our platform. While AAA titles may emerge in time, our initial aim should be to foster “fun games to play” that resonate with a broad audience.

Indeed. But herein lies the rub. ARB doesn’t [yet] have a [cohesive] gaming ecosystem. At least not in the traditional sense. And most of the games and their associated communities, are parked on Treasure; and soon others will do the same on XAI. And so, games being funded through the GCP aren’t going to somehow automagically create a gaming presence other than be featured among a list of slew of games on something on like Arbitrum Arcade.

There are quite a few fun games (e.g. Pirate Nation comes to mind) already within the ARB gaming ecosystem; but most of them aren’t being played. And as I said before, it’s not because they aren’t fun games, nor is it visibility a problem due to the small amount of games on the ecosystem. I believe that the primary issue is one of exposure, not discovery. Marketing and/or promoting a game to a bubble of degens isn’t a plan that yields the expected results. Especially given that that [degen] bubble primarily cares more about making money than about the games themselves. And so, if you have a game that’s not terribly fun and which doesn’t have decent tokenomics, no degen is going to touch it. Similarly, a fun game without decent tokenomics will suffer the same fate - every time. And even the degens who do end up checking out such games, are likely to bail in search of the next thing. This is the reality of Web3 gaming - and which cannot be ignored. And it’s specifically why the games with the larger budgets - not even AA or AAA - reach out beyond the degen bubble due to extensive marketing and promo activities. For example, games like Shrapnel, the aforementioned Off The Grid, and a few others.

My point being, the GCP can provide as much funding to a team as is required, but there are several factors that go into how that game performs, and whether or not it is a “win” for the ARB community proper.

What Treasure seems to have achieved on ARB, and which I believe XAI is also on track to do, is create an AIO (All-In-One) on-boarding solution. This is similar to the Steam and EGS model whereby you get all the tools that you need to deploy/publish on the platform; but when it comes to marketing and promo, you’re [mostly] on your own. All that aside from the discovery problem because such an easy on-board system tends to also create a glut of games.

As I mentioned in the education thread, these are some of the things that the Catalyst Team needs to make a priority in funding grants or venture deals. A team needs to not only show how much of the funds are going toward dev, but also their marketing plans. And since some of these things have KPIs and similar activities which cannot be tracked - at least not without periodic reporting to the GCP team - there has to be a way to show that when you said 10% of funding when to marketing, that 10% of funding did in fact go to marketing. There are entire teams (Upptic, Windwalk etc) that do dedicated Web3 marketing activities as well as community building.

Anyone who believes that just throwing $400MM at this challenge is going to somehow yield expected results, really doesn’t understand how any of this works. I know that I already sound like a broken record in this regard, but it’s something that I am hoping sinks in as things move forward.

@aepac

Ultimately, the goal is to seamlessly integrate web2 players into the Arbitrum gaming experience, making the technology transparent to the user. Achieving this will truly mark a milestone in attracting a wider audience and inspiring the next generation of builders.

Indeed. And that’s the part of the challenge of expanding the [degen] bubble from the outside. But that’s what everyone else is currently doing anyway; and honestly, ARB doesn’t have an edge that I can see thus far. We’re not talking about a Steam vs EGS vs Green Man Gaming vs Everyone Else. We’re talking about ARB competing with other “game-centric” chains which already have a major lead, even in the face of Treasure and the growth of XAI. And the end result is going to be that without [gamer] eyeballs being on the GCP funded games, it’s an insurmountable challenge.

Today, I saw David Taylor’s analysis of the revenue paid out to Fortnite creators. It’s all kinds of crazy. A total of $320MM (!) paid out - in the past 12 (!) months. Most of those gamers are neither making nor playing Web3 games. And you’re not going to attract them without a compelling game and a reason to even take a look, let alone play it.

In my view, besides a $400MM play, ARB needs something else that gives it the edge that other game centric chains don’t have; and which, much like the noise of the GCP funding, makes gamers and builders take notice.

@aepac

Truth be told, Web3 isn’t exactly getting standing ovations in the core gaming space right now. So, instead of trying to win over the skeptics, our game plan is to reel in those builders who already see the vision, the ones who just get it.

I couldn’t agree more. But the challenge is going to be in not only identifying and reaching out to those builders like me who see the vision, but also to convince them that coming to ARB is a win-win. I will say this again, just throwing money at the challenge in a bid to see what sticks, will not yield the expected results.

@aepac

The sooner Arbitrum can get started, the better.

Related to this, I was recently pondering something that @karelvuong pointed out in his missive in his Minimum Viable Catalyst suggestion due to the time it’s going to take for GCP to get up an running. While I had already pointed out that the GCP wasn’t going to be a thing for several months, and that even games currently in production aren’t likely to deploy inside of 12 months, finding ways to reach those devs in the interim, is probably a good idea. But here’s the thing:

The ARB grant appears to only go up to $150K; and that’s if you apply directly and within a specific funding cycle.

That hasn’t - thus far - yielded the expected results because only one game, Into The Dungeons, went that route for 180K ARB. And it failed to pass.

One. Single. Game.

When you consider that the budgets of large teams tends to eclipse that of the average indie, offers of $150K to “large teams” isn’t the sort of thing that those teams even consider; regardless of the fact that grants aren’t designed to fund games to any meaningful degree. So, what would such a team do with $150K that’s worth going through the trouble of deploying on ARB? e.g. If I were to migrate my in-progress Web3 game to ARB from the chain we’re currently on, it would cost me in excess of $200K to do it. And so, of what use is even a $200K grant to me if that’s just going to go towards my migration/deployment costs? What else is there in the ARB ecosystem that warrants the migration?
That is a personal example of why I keep saying that this is a lot more than just money. And these are some of the questions and metrics that any builder who knows what he’s doing, and who isn’t just looking for money without any guarantee of performance, is going to be asking themselves.

That said, any builder that decides to go through the MVC via the voting process, is not only more likely to fail - even based on the merits of the game - but once that happens, they’re not coming back.

And so, to me, despite the best intentions there, I believe that to try and “jump start” GCP via such an MVC, aside from adding another layer of work and a risky barrier of entry, will also - in one fell swoop - yield results which GCP naysayers will be quick to highlight at some point because the process would be seen as being rushed (something that I have advocated against).

And speaking of GDC, the announcement of King of Destiny, a preexisting game, and XAI’s announcements (e.g. Crypto Unicorns), were the only notable ARB gaming news. And speaking of migration costs, the CU teams also pointed out how major it is for them to migrate from Polygon to XAI.

It’s clear from the recent proposal vote that the voting population realizes the need to on-board gaming to ARB - in a big, albeit expensive, way. However, it’s up to the foundation itself to start making moves now, ahead of the GCP, or we’re all just going to be having this very same discussion +6 months from now. I remain confident that the GCP is a blue ocean opportunity, and so, I will try to help in whatever way that I can.

[thedereksmart]

FYI (related to my earlier point about GCP needing to do more than just issue funds)

Saga Announces Saga Origins Game Publishing Arm During GDC 2024

“Saga Origins is committed to offering a full-service and collaborative approach to bring games to a global mass market. Whereas developers would traditionally secure grants only to build and launch their games, Saga Origins offers added beneficial support, including partnerships with influencers to generate awareness, sponsored user acquisition campaigns, community building, and promotional support. Through its on-going Play-to-Airdrop campaigns, Saga, game studios and guilds, all team up to organize tournaments where players are rewarded with highly sought after $SAGA tokens for their participation. Most recently in January, Saga completed its revolutionary The Three Kingdoms airdrop campaign with participating partners Avalanche, Polygon and Solana.”

“We’re the only chain to do a publishing house”

[aepac]

@thedereksmart

Can you explain how you see the potential for growth and traction being significant under the GCP?

From my perspective and experience, I have always found that access to money isn’t a litmus test of success or failure. Most especially in gaming. The GCP is merely a funding vehicle which has no involvement in the viability, let alone the success or failure of a game project. I brought up this comparison before, in that a traditional publisher tends to do a lot more than just provide funding. It’s why indies self-publishing on Steam or EGS tend to have to do all the things - including marketing - that publishers would otherwise do. And yet still, it’s a hit or miss.

My view of the success of the GCP is transient to that of the games funded by it because at the end of the day, even those that don’t have an ROI requirement, won’t succeed by just their mere presence on ARB.

I appreciate your insights and the emphasis on the multifaceted nature of success in gaming. However, my recent discussions with developers at different stages of implementation on Arbitrum paint a contrasting picture. These conversations revealed teams genuinely struggling to make ends meet, lacking not only the substantial resources necessary for extensive exploration and development but also, in some cases, the gaming expertise or third-party guidance that can pivot their projects toward success.

This is precisely where the value of the GCP, alongside the Council and the Catalyst Venture Team, becomes evident. They offer not just the financial support but also the much-needed guidance and expertise to navigate the complex landscape of game development on Arbitrum. It’s this combination of resources, expertise, and altruistic guidance that I believe can significantly impact, supporting developers to focus on their passion: creating engaging and fun experiences on Arbitrum.

@thedereksmart

Indeed. But herein lies the rub. ARB doesn’t [yet] have a [cohesive] gaming ecosystem. At least not in the traditional sense. And most of the games and their associated communities, are parked on Treasure; and soon others will do the same on XAI. And so, games being funded through the GCP aren’t going to somehow automagically create a gaming presence other than be featured among a list of slew of games on something on like Arbitrum Arcade.

Indeed, the current state of ARB’s gaming ecosystem may not yet be cohesive in the traditional sense, with many games and their communities gravitating towards platforms like Treasure and potentially XAI in the future. This reality underlines the importance of the GCP’s main objective: to attract top-tier builders capable of creating compelling, high-quality games. These games are essential not just for their entertainment value but for their ability to draw in and retain new users within the Arbitrum ecosystem, thereby nurturing a vibrant and diverse gaming community. If they leverage Treasure or XAI (honestly it’s not a fair comparison right now), it’s beyond the core scope of GCP.

@thedereksmart

Anyone who believes that just throwing $400MM at this challenge is going to somehow yield expected results, really doesn’t understand how any of this works. I know that I already sound like a broken record in this regard, but it’s something that I am hoping sinks in as things move forward.

Absolutely, I share your sentiment. Simply pouring $400M into the gaming ecosystem isn’t a guaranteed recipe for success, and as someone deeply involved in mobile publishing with major IPs and substantial budgets, I understand the intricacies involved.

My experience includes collaborating with Upptic on projects we’ve either published or played a significant financial role in (i.e; we acquired the studio). The real potential of a $400M investment lies in strategic management and execution. The difference between speculating about what might be achieved and actively working towards making those achievements a reality is crucial. Our focus should be on leveraging this funding effectively to create impactful results.

@thedereksmart

Today, I saw David Taylor’s analysis of the revenue paid out to Fortnite creators. It’s all kinds of crazy. A total of $320MM (!) paid out - in the past 12 (!) months. Most of those gamers are neither making nor playing Web3 games. And you’re not going to attract them without a compelling game and a reason to even take a look, let alone play it.

Indeed, the figures from Fortnite’s creator payouts are astonishing, showcasing the incredible potential of successful game ecosystems. However, expecting Arbitrum or this program to mirror Epic Games’ success or launch the next “Fortnite” may not align with our immediate goals or realities.

Given your extensive experience as an indie developer, I’m sure you appreciate that our focus is on fostering a diverse and vibrant gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum. The aim is to attract developers and gamers with the promise of innovative and engaging gaming experiences, rather than replicating the blockbuster success of established giants overnight. “We want to develop the next Fortinite or AAA game” is simply the wrong goal.

@thedereksmart

In my view, besides a $400MM play, ARB needs something else that gives it the edge that other game centric chains don’t have; and which, much like the noise of the GCP funding, makes gamers and builders take notice.

What is it?

@thedereksmart

I will say this again, just throwing money at the challenge in a bid to see what sticks, will not yield the expected results.

I understand your concerns about the effectiveness of financial investment alone. However, I wonder, what outcomes do you envision for the Catalyst Program to consider it a success?

We are establishing a Council and a Catalyst Venture Team for this very reason. If these entities do not fulfill their responsibilities, then indeed, the investment might not achieve its intended impact.

Nevertheless, I believe it’s critical to start with a presumption of efficacy and the selection of a competent team. I maintain an optimistic perspective, viewing challenges as opportunities for growth. It’s an ambitious endeavor, and maintaining a positive outlook is essential for navigating the journey ahead.

@thedereksmart

that even games currently in production aren’t likely to deploy inside of 12 months, finding ways to reach those devs in the interim, is probably a good idea.

With all due respect, it might be worth taking a closer look at who’s actually building on Arbitrum, past and present.

The idea that it’s okay for games to take over 12 months just to see the light of day doesn’t sit right. If that’s what we’re seeing after the first year, then it’s clear – the Catalyst Venture Team and the Council aren’t cutting it and should probably be shown the door. Quick development and getting games out there is key; we can’t afford to drag our feet.

@thedereksmart

So, what would such a team do with $150K that’s worth going through the trouble of deploying on ARB? e.g. If I were to migrate my in-progress Web3 game to ARB from the chain we’re currently on, it would cost me in excess of $200K to do it. And so, of what use is even a $200K grant to me if that’s just going to go towards my migration/deployment costs?

I must disagree with your figures regarding the migration costs. From my experience and current discussions, the notion that it requires $200k to migrate a game to Arbitrum is not accurate.

Many teams I’ve been in talks with are operating or planning to operate on Arbitrum with budgets starting at around $5k/month (let’s x2, that’s $10k a month…). These are developers deeply passionate about gaming, eager to explore or continue their journey on Arbitrum.

However, starting from incorrect assumptions can lead us down a problematic path, shaping a flawed rationale for the future.

What concerns me more are the expectations set for these teams by Arbitrum and the criteria for defining a game’s success as perceived by the DAO.

If we’re using metrics like monthly transactions as the primary measure of a game’s success, then, in my opinion, we’re not laying the right foundation. This approach is what I’ve gleaned from conversations that developers have had with Offchain Labs, and it worries me.

The Council must ensure the Venture Team not only understands, but also has a deep knowledge of the gaming industry. Being proficient in business development is not sufficient. My experience in game publishing has shown me that to draw in the best talent, you need an equally exceptional team engaging with them.

[thedereksmart]

@aepac

I appreciate your insights and the emphasis on the multifaceted nature of success in gaming. However, my recent discussions with developers at different stages of implementation on Arbitrum paint a contrasting picture. These conversations revealed teams genuinely struggling to make ends meet, lacking not only the substantial resources necessary for extensive exploration and development but also, in some cases, the gaming expertise or third-party guidance that can pivot their projects toward success.

Ah yes, that’s been the case for some time now due to the crypto down-turn. Even though things appear to be picking up, lessons learned from back in 2020 when investors threw copious amounts of money at teams that didn’t know the first thing about making games, have served as a wake-up call whereby it’s a lot harder now to raise funds for making games because investors are looking a lot more closer than they otherwise would.

That said, while I now understand your sentiments regarding growth and traction under GCP, that doesn’t change the inherent risks that will still be there because GCP isn’t going to mitigate those risks outside of normal process. At least to any meaningful degree because teams looking for money and/or guidance isn’t a measure of failure nor success.

@aepac

This is precisely where the value of the GCP, alongside the Council and the Catalyst Venture Team, becomes evident. They offer not just the financial support but also the much-needed guidance and expertise to navigate the complex landscape of game development on Arbitrum. It’s this combination of resources, expertise, and altruistic guidance that I believe can significantly impact, supporting developers to focus on their passion: creating engaging and fun experiences on Arbitrum.

I see. I don’t recall seeing any of that mentioned in the education thread or the proposal itself. It’s possible that you know more behind-the-scenes stuff than I do. Nevertheless, the inference above is just as I have indicated repeatedly; in that - as designed and proposed - the GCP is seeking to operated like a publisher/distributor. And that’s no mean feat.

@aepac

Indeed, the current state of ARB’s gaming ecosystem may not yet be cohesive in the traditional sense, with many games and their communities gravitating towards platforms like Treasure and potentially XAI in the future. This reality underlines the importance of the GCP’s main objective: to attract top-tier builders capable of creating compelling, high-quality games. These games are essential not just for their entertainment value but for their ability to draw in and retain new users within the Arbitrum ecosystem, thereby nurturing a vibrant and diverse gaming community. If they leverage Treasure or XAI (honestly it’s not a fair comparison right now), it’s beyond the core scope of GCP.

Absolutely agreed. I have repeatedly said that Treasure and XAI cannot be relied upon to carry the burden of curation and growth on Arbitrum because, centralization aside, the GCP needs to be able to curate a diverse and eclectic suite of games such that their growth makes Arbitrum the focal point.

@aepac

My experience includes collaborating with Upptic on projects we’ve either published or played a significant financial role in (i.e; we acquired the studio). The real potential of a $400M investment lies in strategic management and execution. The difference between speculating about what might be achieved and actively working towards making those achievements a reality is crucial. Our focus should be on leveraging this funding effectively to create impactful results.

Agreed. I actually mentioned Upptic, Windwalk etc. as part of some of my missives in a bid to illustrate that the success of a game is a lot more than just doling out money.

I should note that Helika just announced a $50MM accelerator fund to enhance metrics such as:

• User acquisition
• Engagement
• Retention
• Growth

@aepac

Indeed, the figures from Fortnite’s creator payouts are astonishing, showcasing the incredible potential of successful game ecosystems. However, expecting Arbitrum or this program to mirror Epic Games’ success or launch the next “Fortnite” may not align with our immediate goals or realities.

Given your extensive experience as an indie developer, I’m sure you appreciate that our focus is on fostering a diverse and vibrant gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum. The aim is to attract developers and gamers with the promise of innovative and engaging gaming experiences, rather than replicating the blockbuster success of established giants overnight. “We want to develop the next Fortinite or AAA game” is simply the wrong goal.

Ah yes, my point was not to say that GCP should aspire to that. I was attempting to point out that those impressive metrics are indicators of trad gamer engagement, and the impact that such games can have on an ecosystem - that being Fortnite. In turn, curating engaging games for Arbtirum lies in the ability to attract and retain games which would be a growth and retention funnel within its ecosystem proper.

@aepac

What is it?

I have been formulating some ideas, but nothing yet that I am comfortable sharing publicly. We can discuss further on Telegram if you so choose. Do feel free to ping me there: thedereksmart

That said, yesterday, Steven posted something that resonated with me as an indie dev.

“Some are repeating the same mistakes again this cycle. If a chain’s sales pitch is “build here because we’ll pay you” that’s not sustainable, lacks character and should be a for devs. These chains may be up for an inning or two but they’ll lose the game. You can’t buy soul.”

Seeing as you’ve responded to several of my posts, I can conclude that you’ve seen me echoing some of these very same sentiments. He’s absolutely correct; and this is something that I hope the GCP doesn’t engage in whereby games get funded as a way to get them over, rather than based on merit and prospects of success.

@aepac

I understand your concerns about the effectiveness of financial investment alone. However, I wonder, what outcomes do you envision for the Catalyst Program to consider it a success?

We are establishing a Council and a Catalyst Venture Team for this very reason. If these entities do not fulfill their responsibilities, then indeed, the investment might not achieve its intended impact.

Nevertheless, I believe it’s critical to start with a presumption of efficacy and the selection of a competent team. I maintain an optimistic perspective, viewing challenges as opportunities for growth. It’s an ambitious endeavor, and maintaining a positive outlook is essential for navigating the journey ahead.

From my perspective as an entrepreneur, investor, and indie dev, I would be more inclined to refer to the standards and metrics from trad gaming - then assume the worst case scenario due to the Web3 stigma. And so, if every GCP funded game makes it to release, that’s a win of sorts because most games don’t even get that far. It’s why, in the education thread, I had outlined some suggestions for various game stages which then determines the funding cap for same. It’s specifically why other chains can tout their list of games, despite the fact that most of them are underperforming and haven’t yield the [financial] metrics which would be worthy of being deemed a success. Recall that I had pointed out that financial success is the only metrics worth focusing on.

So, to me:

• If a GCP funded game actually makes it to release, that’s a win
• If they end up making money, to the extent that they are paying for their monthly operational costs, that’s a bonus
• If they make enough to give back to the GCP so that money can be recycled to on-board other aspiring games, then we can all pack and get ready for the [hype] train to Valhalla.

Incidentally, Sam (Horizon/Sequence) posted his GDC recap which included his usual brand of truth telling. This gem stands out:

@aepac

With all due respect, it might be worth taking a closer look at who’s actually building on Arbitrum, past and present.

Perhaps you misunderstood the point that I was making. Let me quote the entire thing again for context:

“While I had already pointed out that the GCP wasn’t going to be a thing for several months, and that even games currently in production aren’t likely to deploy inside of 12 months, finding ways to reach those devs in the interim, is probably a good idea.”

The point that I was making there has nothing to do with games currently building on Arbitrum. I was making a broad statement about games in dev, and which don’t even have Arbitrum on their radar. And so, given how long it would take for GCP to get up and running - a point that I already made, and for which Karel had his MVC idea - it’s worth finding a way to reach out to those devs in the interim, instead of waiting for the GCP to be up an running before those efforts (by way of application filings) get underway. If not, those games would likely build elsewhere, thus reducing the pool of [worthy] games to curate from in the short term. Games take a long time to make; and not all teams are making 6-12 month “throwaway” games which are usually devoid of any intrinsic value.

@aepac

The idea that it’s okay for games to take over 12 months just to see the light of day doesn’t sit right. If that’s what we’re seeing after the first year, then it’s clear – the Catalyst Venture Team and the Council aren’t cutting it and should probably be shown the door. Quick development and getting games out there is key; we can’t afford to drag our feet.

But that’s not up to the GCP. And games - good games - take some time to make. Attempting to setup the GCP to only consider games which don’t span 12 months is a recipe for disaster. It also says more about the quality of games, than it does about their ability to succeed.

Again, I should point out this is specifically why I provided these suggested guidelines based on decades of experience in the biz. I would expect that the Catalyst Venture Team would adopt best practices along these lines in their selection/curation of games.

There is a measure of risk mitigation based on this industry standard guidance criteria. e.g. a game in year 2 of a 5 year term, at a cost of $5MM, can’t be compared to one that’s 5 months into a 12 month term, at a cost of $250K. But there’s absolutely no way to gauge the success or failure of those two games; except to say that the former likely represents a much larger and well-designed scope, than the latter.

@aepac

I must disagree with your figures regarding the migration costs. From my experience and current discussions, the notion that it requires $200k to migrate a game to Arbitrum is not accurate.

Many teams I’ve been in talks with are operating or planning to operate on Arbitrum with budgets starting at around $5k/month (let’s x2, that’s $10k a month…). These are developers deeply passionate about gaming, eager to explore or continue their journey on Arbitrum.

However, starting from incorrect assumptions can lead us down a problematic path, shaping a flawed rationale for the future.

While that may be accurate based the game devs and games that you’re looking at, I can safely say that is absolutely not the norm. What you’re implying there not only doesn’t take into account important factors such as game type, game scope, team size, team expenses etc but it also ignores the fact that all chains aren’t equal, tools and languages different, smart contracts - even those which may need to be migrated - all take time, the latter costs money, and testing isn’t something you can do overnight.

That said, it is highly unlikely that games looking deploy on Arbitrum are OK with a $10K per month spend to assist in deployment costs, let alone migration costs - both of which are different things.

If someone asked me - today - to migrate either of my games to Arbitrum, and I tell them it would cost me up to $250K, and they asked me why I can’t do it for $10K per month, that would be a very short conversation. And yes, I’ve had those very same conversations before; and so, I am speaking from experience.

This whole “we can/should do it cheaper and quicker” narrative is precisely why - today - gaming in Web3 is in dire straights. Deploying a game on a chain isn’t just a matter of “put it on da blockchain”, and cheap doesn’t always mean better.

I invite you to ask the Crypto Unicorns team what it’s costing them to migrate from Polygon to XAI. I can all but guarantee that it’s not “2 x $5K a month”.

@aepac

What concerns me more are the expectations set for these teams by Arbitrum and the criteria for defining a game’s success as perceived by the DAO.

If we’re using metrics like monthly transactions as the primary measure of a game’s success, then, in my opinion, we’re not laying the right foundation. This approach is what I’ve gleaned from conversations that developers have had with Offchain Labs, and it worries me.

The Council must ensure the Venture Team not only understands, but also has a deep knowledge of the gaming industry. Being proficient in business development is not sufficient. My experience in game publishing has shown me that to draw in the best talent, you need an equally exceptional team engaging with them.

Absolutely agree; and I’ve said those very same things before because it’s important to factor in. For my part, it’s why I’m more concerned about the professional makeup of the Council and the Catalyst team, than I am about the games being curated. It all starts with the team - and even the best teams aren’t infallible.

[duokongcrypto]

@Djinn

我们的快照投票正在进行中！非常感谢@coinflip帮助构建和发布它。

https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x1a9f2097b0b5a0021628e9edb0e7c9bffae4fdbb104f9996463e40a3129c7718

简介 - Gaming Catalyst 计划

通过动态的创新模式、强大的技术、有机建设者以及各种短期和长期激励措施，Arbitrum 已成为竞争性网络竞赛的领导者。

Arbitrum 上 DeFi 的激增展示了滚雪球效应如何快速地吸引构建者、用户，并最终为 Arbitrum DAO 和其他利益相关者（即链下实验室、以太坊等）带来价值。

这种动态在 web3 游戏垂直领域中尚未发生，但我们相信存在同样的机会来吸引最好的开发者，他们反过来会创造出具有粘性的优质游戏，从而在 Arbitrum 中带来并留住新用户。

Gaming Catalyst 计划 (GCP) 是一种模型，可快速加速 Arbitrum 对游戏开发者的支持，并战略性地向经过审查的专家分配资源，以加速游戏行业最佳开发者的入职和进入市场。

GCP假说

Arbitrum 在去中心化金融领域取得了巨大成功，但 Arbitrum 作为游戏玩家和游戏开发者之家的品牌才刚刚起步。作为一个网络，Arbitrum 在迁移的游戏总数、发布的游戏总数和游戏玩家总数方面落后于几个主要竞争对手。

这个教育帖子 分享了游戏生态系统中有关 Arbitrum 的一些痛点和指标。

通过游戏催化剂计划，我们相信拨出积极的预算来吸引开发者和留住人才将带来一些重大胜利：

游戏开发者的快速加速： GCP 旨在为有兴趣在 Arbitrum 网络上构建的游戏开发者提供支持和资源。这包括获得资金、指导和其他形式的援助，以加快开发进程。

资源的战略分配： 通过战略性地分配资源，该计划可以通过关注游戏行业内经过审查的专家和有前途的项目来最大限度地发挥其影响力。这确保了资源得到有效利用，促进 Arbitrum 上优质游戏的发展。

吸引顶尖人才： 就像 DeFi 项目因其创新技术和激励措施而纷纷涌向 Arbitrum 一样，GCP 的目标是吸引业内最优秀的游戏开发者。通过提供支持和激励，Arbitrum 可以将自己定位为一个有吸引力的游戏开发平台，从而有可能导致网络上高质量游戏体验的激增。

打造有粘性的优质游戏： GCP 的最终目标是鼓励开发有粘性的高质量游戏，不仅能吸引用户，还能长期留住用户。专门的风险投资团队和专家委员会将作为质量控制机制，以确保最好的申请者得到 GCP 的全力支持。

扩展 Arbitrum 的用例： 虽然 DeFi 迄今为止一直是 Arbitrum 成功的主要焦点，但扩展到游戏垂直领域为网络带来了新的机会和用例。通过支持游戏开发，Arbitrum 可以使其生态系统多样化，并吸引更广泛的用户和开发者，其结果包括但不限于 Orbit 链和 Stylus 的采用。

提案摘要

我们要求 DAO 在两年内拨出 2 亿 ARB，以支持 Arbitrum 上的游戏生态系统，并将该网络打造成整个领域游戏开发者的首选。

GCP 旨在充当催化剂，而不是一个综合计划，重点是吸引和支持高质量的构建者。

GCP 推出后，目标是发展成为一个长期的游戏计划，以更全面的方法促进游戏生态系统的发展。

从战略上讲，我们相信吸引、留住和支持开发者将是与其他竞争网络的关键差异化因素，并将带来最高概率的优质游戏发布，进而吸引大量活跃的游戏玩家。

该基金的一部分将用于与经批准的、符合 Arbitrum 的发行商共同投资有前途的工作室和游戏，相信发行商的商业模式、行业专业知识和业绩记录将简化外展、审查、谈判、构建者的入职和支持流程。该基金还将提供给所有其他寻求在 Arbitrum 上创建游戏的游戏开发者。

发行商和开发者将受到一套强有力的制衡，以确保符合该提案的目标和 Arbitrum DAO 的价值观：

• 要参与 GCP，发布商必须列入白名单并获得理事会批准
• 由 DAO 选出的由 5 名具有深厚游戏或/和风险投资经验的人组成的 GCP 委员会将负责让 Catalyst 风险投资团队承担责任 - 权力包括一般监督、雇用/解雇员工（将其视为董事会） ）
• 将使用 GCP 绩效的汇总数据创建季度透明度报告
• 将在基金会子公司下创建一个风险投资团队，并由 GCP 委员会监督，以促进交易结构、尽职调查、资金支付等
  • 风险投资主管/总经理
  • 项目经理/运营主管
  • 分析师
  • 合法合规
  • 其他管理/操作
  • 业务拓展/营销

预期成果和 KPI

Gaming Catalyst 计划的总体目标是引进有才华的开发者，并帮助开发者在整个生命周期阶段加速他们的游戏。

我们将举办一系列开放办公时间，以帮助将游戏行业标准与我们旨在通过该计划实现的最佳实践/成果联系起来。

我们将跟踪的最高级别指标是工作室/构建者加入 Arbitrum 生态系统。然而，由于发布者应用程序、目标构建者类型以及网络竞争的变量，实现的结果将会存在差异。

主要预期成果：

在该计划的初始时间范围内，将 Arbitrum 打造为链上游戏事实上的领导者：

• 200-300 个申请
• 超过 20% 的 web3 游戏选择 Arbitrum 作为其网络
• 与其他 L2 相比，赢得 Arbitrum 的净迁移
• 超过 25 个新 Orbit 发射

该计划旨在实现的另一个成果是通过2024 年 2 月 2 日的 Helika 演示展示的游戏生命周期中的渐进运动 在我们的开放办公时间内。

举措

我们要求 DAO 指定 2 亿 ARB 来开发 Arbitrum 上的游戏生态系统，并将该网络打造成整个领域游戏开发者的首选。

资金将在两年内分配给以下举措：

1. 构建商入职和成长（160m ARB）

• 发行商通过寻找/收购开发者和扩大发行支持来加速 Arbitrum 游戏生态系统的发展
  1. 出版商可以通过理事会投票（白名单流程）获得资格，并公开理事会成员的决定
  2. 出版商必须至少匹配总拨款要求的 10%
• 独立游戏开发者为与发行商没有商业关系的开发者提供资助

2. 基础设施奖励（40m ARB）

• 由 RFP 分配或由理事会根据每个提案决定，用于支持 Arbitrum 内的游戏所需的任何工具和基础设施（即游戏的账户抽象解决方案和无 Gas 交易、支付轨道、网络和游戏引擎 SDK、数据分析和归因等） .)
• 在新 Arbitrum 技术发布的基础上，促进 Orbit、Stylus 和其他开发和基础设施的增长

提议的数字代表了可用于促进 Arbitrum 游戏的 ARB 上限。如果这三个计划中的任何一个在 GCP 结束时都存在未使用的 ARB，资金将被转回 DAO。

A. 构建商入职和成长

预算：1.6亿美元ARB

资金用途：这笔资金拟保留给 Arbitrum 上已建立的发行商生态系统和独立构建者，以帮助扩大 DAO 吸引、保护和加速 Arbitrum 人才团队的能力。

论文/实验：我们将大部分预算分配给 Arbitrum 上的发行商和工作室的发展。

这些发行商和工作室是 DAO 的主题专家，他们拥有现有的游戏专业知识和资源，能够有效地将新项目和用户引入网络。发行商生态系统通常集中有多个游戏，这些游戏属于一个保护伞，由共享社区、统一基础设施和社交结构连接，可以为游戏提供更大的成功机会。发行商需要提交一份提案以将其列入该计划的白名单，并向风险投资团队提交个别交易以供考虑。

资金还可以作为赠款分配给没有活跃发行商关系的开发者，以鼓励独立工作室和开发者的发展。每个提案将直接提交给创业团队审核和批准。

资助指南：

• 发布商需要根据发布商申请模板在论坛上发布公共提案，才能被列入白名单作为批准的发布商
  • 出版商历史
  • 团队背景及构成
  • 成功案例和投资组合
  • 仲裁贡献
  • Arbitrum 网络增长计划
  • 一旦列入白名单，出版商可以向风险投资团队提出交易以供考虑资助
• （指定 2000 万 ARB）对于 50 万以下的赠款，建设者/发行商不需要签订商业协议，并且可以联系风险团队赠款分配者（与传统的风险团队交易分开），以更快地获得资金
  • 基金会可能参与其中
• （指定 1.4 亿 ARB）对于超过 50 万或由 GCP 委员会标记的赠款，开发者或发行商必须通过代币、收入或其他途径就商业协议价值份额达成一致
  • 出版商必须为整个交易分配至少 10% 的出资
  • 瀑布结构之后将进行以下高级突破（风险团队将添加必要的细节）：
    • 赠款总规模的收入将更优惠地分配给 DAO - 这是一般规则，但每笔具体交易可能会看到不同的百分比和交易结构
    • 在支付初始资助成本后，收入份额将根据商定的里程碑进行分配，具体取决于时间、总收入和其他独特方面 - 以每笔交易为基础
    • 根据交易的类型/结构，将考虑1-2年的时间因素
• 发行商可以自由地接触任何游戏开发商，但不能从 Arbitrum 网络内的其他发行商那里挖走
• 赠款分配没有大小限制
• 风险投资团队将在成立后制定更详细的交易结构指南
• 计划期限结束时，任何未使用的 ARB 将退还给 DAO

B. 游戏基础设施赏金

预算：4000万美元ARB

资金使用：这将由 RFP 或根据提案分配给进一步支持 Arbitrum 内游戏所需的任何工具和基础设施（即 Arbitrum Orbit 以游戏为中心的样板、通过 Stylus 构建的游戏合约库、帐户抽象和无气体交易解决方案、支付）用于游戏、Web 和游戏引擎 SDK（Unity、Unreal、Godot）等的 Rails

论文/实验：Web3 游戏仍处于萌芽阶段，游戏构建者在构建游戏并将其推向市场方面存在关键差距。通过激励此类基础设施项目和工具的开发，或加速 Stylus 作为 Arbitrum 原生框架的开发，这将有助于使 Arbitrum 在竞争性网络领域进一步领先。

当前差距：Arbitrum 生态系统中当前存在的差距的非详尽列表：

• Orbit 链的以游戏为中心的自定义实施
• 带有针对游戏和资产管理进行优化的钱包的移动应用基础设施（请参阅移动设备上的 Ronin 钱包作为示例）
• 允许游戏内合约调用的 Web 和游戏引擎 SDK（Unity、Unreal、Godot）
• 桌面启动器和分发解决方案
• 游戏分析、优化和相关工具（将链上、链下、社交和玩家活动结合在一起）

资助指南：

• 理事会将制定初步征求建议书和融资指南
• 理事会将制定基础设施特定的标题来评估提案
• 欢迎不符合 RFP 指南的独立提案单独申请供理事会考虑
• 计划期限结束时，任何未使用的 ARB 将退还给 DAO

下一步

• [已完成] 公开草案发布（于 2024 年 2 月 15 日共享，Arbitrum 游戏教育帖子中的链接 [ Arbitrum 和 Web3 Gaming 的未来 ）
• [已完成] 将 GCP 提案发布到论坛 (3/11/24)
• [已完成] 快照投票 (3/15/24)，以就 GCP 承诺达成一般代表协议、启动实体设置并接收详细反馈：快照
• 计票/批准（2024 年 4 月）
• GCP 理事会选举（2024 年 4 月至 5 月）
• GCP 风险团队组建（2024 年 4 月至 5 月）
• 赠款申请和 RFP 开放（2024 年 4 月至 5 月）

总成本

我们估计总成本等于 2 亿美元 ARB + 运营成本（详见下文“计划管理和运营”）。

这是一个为期两年的计划，随着计划的发展，预测金额可能会发生变化/需要修改。

[当前的计划管理和运营预算正在由工作组团队成员验证，并将在计票投票之前进行调整。]

• 总奖励：200m ARB
  • 构建商入职和成长：160m ARB
  • 基础设施、工具和手写笔开发：40m ARB
• 项目管理和运营 - ARB 1000 万美元
  • 理事会成员 (5)：每年 25,000 美元（总计 25 万美元）
  • 初始法律架构：25万美元
  • 一般法律/合规：200 万美元
  • 基金经理/风险投资主管：每年高达 200 万美元（基础金额 + 奖金 20 万美元）
  • 分析师 (3)：每年 125-20 万美元
  • 提案作者和主要合作者：由理事会决定，从管理弹性基金中返还资金
  • 计划见解和分析：待定
  • 多重签名者 (5)：待定
  • 弹性支出 - 剩余金额指定用于任何额外的人员需求、供应商、运营、复古资金和研究

提案贡献者

Djinn (Dan) - 作者（Vela Exchange 联合创始人）
Karel - 作者（Treasure 联合创始人）
Xai Games - 顾问/贡献者
Helika - 顾问/贡献者
Jason Lee - 顾问/贡献者（ExPolygon Games，现任 web3 游戏创始人）

Great job on initiating the Gaming Catalyst Program! It’s a pivotal step towards solidifying Arbitrum’s position as a leader in competitive network gaming. Here’s a suggestion: let’s ensure that alongside attracting talented developers, we focus on fostering a vibrant gaming community on Arbitrum. Engaging users through interactive events, tournaments, and community-driven initiatives can amplify the program’s impact and attract even more users. Keep up the fantastic work!

[tungle3010]

wonder if there is any update on Tally vote? cc @Djinn
Thank you guys!

[thedereksmart]

Yeah, Dan posted this on Telegram a few days ago. I suggest joining that TG channel for quick updates.

Hey everyone, quick update since we are heading towards the end of the week.

Our current goal is to work through the important feedback we have received throughout the last few weeks and submit a new draft of the proposal onto the forums by end of next week.

A few other milestones we are shooting for:

• Open Office for draft feedback (4/9)
• Finalize entity discovery (TBD - early to mid April)
• GCP team descriptions and recruiting collateral (4/12)

Our goal is to get to Tally asap, please be patient with us as we improve the proposal and socialize with all of our key stakeholders

[Epiclevel]

Thank you so much for your enthusiastic support From EPICLEVEL team! We’re thrilled to hear your excitement about the Gaming Catalyst Program. Your suggestion to prioritize community engagement is spot on. Building a vibrant gaming community on Arbitrum is essential for the program’s success, and we’re fully committed to fostering that environment. Stay tuned for exciting updates and initiatives as we continue to elevate gaming on Arbitrum together!

[Djinn]

Arbitrum DAO Gaming Catalyst Program: Tally Draft

This draft was completed after a successful Snapshot temp check for the Arbitrum DAO to empower gaming with a three year, 200m ARB with the goal of powering the Arbitrum gaming ecosystem with the best studios and games in the web3 industry.

The temp check showcased the enthusiasm to support web3 gaming, but also revealed important questions to answer when launching an ambitious, multi-year plan requiring not only a strong team to run the program, but transparent, flexible collaboration between many stakeholders.

Introduction - Gaming Catalyst Program

What changed: Added additional data points and market sizing.

The Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) is designed to immediately expand awareness and adoption of Arbitrum/Orbit/Stylus by builders and players in the Gaming community.

Arbitrum has emerged as a leader in the competitive network race through a dynamic formula of innovation, robust technology, organic builders, and a variety of short and long-term incentives.

The proliferation of DeFi on Arbitrum showcases how quickly a snowball effect can onboard builders, users, and ultimately value for the Arbitrum DAO and other stakeholders (i.e. Offchain Labs, Ethereum, etc.). The TAM for DEFI has surged to $50B and is projected to surge to over $120B by 2030 and Arbitrum is leading the way.

We believe that the same opportunity exists to attract the best builders that will in turn create sticky high quality games that bring and retain new users within Arbitrum. The gaming vertical has a $250B TAM today that is projected to grow to $500B+ by 2030. Though the “web 3 + games” segment of today’s game TAM is relatively small, it is poised to grow exponentially this decade.

Several L1s and L2s see this opportunity (most notably Solana, Cardano, Opstack, Optimism, to name a few) and are moving to claim the builders with grants and investments.

GCP Hypothesis

What changed: General content, enhanced GCP goals.

Arbitrum has had immense success in the decentralized finance vertical, but the branding of Arbitrum as a home for gamers and game builders is nascent. As a network, Arbitrum falls behind major competitors (Immutable X, Ronin, Solana, etc) across total games migrated, games launched, and total gamers.

This educational post shares some of the pain points and metrics within the gaming ecosystem in regards to Arbitrum.

Through the Gaming Catalyst Program, we aim to establish a dedicated team and fund to provide technical and strategic support to the game industry. This dedicated team is key to attracting and retaining the best established and independent developers.

We will know we are succeeding when we achieve the following:

Rapidly Increase the number of Game Developers using Arbitrum/Orbit/Stylus

The GCP aims to provide support and resources to developers interested in building on the Arbitrum network. This includes access to funding, mentorship by vetted experts, and other forms of assistance to expedite the development process and contribute to success in the market post-launch.

Strategic Allocation of Resources via Grants and Investments

By allocating resources strategically, the program can maximize its impact by focusing on proven publishers and developers as well as promising independent projects within gaming. This ensures that resources are used efficiently and effectively to foster the growth of high-quality games on Arbitrum.

Attracting and retaining Top Talent

Just as DeFi projects have flocked to Arbitrum due to its innovative technology and incentives, the GCP aims to attract the best game developers in the industry. By offering support,incentives and game industry specific tools, Arbitrum can position itself as an attractive platform for game development, leading to a surge in high-quality gaming experiences on the network.

Expanding the Use Cases of Arbitrum

While DeFi has been a major focus of Arbitrum’s success so far, expanding into the gaming vertical opens up new opportunities and use cases for the network. By supporting game and gaming infrastructure development, Arbitrum can diversify its ecosystem and appeal to a broader range of users and developers, with results that include but are not limited to Orbit chain and Stylus adoption.

Facilitating the Development of Sticky, Quality Games

The ultimate goal of the GCP is to encourage the development of sticky, high-quality games that not only attract users but also retain them over the long term. A dedicated GCP Team and Council representing the interests of the DAO will serve as quality control mechanisms to make sure the best applicants receive the full support of the GCP.

Proposal Summary

What changed: Extended timeline to three years from two years to ensure program has room to show more results.

We are asking the DAO to earmark 200m ARB over a three year period to expand the gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum and establish the network as the top choice for game builders across the landscape.

The GCP is meant to serve as a catalyst, not a comprehensive program, with a focus around onboarding and supporting high quality builders. After the roll out of the GCP, the aim is to use its learnings to mature the organization into a longer-term gaming program with a comprehensive approach to game ecosystem growth.

Strategically, we believe that attracting, retaining, and supporting builders with a dedicated team and an ongoing investment in game developers and the technical solutions they need will be a key differentiating factor vs other competitive networks. This commitment to gaming will lead to high quality game launches that will in turn attract large numbers of engaged gamers.

Part of the fund will be utilized to co-invest into promising studios and games along with approved, Arbitrum-aligned publishers, with the belief that the business model, industry expertise, and track record of publishers will streamline the outreach, vetting, negotiation, onboarding, and support process for builders. The fund will also be available for all other game builders seeking to create games on Arbitrum.

Controls

Publishers and developers will be subject to a robust set of checks and balances to ensure alignment with this proposal’s goals and Arbitrum DAO’s values:

• A GCP Council of 5 individuals with deep gaming, venture experience, analytics / reporting, and/or DAO governance skills will be elected by the DAO and will be responsible for holding the Catalyst GCP Team accountable - with powers including general oversight, hiring / firing of staff (think of them as a Board )
• A GCP Team will be created with the support of the Arbitrum Foundation, and will collaborate with the GCP Council (which will serve as oversight):
  • An investment committee of 3 individuals including 1 Council member will approve investments
  • Funding for projects will be contingent on achieving milestones
  • A quarterly transparency report will be created with summary data on GCP performance
  • Funding of projects will include terms that are market competitive

Program Outcomes and KPIs

What changed: Adjusted KPIs to account for a three year period and more aggressive goals, added Year 1 goals.

The Gaming Catalyst program has an overarching goal to bring in talented builders, and help the builders accelerate their games through the lifecycle stages.

The highest level metric we will be tracking is studio / builder onboarding into the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, there will be a variance in the realized outcome due to publisher applications, types of builders targeted, and variables from network competition.

Primary expected outcome:

Within the initial time frame of the program (3 years), the goal is to establish Arbitrum as a de facto leader for on-chain gaming. Specifically:

• 400-600 applications
• 100-200 net funded games
• Win net migrations to Arbitrum vs other L2s
• 50+ new Orbit launches

The GCP will take time to reach its full potential, and setting milestones vs maturity of the program is prudent:

KPI	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Daily Active Users	40,000 - 50,000 *	To be set by the GCP Team
Orbit Launches	15
Studio Deals	20

• Most games will be in dev and not (yet) live in 2024

The GCP team will set appropriate OKRs and KPIs internally to align with the goals and milestones listed above.

An additional outcome that the program aims to achieve is incremental movement through the gaming lifecycles illustrated by the Helika presentation on 2/2/24 here (slide 15) during our open office hours.

Initiatives

What changed: Removed publisher earmark, split the Builder Onboarding & Growth section into grants and investments. RFP details adjusted.

We are asking the DAO to earmark 200m ARB to develop the gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum and establish the network as the top choice for game builders across the landscape.

The funding will be allocated towards the following initiatives over the span of a three year period:

1. Builder Onboarding & Growth (160m ARB)

Focused on bringing the best game builders into Arbitrum - open to publishers, established studios, and independent builders.

• Grants to accelerate ecosystem growth (25m)
  • Generally for smaller asks and projects
  • Commercial terms may not be required
  • Reviewed by grants manager
• Investments with commercial agreements (135m)
  • Generally for larger deals
  • Managed by an internal GCP venture team, via commercial terms (recoup + revenue share, equity, tokens, gas fees, etc…) with ROI as a main KPI
  • Full funding of projects tied to achievement of milestones

2. Infrastructure Bounties (40m ARB)

Focused on creating game specific tech needed to make Arbitrum the best choice for game builders. Deals will follow grant or investment classifications based on the same sizing requirements as the Builder Onboarding and Growth program.

• Allocated by RFP or decided by the Council on a per proposal basis for any tooling and infrastructure needed to support gaming within Arbitrum (i.e. account abstraction solutions and gasless transactions for games, payment rails, web and game engine SDKs, data analytics and attribution, etc.)
• Promote Orbit, Stylus, and other development and infrastructure growth on top of new Arbitrum technology releases

The numbers proposed represent an upper bound of ARB that could be deployed to catalyze gaming on Arbitrum. In the event there is unused ARB at the end of the GCP across any of the two initiatives, funds will be transferred back to the DAO.

A. Builder Onboarding and Growth

Total Budget: 160m ARB

Use of Funds: This funding is proposed to be reserved for established publishers, game studios and independent builders on Arbitrum to help scale the DAO’s ability to attract, secure, and accelerate talented teams on Arbitrum.

Thesis / Experiment: We are allocating a large majority of the budget to empower growth of publishers and studios on Arbitrum.

Build Grants (25m)

Grants will primarily be used to empower teams that are aiming to accelerate early stage development on Arbitrum, or to incentivize user onboarding. Other grant uses may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Guidelines & Details:

• Teams may apply via the GCP Grants form
• Grants have a maximum size of 500k ARB
• Preference for user onboarding incentives or early stage development
• The grants manager has final approval on grants
  • Scorecards and details must be shared with the GCP Council
• Proposed: early grants period until legal entity is formed for GCP
  • Onboard interim grants allocator
  • Interim council of 5 members votes on individual grants
  • Maximum allocation of 10m ARB prior to GCP entity formation
• Each grant must have specific milestones agreed upon before funding

Investments (135m)

Teams seeking more than 500k ARB or additional funding for development beyond initial development must work with the GCP investment team to align on deal terms.

Publishers may submit multi-game deals to the GCP for consideration - allowing them to be more efficient and create more strategic plans for their ecosystem. As a packaged proposal, publishers and the GCP team may collaborate to set milestones, funding, kpis, etc in aggregate form or by each game, allowing for more flexible launch, development, and operational capabilities.

Guidelines & Details:

• Builders or publishers must agree on a commercial agreement value share through tokens, equity, revenue share (post recoupment), or other pathways.
  • Other considerations include active use of Orbit chains with significant sequencer revenue share as part of the default licensing structure
• More detailed deal structure guidelines will be created by the GCP Team upon its formation
• By the end of the program term, any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO

B. Game Infrastructure Bounties

Budget: 40m ARB

Use of Funds: This will be allocated by RFP or per proposal for any tooling and infrastructure needed to further support gaming within Arbitrum (i.e. gaming-centric boilerplates for Arbitrum Orbit, game contract libraries built via Stylus, account abstraction and gasless transactions solutions, payment rails for games, web and game engine SDKs (Unity, Unreal, Godot), etc.)

Thesis / Experiment: Web3 gaming is still nascent and there exists key gaps for game builders to build games and bring them to market. By incentivizing development for such infrastructure projects and tools, or accelerating development of Stylus as an Arbitrum native framework, this will help set Arbitrum further ahead in the competitive network landscape.

Current Gaps: A non-exhaustive list of gaps that currently exist within the Arbitrum ecosystem:

• Custom gaming-centric implementations of Orbit chains
• Mobile App Infrastructure with wallet that is optimized for games and asset management (See Ronin Wallet on mobile as an example)
• Web and game engine SDKs (Unity, Unreal, Godot) that allow for in-game contract calls
• Desktop launcher and distribution solutions
• Game analytics, optimization, and related tooling (tying together on-chain, off-chain, social, and player activity)

Funding Guidelines:

• The GCP Team will establish initial RFPs and funding guidelines
• An infrastructure specific rubric will be established by the Council to assess proposals
• Independent proposals that do not fit within RFP guidelines are welcome to apply separately for GCP Team consideration
• Any approved applicants for RFPs may be selected for vendor whitelisting, which allows vendors to be marketed to GCP participants
• By the end of the program term, any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO

GCP Org Structure

What changed: Added proposed org structure and relationship between each stakeholder / partie(s).

When designing the organizational structure of the GCP, two major dynamics were considered:

1. Enabling autonomy of the GCP team while setting safeguards for program success
2. Empowering the DAO to have transparency and representation without impacting compliance, disclosure, and other necessities for a grants program with commercial ties within the gaming industry

Decision making process

• Decision is made by GCP team

  • Investment committee decision, staffing, etc

• Council meetings every two weeks to discuss / veto any decisions

• Decision is ‘ratified’ and activated

• Every half year, aggregate summary of data as applicable shared in a report to DAO

GCP Team

What changed: Added roles / responsibilities, section on entity setup, team incentives, and overall costing estimates.

The GCP Team will be the primary operator of the GCP program.

Team members may join the program through a few pathways:

• Nomination through the proposal process (to help accelerate standup of the program)
• Hiring by the GCP team, with veto capabilities held by the Council

The below team roles and responsibilities are illustrative of an initial proposed structure, but may change based on industry / program demands.

GCP Team Roles & Responsibilities

1. Fund General Manager / Venture Lead

Responsibilities:

• Presents deals to the investment committee
• Responsible for strategic planning and the overall success of the program
• Managing and staffing the GCP Venture team
• Providing leadership and oversight to the Venture team
• Driving deals, partnerships and being the public face of the GCP program
• Compliance

KPIs:

• Overall investment milestones
• Deal flow
• Venture team performance

2. Program Director

Responsibilities:

• Member of investment committee
• Ensuring overall program success and sustainability
• Managing and staffing the overall GCP program (in collaboration with the Venture Lead)
• Leading marketing / program development efforts
• Establishing internal metrics for OKRs & KPIs with the Venture and Grants programs
• Align with Arbitrum DAO and other key stakeholders on strategic direction

KPIs:

• Overall program milestones

3. Venture Partner

Responsibilities:

• Member of the investment committee
• Providing support for the GM
• Negotiating with publishers and studios on deal terms
• Working with General Counsel to ensure compliance
• Overseeing portfolio management and providing strategic guidance to portcos
• Preparing deal memos for the GCP Board

KPIs:

• Funded deals
• Successful game launches
• Venture milestones
• Compliance

4. General Counsel

Responsibilities:

• Ensuring legal compliance/diligence
• Managing legal operations
• Managing documentation for investment deals
• Serving as the liaison between the GCP and DAO

KPIs:

• Average time to complete deals
• Operating within budget for Legal

5. VP Finance

Responsibilities:

• Managing all GCP council required reporting and tax requirements
• Modeling of potential deals
• Ensure budget compliance
• AR/AP, payroll, vendor management
• Maintain token calendar

KPIs:

• Budget compliance
• Program sustainability

6. Analyst x 2

Responsibilities:

• Sourcing top deals in the market
• Providing in-depth market research
• Running due diligence for deals
• Geographical focus:
  • 1-2 - Asia-focused
  • 1-2 - US/Europe-focused

KPIs:

• Venture partner satisfaction
• Number of fundable deals

7. Producer

Responsibilities:

• Establishes milestones
• Providers additional DD support for GM / Investor
• Tracks performance for games
• Collaboration with Program Director and Director of Technology to create infrastructure RFPs

KPIs:

• Games shipping at quality
• Game progress through development funnel

8. Director of Technology (implementation engineer)

Responsibilities:

• Documentation for tech onboarding of game projects
• Connect the dots with vendors and gaming teams
• Helps frame infrastructure RFPs for bounty program
• Shortlists preferred vendors

KPIs:

• Implementation throughput, onboarding pace
• Builder advancement across development phases

9. Grants Manager

Responsibilities:

• Due diligence for submitted grants
• Presentation of grants to the council in written form
• Contribution to transparency reports

KPIs:

• Performance of projects receiving grants
• Efficient distribution of grant funds

Investment Committee (separate from Council!)

The investment committee’s role is to provide extra perspective on deals brought forth by the Investment Lead and other team members, and make a final decision on investments.

The proposed investment committee structure consists of two GCP Team Members and council members - however the size and composition may change based on needs.

Our current proposed committee has 3 seats:

• Program Director
• Venture Partner
• 1 GCP Council Member (extra pay for this position)

Team Incentives

GCP team members may receive incentives every 6 months based on performance.

These incentives will be established with the approval of the Council and KPIs will be set for each team member.

The council must approve the bonus / incentives after each 6 month period (this time period may evolve over time).

GCP & Legal Compliance

The GCP will retain qualified counsel and coordinate with the Arbitrum DAO to ensure that it operates in a legally compliant manner at all times.

Team and GCP Board Costs

The GCP’s operating budget will be capped at $20m USD (excluding additional legal and financial expenses specifically required to ensure compliance with DAO/Foundation requirements).

ARB will be converted to USD or USDC by the Foundation before each quarter and sent to the GCP program account or multi-sig for disbursement.

Entity Setup and Model

The GCP working group and Arbitrum Foundation are actively exploring entity setup to ensure DAO transparency while following the rigorous compliance guidelines that surround any entity focused on investments.

This effort also involves DAO members from the M&A, Ops Co, VCDAO, and other initiatives.

GCP Council

What changed: Revised descriptions of GCP Council’s role and responsibilities that portrays it more as a collaborative body vs a governing board.

The GCP Council will be a DAO elected group of trusted professionals with backgrounds ranging across gaming, venture, grant allocation, web3 technology, and DAO relations. The group functions as a braintrust that offers their accumulated knowledge to empower the GCP Core Team.

Primary responsibilities of the GCP Council:

• Collaborate with the GM and IC on deal proposals by providing insights and identifying potential risks (can challenge based on deals not meeting very clear requirements).

• Offer recommendations on proposed deals after reviewing relevant data and analysis (this analysis would be a standard for all deal memos).

• Escalate concerns regarding deals to designated oversight bodies if necessary.

• Review and provide feedback on GCP team member nominations submitted by the GM and Program Director.

• Advise the GM and Program Director on long-term strategic plans for GCP.

Requirements:

• Council members must not be from publishers or studios intending to apply to GCP programs
• Council members with advisory, investor, or other relationships to applicants must disclose these conflicts
• Council members will go through mandatory yearly elections
• The DAO may call a snapshot vote to remove / replace council members
• Must sign NDAs and respect confidentiality agreements

Next Steps

What changed: Adjusted based on current estimates on timeline.

• [Done] Post Open Draft (Shared on 2/15/24, link within Arbitrum Gaming Education Post [Arbitrum and the Future of Web3 Gaming 89]
• [Done] Post GCP proposal to forum (3/11/24)
• [Done] Snapshot vote (3/15/24) for general delegate agreement on GCP commitment, start entity setups, and to receive detailed feedback: Snapshot 304
• Tally vote / ratification (May 2024)
• In parallel with Tally vote and /or post-ratification, GCP working group and authors will work with the Arbitrum Foundation for entity setup
  • Collaborate with Arbitrum Foundation resources and vendors for due diligence
  • Stand up legal framework and entity to support GCP
  • Initiate on elections, team recruitment, and other procedures after completion of entity setup
• GCP Council Elections (May 2024)
• GCP GCP Team formation (April - May 2024)
• Grant applications and RFPs open (May - June 2024)

Total Cost

What changed: Adjusted total cost breakdown, added more details to Program Admin and Operations.

We estimate the total cost to equal 200m ARB + operations costs detailed below under Program Administration & Operations.

This is a three-year program and forecasted amounts may change / require amendment(s) as the program evolves. Any unutilized ARB at the end of the program duration will be returned to the DAO treasury.

• Total Incentives: 200m ARB
  • Builder Onboarding and Growth: 160m ARB
  • Infrastructure, Tooling & Stylus Development: 40m ARB
• Program Administration & Operations - $20m
  • Council Members (5): $630k
    • 30k each member per year
    • 60k for investment committee representative
  • MultiSig Signers (5): $180k
  • Team Salaries: $18m
  • Legal / Compliance: $1m
    • Expecting usage for vendors, entity setup, adjustments for fast evolving regulatory environment
  • Proposal Authors and Contributors: 100k ARB

Proposal Contributors

What changed: Added new contributors.

Djinn (Dan Peng) - PM / Author

Karel Vuong - Author (Co-Founder, Treasure)

Marcus Segal - Contributor

Rick Johanson - Contributor

Xai Games - Advisor / Contributor

Helika - Advisor / Contributor

Jason Lee - Advisor / Contributor (ExPolygon Games, current web3 gaming founder)

Resources & Content

What changed: -

GCP AMA / Open Office 3/15/24 - https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1RDGllYMYvOGL?s=20 26

[samatsequence]

Proposal Name:

Response for Gaming Catalyst Program

Response:

Major props to the authors @Djinn et al, for driving this proposal forward and passing the first temperature check. We strongly believe that Arbitrum has the potential to be the destination for on-chain gaming, and the scope of the GCP outlined above looks to ignite this.

A little about us: Sequence’s mission is to make web3 easy, fun, and accessible for players, developers, and builders. Sequence has been at the forefront of innovation in web3 game development since 2017 and is backed by leaders in gaming, technology, and web3, including Take-Two Interactive (owners of Rockstar/Grand Theft Auto, 2K, Zynga, etc.), Ubisoft, Xsolla, Bitkraft, Brevan Howard, Coinbase, and other visionaries. The team pioneered many of the standards and open-source software on which web3 gaming runs, including co-authoring ERC 1155 for game items, and authoring the standards of account abstraction and smart contract wallets like ERC 1271, ERC 6492, and ERC 5189. Other leaders in web3 gaming leverage our software such as Immutable and OpenSea as well. We know first hand the needs of game developers and players as we leverage the Sequence full-stack platform in building our game, Skyweaver, that has been live since 2019. Beyond Skyweaver, Sequence supports hundreds of games and thousands of developers with our comprehensive development platform. Since the company’s founding, Sequence technology has powered more than $5.3B of transaction volume and millions of wallets across the EVM ecosystem.

Beyond web3, we have brought on legendary game-industry veterans, including Greg Canessa as our President and COO. Greg was previously at Xbox/Microsoft where he created Xbox Live Arcade, the first digital distribution business on console; was the first VP of Mobile at Activision Blizzard; Director of Battle.net; and served in executive leadership roles at PopCap, EA, GSN, and Google; was instrumental in titles like World of Warcraft, Starcraft, Call of Duty, Diablo, UNO, amongst dozens of others; and played key roles in content development and ecosystem creation in the gaming industry for 30 years. We hired Greg to drive true gaming expertise in web3, build a bridge between the blockchain and traditional gaming worlds, and leverage his unique knowledge and network to expand the web3 ecosystem and venture partnerships.

We are heavily aligned with the Arbitrum ecosystem where we have played an integral role as not only an infrastructure provider, but a strategic partner. Examples include:

• Advocating for prominent game studios & games to build on Arbitrum such as Mighty Action Heroes, soon to be announced AAA games, as well as servicing their infrastructure needs.
• Brought TapNation, a leading mobile games publisher with 60M MAU and 1B+ downloads, to Arbitrum.
• We’re white-labeling our developer console Builder for ApeChain. The Builder is a portal for game devs to leverage the comprehensive Sequence stack to easily build games on ApeChain and Arbitrum.
• Freely sharing our novel calldata compression tool to cut L2 fees by 50%, which is deployed on Arbitrum-ecosystem chains.

We want to discuss a few points for clarification on the proposal:

• Distinction and overlap between the Infrastructure Bounties fund vs. the Builder Onboarding & Growth fund.
  • From our perspective, there is overlap in that publishers or games will build infrastructure. Can games and publishers apply for both the Builder Onboarding & Growth Fund and the Infrastructure Bounties Fund OR do proposals for the Builder Onboarding & Growth Fund include infrastructure development as a cost? We believe that infrastructure should be a part of the overall request from the Builder Onboarding & Growth fund.
• Significant historical contributions should be taken into account when considering requests for funds.
  • Building high-quality and seamless infrastructure for web3 games is a high-skill, laborious, and time-consuming effort. It takes years to deliver properly. We recommend that infrastructure providers’ track records and contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem are considered when allocating Infrastructure Bounties. We needn’t wait to accelerate the Arbitrum ecosystem. Many of the tools required to build, launch, and scale the biggest games are available today, and ARB allocation can be used to accelerate and enhance existing tools to better support game developers, and ultimately solidify Arbitrum’s position in web3 gaming.

Overall, the structure of the proposal is great, and we believe that the right GCP team combined with some elaboration on the above concerns, will help propel Arbitrum as the leader in on-chain gaming.

To further excite the community, we believe the total addressable market is actually much larger than described in the proposal. The author cites a projected $500B gaming TAM by 2030, and we believe it’s important to consider the $10T metaverse opportunity. Gaming and blockchain play a critical role in the metaverse, and establishing Arbitrum as a gaming leader also helps establish Arbitrum as a metaverse leader. We are excited to collaborate with the Arbitrum DAO and other stakeholders to participate in the GCP to drive the adoption, utility, and success of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

[duokongcrypto]

@Epiclevel

Thank you so much for your enthusiastic support From EPICLEVEL team! We’re thrilled to hear your excitement about the Gaming Catalyst Program. Your suggestion to prioritize community engagement is spot on. Building a vibrant gaming community on Arbitrum is essential for the program’s success, and we’re fully committed to fostering that environment. Stay tuned for exciting updates and initiatives as we continue to elevate gaming on Arbitrum together!

OK, we will continue to follow the development of your project.

[Djinn]

Additional clarification of Council, Investment Committee, and GCP Core Team roles and responsibilities (thanks to Rick Johanson)

GCP Ecosystem Working Norms and Mechanics:

TL;DR: This collaborative structure aims to achieve program objectives while maintaining DAO oversight and transparency.

1. Funding and Oversight

• Arbitrum DAO: Allocates xxx million ARB tokens over xxx years to fund the GCP.
• GCP Council: Elected by the DAO, the council provides oversight and collaboration for the GCP team. They review proposals, offer insights, and can challenge a deal by majority vote and through a collaborative process of escalation with GCP Core Team.

2. Program Execution

• GCP Core Team: Executes the program’s day-to-day operations. This team identifies deals, negotiates terms, manages grants, and tracks progress.
• Investment Committee (IC): A small group with representation from all entities within the GCP ecosystem. They make final decisions on investment deals brought forth by the GCP Core team.

3. Collaboration and Decision Making

• GCP Core Team & Council: Collaborate on program strategy, deal evaluation, and identifying potential risks. The council provides expert advice and can challenge deals that don’t meet clear requirements or are not aligned to established program objectives…
• Investment Committee: Reviews investment proposals from the GCP team and makes final funding decisions. Additionally, they help resolve issues or concerns surfaced by the GCP Council related to deals.

4. Transparency and Accountability

• GCP Core Team: Provides regular reports to the DAO on program performance, including metrics, risk response, and progress reports.
• GCP Council: Ensures transparency by reviewing and providing feedback on team performance, nominations and decisions. The Arbitrum DAO can also call for council member removal.

Simple flow of responsibilities:

1. Arbitrum DAO allocates funds and elects the GCP Council.
2. The GCP Core Team identifies deals and negotiates terms.
3. The Investment Committee makes final decisions on investments.
4. The GCP Council provides oversight and collaborates with the team.
5. The GCP Core Team reports program performance to the DAO.

Key areas of ownership:

• The DAO maintains ultimate control through funding and council elections.
• The GCP Council provides expert guidance, escalates deal concerns and ensures transparency.
• The GCP Core Team defines strategy, executes the program, and makes funding recommendations.
• The Investment Committee has final say on investment decisions.

GCP Ecosystem Accountability Methodology:

TL;DR: A structure to ensure each entity is held accountable to the other to serve the best interests of the Arbitrum DAO and the overall success of the program.

Accountability is achieved through a multi-layered system that provides transparency but maintains collaborative work relationships.

Arbitrum DAO holds accountable:

• GCP Council: Through yearly elections and the ability to call a snapshot vote for removal/replacement of council members.
  • Elections and Removal: The DAO and council can remove members who underperform or violate trust/terms of agreements (NDA, PIIA, etc).
• GCP Core Team: By receiving regular reports on program performance and having the ability to influence program strategy through the council.
  • Transparency Reports: Regular reports from the GCP Core Team to the DAO showcase program performance and resource allocation, allowing the DAO to assess effectiveness.

GCP Council holds accountable:

• GCP Core Team: By observing team member nominations and performance, providing feedback on decisions, and having the ability to challenge deals through collaborative escalation.
• Themselves: By maintaining transparency through disclosure, NDAs, and facing potential removal via Arbitrum DAO, etc.
  • NDAs and Disclosure: These ensure confidentiality and prevent conflicts of interest within the council and team.

GCP Core Team holds accountable:

• Themselves: By meeting program goals like attracting builders, achieving milestones, and delivering results outlined in the proposal.
  • Performance-based Incentives: The GCP Core Team’s incentives are tied to performance, further aligning their goals with program success.
  • Performance Metrics: Program success is measured against KPIs, holding the core team accountable for results.
• Investment Committee: By providing justification and data for investment proposals.
• GCP Council: By requesting clear, consistent, and actionable rationale when deals are challenged.

Investment Committee holds accountable:

• Themselves: By making funding decisions based on sound analysis and alignment with program goals.
• GCP Core Team: By potentially requesting additional information or revisions to investment proposals when needed.

[Djinn]

After a review with key delegates, the Arbitrum foundation, and other key stakeholders, we present our final (really this time) draft before we go live on Tally.

Thank you everyone for your contributions, feedback, and invaluable support throughout this process!

Arbitrum DAO Gaming Catalyst Program: Final Tally Draft - 5/10

This draft was completed after a successful Snapshot temp check for the Arbitrum DAO to empower gaming with a three year, 200m ARB with the goal of powering the Arbitrum gaming ecosystem with the best studios and games in the web3 industry.

The temp check showcased the enthusiasm to support web3 gaming, but also revealed important questions to answer when launching an ambitious, multi-year plan requiring not only a strong team to run the program, but transparent, flexible collaboration between many stakeholders.

Introduction - Gaming Catalyst Program

What changed: No changes

The Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) is designed to immediately expand awareness and adoption of Arbitrum/Orbit/Stylus by builders and players in the Gaming community.

Arbitrum has emerged as a leader in the competitive network race through a dynamic formula of innovation, robust technology, organic builders, and a variety of short and long-term incentives.

The proliferation of DeFi on Arbitrum showcases how quickly a snowball effect can onboard builders, users, and ultimately value for the Arbitrum DAO and other stakeholders (i.e. Offchain Labs, Ethereum, etc.). The TAM for DEFI has surged to $50B and is projected to surge to over $120B by 2030 and Arbitrum is leading the way.

We believe that the same opportunity exists to attract the best builders that will in turn create sticky high quality games that bring and retain new users within Arbitrum. The gaming vertical has a $250B TAM today that is projected to grow to $500B+ by 2030. Though the “web 3 + games” segment of today’s game TAM is relatively small, it is poised to grow exponentially this decade.

Several L1s and L2s see this opportunity (most notably Solana, Cardano, Opstack, Immutable, Optimism, to name a few) and are moving to claim the builders with grants and investments.

GCP Hypothesis

What changed: Minor language updates

Arbitrum has had immense success in the decentralized finance vertical, but the branding of Arbitrum as a home for gamers and game builders is nascent. As a network, Arbitrum falls behind major competitors (Immutable X, Ronin, Solana, etc) across total games migrated, games launched, and total gamers.

This educational post shares some of the pain points and metrics within the gaming ecosystem in regards to Arbitrum.

Through the Gaming Catalyst Program, we aim to establish a dedicated team and fund to provide technical and strategic support to the game industry. This dedicated team is key to attracting and retaining the best established and independent developers.

We will know we are succeeding when we achieve the following:

Rapidly Increase the number of Game Developers using Arbitrum/Orbit/Stylus

The GCP aims to provide support and resources to developers interested in building on the Arbitrum network. This includes access to funding, mentorship by vetted experts, and other forms of assistance to expedite the development process and contribute to success in the market post-launch.

Strategic Allocation of Resources via Grants and Investments

By allocating resources strategically, the program can maximize its impact by focusing on proven publishers and developers as well as promising independent projects within gaming. This ensures that resources are used efficiently and effectively to foster the growth of high-quality games on Arbitrum.

Attracting and retaining Top Talent

Just as DeFi projects have flocked to Arbitrum due to its innovative technology and incentives, the GCP aims to attract the best game developers in the industry. By offering support,incentives and game industry specific tools, Arbitrum can position itself as an attractive platform for game development, leading to a surge in high-quality gaming experiences on the network.

Expanding the Use Cases of Arbitrum

While DeFi has been a major focus of Arbitrum’s success so far, expanding into the gaming vertical opens up new opportunities and use cases for the network. By supporting game and gaming infrastructure development, Arbitrum can diversify its ecosystem and appeal to a broader range of users and developers, with results that include but are not limited to Orbit chain and Stylus adoption.

Facilitating the Development of Sticky, Quality Games

The ultimate goal of the GCP is to encourage the development of sticky, high-quality games that not only attract users but also retain them over the long term. A dedicated GCP Team and Council representing the interests of the DAO will serve as quality control mechanisms to make sure the best applicants receive the full support of the GCP.

Proposal Summary

What changed: No changes

We are asking the DAO to earmark 200m ARB over a three year period to expand the gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum and establish the network as the top choice for game builders across the landscape.

The GCP is meant to serve as a catalyst, not a comprehensive program, with a focus around onboarding and supporting high quality builders. After the roll out of the GCP, the aim is to use its learnings to mature the organization into a longer-term gaming program with a comprehensive approach to game ecosystem growth.

Strategically, we believe that attracting, retaining, and supporting builders with a dedicated team and an ongoing investment in game developers and the technical solutions they need will be a key differentiating factor vs other competitive networks. This commitment to gaming will lead to high quality game launches that will in turn attract large numbers of engaged gamers.

Part of the fund will be utilized to co-invest into promising studios and games along with approved, Arbitrum-aligned publishers, with the belief that the business model, industry expertise, and track record of publishers will streamline the outreach, vetting, negotiation, onboarding, and support process for builders. The fund will also be available for all other game builders seeking to create games on Arbitrum.

Controls

Publishers and developers will be subject to a robust set of checks and balances to ensure alignment with this proposal’s goals and Arbitrum DAO’s values:

• A GCP Council of 5 individuals with deep gaming, venture experience, analytics / reporting, and/or DAO governance skills will be elected by the DAO and will be responsible for holding the Catalyst GCP Team accountable - with influence including general oversight, visibility of performance reviews for GCP team members, offering a channel for constructive feedback.**
• A GCP Team will be created with the support of the Arbitrum Foundation, and will collaborate with the GCP Council (which will serve as oversight):
  • An investment committee of 3 individuals including 1 Council member will approve investments
  • Funding for projects will be contingent on achieving milestones
  • A quarterly transparency report will be created with summary data on GCP performance
  • Funding of projects will include terms that are market competitive

Program Outcomes and KPIs

What changed: Adjusted KPIs for year 1 and year 2 to account for infrastructure setup time

The Gaming Catalyst program has an overarching goal to bring in talented builders, and help the builders accelerate their games through the lifecycle stages.

The highest level metric we will be tracking is studio / builder onboarding into the Arbitrum ecosystem. However, there will be a variance in the realized outcome due to publisher applications, types of builders targeted, and variables from network competition.

Primary expected outcome:

Within the initial time frame of the program (3 years), the goal is to establish Arbitrum as a de facto leader for on-chain gaming. Specifically:

• 400-600 applications
• 100-200 net funded games
• Win net migrations to Arbitrum vs other L2s
• 50+ new Orbit launches

The GCP will take time to reach its full potential, and setting milestones vs maturity of the program is prudent:

KPI	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Daily Active Users	20,000	50,000	To be set by GCP Team
Orbit Launches	5	20	To be set by GCP Team
Studio Deals	10	20	To be set by GCP Team

Most games will be in dev and not (yet) live in 2024

The GCP team will set appropriate OKRs and KPIs internally to align with the goals and milestones listed above.

An additional outcome that the program aims to achieve is incremental movement through the gaming lifecycles illustrated by the Helika presentation on 2/2/24 here (slide 15) during our open office hours.

Initiatives & Budgeting

What changed: Formatting changes, combined sections for readability

We are asking the DAO for 200m ARB to develop the gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum and establish the network as the top choice for game builders across the landscape.

The funding will be allocated towards the following initiatives over the span of a three year period:

1. Builder Onboarding & Growth (160m ARB)

Focused on attracting and supporting the best game builders into Arbitrum - open to publishers, established studios, and independent builders.

Use of Funds: This funding is proposed to be reserved for established publishers, game studios and independent builders on Arbitrum to help scale the DAO’s ability to attract, secure, and accelerate talented teams on Arbitrum.

Thesis / Experiment: We are allocating a large majority of the budget to empower growth of publishers and studios on Arbitrum.

Build Grants (25m)

Grants will primarily be used to empower teams that are aiming to accelerate early stage development on Arbitrum, or to incentivize user onboarding. Other grant uses may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Guidelines & Details:

• Teams may apply via the GCP Grants form
• Grants have a maximum size of 500k ARB
• Preference for user onboarding incentives or early stage development
• The grants manager has final approval on grants
  • Scorecards and details must be shared with the GCP Council
• Proposed: early grants period until legal entity is formed for GCP
  • Onboard interim grants allocator
  • Interim council of 5 members votes on individual grants
  • Maximum allocation of 10m ARB prior to GCP entity formation
• Each grant must have specific milestones agreed upon before funding

Investments (135m)

Teams seeking more than 500k ARB or additional funding for development beyond initial development must work with the GCP investment team to align on deal terms.

Publishers may submit multi-game deals to the GCP for consideration - allowing them to be more efficient and create more strategic plans for their ecosystem. As a packaged proposal, publishers and the GCP team may collaborate to set milestones, funding, kpis, etc in aggregate form or by each game, allowing for more flexible launch, development, and operational capabilities.

Guidelines & Details:

• Builders or publishers must agree on a commercial agreement value share through tokens, equity, revenue share (post recoupment), or other pathways.
  • Other considerations include active use of Orbit chains with significant sequencer revenue share as part of the default licensing structure
• More detailed deal structure guidelines will be created by the GCP Team upon its formation
• By the end of the program term, any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO

2. Infrastructure Bounties (40m ARB)

Focused on creating game specific tech needed to make Arbitrum the best choice for game builders. Deals will follow grant or investment classifications based on the same sizing requirements as the Builder Onboarding and Growth program.

• Allocated by RFP or decided by the Council on a per proposal basis for any tooling and infrastructure needed to support gaming within Arbitrum (i.e. account abstraction solutions and gasless transactions for games, payment rails, web and game engine SDKs, data analytics and attribution, etc.)
• Promote Orbit, Stylus, and other development and infrastructure growth on top of new Arbitrum technology releases

Use of Funds: This will be allocated by RFP or per proposal for any tooling and infrastructure needed to further support gaming within Arbitrum (i.e. onboarding documentation, gaming-centric boilerplates for Arbitrum Orbit, game contract libraries built via Stylus, account abstraction and gasless transactions solutions, payment rails for games, web and game engine SDKs (Unity, Unreal, Godot), etc.)

Thesis / Experiment: Web3 gaming is still nascent and there exists key gaps for game builders to build games and bring them to market. By incentivizing development for such infrastructure projects and tools, or accelerating development of Stylus as an Arbitrum native framework, this will help set Arbitrum further ahead in the competitive network landscape.

Current Gaps: A non-exhaustive list of gaps that currently exist within the Arbitrum ecosystem:

• Custom gaming-centric implementations of Orbit chains
• Mobile App Infrastructure with wallet that is optimized for games and asset management (See Ronin Wallet on mobile as an example)
• Web and game engine SDKs (Unity, Unreal, Godot) that allow for in-game contract calls
• Desktop launcher and distribution solutions
• Game analytics, optimization, and related tooling (tying together on-chain, off-chain, social, and player activity)

Funding Guidelines:

• The GCP Team will establish initial RFPs and funding guidelines
• An infrastructure specific rubric will be established by the Council to assess proposals
• Independent proposals that do not fit within RFP guidelines are welcome to apply separately for GCP Team consideration
• Any approved applicants for RFPs may be selected for vendor whitelisting, which allows vendors to be marketed to GCP participants
• By the end of the program term, any unused ARB will be returned to the DAO

GCP Org Structure

What changed: No changes

When designing the organizational structure of the GCP, two major dynamics were considered:

1. Enabling autonomy of the GCP team while setting safeguards for program success
2. Empowering the DAO to have transparency and representation without impacting compliance, disclosure, and other necessities for a grants program with commercial ties within the gaming industry

Decision making process

• Decision is made by GCP team
  • Investment committee decision, staffing, etc
• Council meetings every two weeks to discuss / veto any decisions
• Decision is ‘ratified’ and activated
• Every half year, aggregate summary of data as applicable shared in a report to DAO

GCP Team

What changed: Added roles / responsibilities, section on entity setup, team incentives, and overall costing estimates.

The GCP Team will be the primary operator of the GCP program.

Team members may join the program through a few pathways:

• Nomination through the proposal process (to help accelerate standup of the program)
• Hiring by the GCP team, with veto capabilities held by the Council

The below team roles and responsibilities are illustrative of an initial proposed structure, but may change based on industry / program demands.

GCP Team Roles & Responsibilities

These roles are understood to be the MVP in order to stand up successful programming. The roles and titles may adjust based on needs. Any adjustment of budget will be reviewed with the council and put forth for the DAO to vote if needed.

1. Fund General Manager / Venture Lead

Responsibilities:

• Presents deals to the investment committee
• Responsible for strategic planning and the overall success of the program
• Managing and staffing the GCP Venture team
• Providing leadership and oversight to the Venture team
• Driving deals, partnerships and being the public face of the GCP program
• Compliance

KPIs:

• Overall investment milestones
• Deal flow
• Venture team performance

2. Program Director

Responsibilities:

• Member of investment committee
• Ensuring overall program success and sustainability
• Managing and staffing the overall GCP program (in collaboration with the Venture Lead)
• Leading marketing / program development efforts
• Establishing internal metrics for OKRs & KPIs with the Venture and Grants programs
• Align with Arbitrum DAO and other key stakeholders on strategic direction

KPIs:

• Overall program milestones

3. Venture Partner

Responsibilities:

• Member of the investment committee
• Providing support for the GM
• Negotiating with publishers and studios on deal terms
• Working with General Counsel to ensure compliance
• Overseeing portfolio management and providing strategic guidance to portcos
• Preparing deal memos for the GCP Board

KPIs:

• Funded deals
• Successful game launches
• Venture milestones
• Compliance

4. General Counsel

Responsibilities:

• Ensuring legal compliance/diligence
• Managing legal operations
• Managing documentation for investment deals
• Serving as the liaison between the GCP and VCDAO

KPIs:

• Average time to complete deals
• Operating within budget for Legal

5. VP Finance

Responsibilities:

• Managing all GCP council required reporting and tax requirements
• Modeling of potential deals
• Ensure budget compliance
• AR/AP, payroll, vendor management
• Maintain token calendar

KPIs:

• Budget compliance
• Program sustainability

6. Analyst x 2

Responsibilities:

• Sourcing top deals in the market
• Providing in-depth market research
• Running due diligence for deals
• Geographical focus:
  • 1-2 - Asia-focused
  • 1-2 - US/Europe-focused

KPIs:

• Venture partner satisfaction
• Number of fundable deals

7. Producer

Responsibilities:

• Establishes milestones
• Providers additional DD support for GM / Investor
• Tracks performance for games
• Collaboration with Program Director and Director of Technology to create infrastructure RFPs

KPIs:

• Games shipping at quality
• Game progress through development funnel

8. Director of Technology

Responsibilities:

• Speed and ease of onboarding for builders
• Documentation for tech onboarding of game projects
• Connect the dots with vendors and gaming teams
• Helps frame infrastructure RFPs for bounty program
• Shortlists preferred vendors

KPIs:

• Implementation throughput, onboarding pace
• Builder advancement across development phases

9. Grants Manager

Responsibilities:

• Due diligence for submitted grants
• Presentation of grants to the council in written form
• Contribution to transparency reports

KPIs:

• Performance of projects receiving grants
• Efficient distribution of grant funds

Investment Committee (separate from Council!)

The investment committee’s role is to provide extra perspective on deals brought forth by the Investment Lead and other team members, and make a final decision on investments.

The proposed investment committee structure consists of two GCP Team Members and council members - however the size and composition may change based on needs.

Our current proposed committee has 3 seats:

• Program Director
• Venture Partner
• 1 GCP Council Member (extra pay for this position)

Team Incentives

GCP team members may receive incentives every 6 months based on performance.

These incentives will be established with the approval of the Council and KPIs will be set for each team member.

The council must approve the bonus / incentives after each 6 month period (this time period may evolve over time).

GCP & Legal Compliance

The GCP will retain qualified counsel and coordinate with the Arbitrum DAO to ensure that it operates in a legally compliant manner at all times.

Team and GCP Board Costs

The GCP’s operating budget is capped at $25m USD (excluding additional set-up, legal and financial expenses specifically required to ensure compliance with DAO/Foundation requirements). Any expenditures above the $25m cap must be approved by the GCP council and may either be deducted from grant budgeting or increased through a DAO vote.

Performance against budget will be reviewed by GCP Council as part of the regular transparency reports.

ARB will be converted to USD or USDC by the Foundation before each quarter and sent to the GCP program account or multi-sig for disbursement.

Entity Setup and Model

The GCP working group and Arbitrum Foundation are actively exploring entity setup to ensure DAO transparency while following the rigorous compliance guidelines that surround any entity focused on investments.

This effort also involves DAO members from the M&A, Ops Co, VCDAO, and other initiatives.

GCP Council

What changed: Additional requirements added

The GCP Council will be a DAO elected group of trusted professionals with backgrounds ranging across gaming, venture, grant allocation, web3 technology, and DAO relations. The group functions as a braintrust that offers their accumulated knowledge to empower the GCP Core Team.

Primary responsibilities of the GCP Council:

• Collaborate with the GM and IC on deal proposals by providing insights and identifying potential risks (can challenge based on deals not meeting very clear requirements).
• Offer recommendations on proposed deals after reviewing relevant data and analysis (this analysis would be a standard for all deal memos).
• Escalate concerns regarding deals to designated oversight bodies if necessary.
• Review and provide feedback on GCP team member nominations submitted by the GM and Program Director.
• Advise the GM and Program Director on long-term strategic plans for GCP.

Requirements:

• Council members must not be from publishers or studios intending to apply to GCP programs
• Council members may not represent network competitors or have significant conflicts of interest due to investments, advisory, etc with competitors (Solana, Polygon, etc)
• Council members must align with the values within the Arbitrum constitution
• Council members with advisory, investor, or other relationships to applicants must disclose any conflicts of interest
• Council members will go through mandatory yearly elections
• The DAO may call a snapshot vote to remove / replace council members
• Must sign NDAs and respect confidentiality agreements

Kickstarting the Team and Program

What changed: New section

To facilitate the stand up of the overall GCP programming and start funding talented teams within a reasonable time frame, we propose the following phases.

Phase 1: Early Activation (1-2 months)

• Focus/Goal: Establish core operational framework.
• Activities:
  • Finalize entity setup for legal compliance.
  • Working Group selects two interim council members with relevant expertise (gaming, industry influence, venture capital, DAO governance).
  • Working Group, in collaboration with the interim council, selects initial team members for critical roles (Program Director, Analyst).
  • Develop and present a clear timeline for council elections and full team buildout.

Phase 2: Program Development (2-4 months)

• Focus/Goal: Build operational infrastructure and initiate program activities & tactics.
• Activities:
  • DAO elects remaining three council members & votes to confirm/reject interim council members.
  • Establish key program infrastructure: website, grant application process, communication channels.
  • Issue first RFP for infrastructure development.
  • Open grant applications for game developers and studios.
  • Develop initial marketing, brand, and outreach strategy (this includes identifying agency partners if needed).
  • Finalize onboarding process for funded projects (includes research and team/project leader interviews).
  • Begin recruiting for additional team members based on a prioritized hiring plan (which will be clarified early phase two).

Phase 3: Program Acceleration (4-6 months)

• Focus/Goal: Achieve momentum, establish presence, and scale funding activities.
• Activities:
  • Full GCP team is operational, with all key roles filled (may be additional roles to consider based on learnings from prior months).
  • Grant applications reviewed, and first grants awarded to qualified projects.
  • Infrastructure RFPs reviewed, and contracts awarded to selected vendors.
  • Implement marketing and outreach strategy.
  • First program transparency report issued outlining performance against KPIs to DAO, Council, etc. Adjust strategies as needed.

Next Steps

What changed: Adjusted based on current estimates on timeline.

• [Done] Post Open Draft (Shared on 2/15/24, link within Arbitrum Gaming Education Post [Arbitrum and the Future of Web3 Gaming 89]
• [Done] Post GCP proposal to forum (3/11/24)
• [Done] Snapshot vote (3/15/24) for general delegate agreement on GCP commitment, start entity setups, and to receive detailed feedback: Snapshot 304
• Tally vote / ratification (May 2024)
• In parallel with Tally vote and /or post-ratification, GCP working group and authors will work with the Arbitrum Foundation for entity setup
  • Collaborate with Arbitrum Foundation resources and vendors for due diligence
  • Stand up legal framework and entity to support GCP
  • Initiate on elections, team recruitment, and other procedures after completion of entity setup
• GCP Council Elections (June 2024)
• GCP GCP Team formation (Starting in May/June 2024)
• Grant applications and RFPs open (June/July 2024)

Total Cost

What changed: Adjusted total cost breakdown, added more details to Program Admin and Operations.

We estimate the total cost to equal 200m ARB + operations costs detailed below under Program Administration & Operations.

This is a three-year program and forecasted amounts may change / require amendment(s) as the program evolves. Any unutilized ARB at the end of the program duration will be returned to the DAO treasury.

• Total Incentives: 200m ARB
  • Builder Onboarding and Growth: 160m ARB
  • Infrastructure, Tooling & Stylus Development: 40m ARB
• Program Administration & Operations - $25m
  • Council Members (5): $600k
    • 30k each member per year
    • 80k for investment committee representative
  • MultiSig Signers (5): $180k (the multi-sig holding the total sum will have signers from the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain labs - these individuals will not be paid)
  • Team Salaries: $18m
  • Marketing and Infrastructure: $2m
    • Includes website standup, conference spend, travel expenditure, and other costs
  • Legal / Compliance: $3m
    • Expecting usage for vendors, entity setup, adjustments for fast evolving regulatory environment
  • Proposal Authors and Contributors: 100k ARB

The funding for operations will be calculated at the USD value of ARB at the time of the Tally vote setup (5/21/24). In the case of overfunding, the program will return any funds to the DAO treasury.

In the case of underfunding, the GCP team will have two options to continue operations:

• Utilize any earmarked amounts for investments or grants to close the gap on funding up to the total allocated amount for operations
• Stand up a vote to add additional operational funding to continue running the program

Proposal Contributors

What changed: Added new contributors, working group

Working group:

• Dan Peng (PM / Author)
• Karel Vuong (Author)
• Marcus Segal
• Rick Johanson

Djinn (Dan Peng) - PM / Author

Karel Vuong - Author (Co-Founder, Treasure)

Marcus Segal - Contributor

Rick Johanson - Contributor

Xai Games - Advisor / Contributor

L2Beats - Delegate Feedback

Helika - Advisor / Contributor

Jason Lee - Advisor / Contributor (ExPolygon Games, current web3 gaming founder)

Resources & Content

What changed: -

GCP AMA / Open Office 3/15/24 - https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1RDGllYMYvOGL?s=20 26

GCP AMA 5/8/24 - https://twitter.com/arbitrum/status/1788281797081456938?s=46

[stonecoldpat]

The Arbitrum Foundation has put together a multisig to hold the 200m ARB in custody:

Safe{Wallet}

Note: We do not have an opinion on whether the proposal should be approved or rejected by the ArbitrumDAO. The Arbitrum Foundation is simply supporting the potential implementation of the proposal, should this be approved by the ArbitrumDAO.

[Djinn]

Since the multisig will be receiving the ARB in lump sum to fund both the program and operations, we added a section to specify how we approach underfunding or overfunding of the operational cost.

The funding for operations will be calculated at the USD value of ARB at the time of the Tally vote setup (5/21/24). In the case of overfunding, the program will return any funds to the DAO treasury.

In the case of underfunding, the GCP team will have two options to continue operations:

• Utilize any earmarked amounts for investments or grants to close the gap on funding up to the total allocated amount for operations
• Stand up a vote to add additional operational funding to continue running the program

[axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth]

Hello everyone!

SEEDGov would like to thank the whole community for their efforts in drafting this proposal. We know it has not been easy and we really like the result, we see a generally well-structured proposal that could boost the development of games within the Arbitrum ecosystem and that is why we initially gave our support in the Snapshot voting instance.

However, there have been a few changes since the Snapshot approval (especially of a budgetary nature) that have given us some doubts.

On March 22 of this year, when the proposal was approved on Snapshot, the budget was as follows:

@Djinn

[The current Program Administration & Operations budget is being verified by working group team members and will be adjusted prior to the Tally vote.]

• Total Incentives: 200m ARB
  • Builder Onboarding and Growth: 160m ARB
  • Infrastructure, Tooling & Stylus Development: 40m ARB
• Program Administration & Operations - $10m in ARB
  • Council Members (5): $25,000 per year ($250k total)
  • Initial Legal Structuring: $250k
  • General Legal / Compliance: $2m
  • Fund Manager / Venture Lead: Up to $2m per year ($200k base + bonuses)
  • Analysts (3): $125-$200k per year
  • Proposal Authors and Key Collaborators: Retrofunded from administration flex fund, determined by council
  • Program Insights and Analysis: TBD
  • Multisig Signers (5): TBD
  • Flex Spend - Remaining amount earmarked for any additional staffing needs, vendors, ops, retro funding, and research

Despite the proposal mentioning that it was a:

@Djinn

The GCP is meant to serve as a catalyst, not a comprehensive program, with a focus around onboarding and supporting high quality builders.

200M ARB + 10M was requested for Administration and Operations, making it the largest funding request ever approved by the DAO.

The initial goal for the 2-year period was as follows:

@Djinn

Within the initial time frame of the program, establish Arbitrum as a de facto leader for on-chain gaming:

• 200-300 applications

• 20%+ of all web3 games selecting Arbitrum as their network

• Win net migrations to Arbitrum vs other L2s

• 25+ new Orbit launches

It appears that since its approval on Snapshot, both the design and the budget of the proposal have changed significantly, as published on Tally. On April 18, the proposal’s timeframe was extended from 2 years to 3 years “to ensure the proposal has more time to show results” (question: does it continue to be a catalyst?). The proposal does not set KPIs for this third year. We believe that, despite possible variations, it is important to establish a minimum threshold.

Regarding the KPIs, the targets have been significantly expanded. The goals for applications and Orbit Launches have been doubled:

@Djinn

Within the initial time frame of the program (3 years), the goal is to establish Arbitrum as a de facto leader for on-chain gaming. Specifically:

• 400-600 applications
• 100-200 net funded games
• Win net migrations to Arbitrum vs other L2s
• 50+ new Orbit launches

On this date (April 18), the description of the GCP team and their roles (7 members) was also included, along with the Investment Committee (3 members).

In an initial iteration of the description of these teams, it was mentioned that

“GCP team members may receive incentives every 6 months based on performance. These incentives will be established with the approval of the Council and KPIs will be set for each team member.”

However, this same iteration, between April 18 and May 6 (last edit), expanded the operational budget by 100%:

@Djinn

• Total Incentives: 200m ARB

• Builder Onboarding and Growth: 160m ARB

• Infrastructure, Tooling & Stylus Development: 40m ARB

• Program Administration & Operations - $20m

• Council Members (5): $630k

• 30k each member per year

• 60k for investment committee representative

• MultiSig Signers (5): $180k

• Team Salaries: $18m

• Legal / Compliance: $1m

• Expecting usage for vendors, entity setup, adjustments for fast evolving regulatory environment

• Proposal Authors and Contributors: 100k ARB

Council Member compensation increased from 25K to 30K per year.

Initial Legal structuring was removed.

Legal Compliance was reduced by 50%.

The Fund Manager / Venture Lead budget of “up to 2M” (which was important because it was 200K per year + bonus) is no longer included but is replaced with “Team Salaries of 18M” without any justification of how it would be spent.

Multisig signers (5) are added for 180K.

This was the proposal as of May 4.

Now, on May 10, six days later, the final version is published. The operational budget is 25M, which is 5M (25%) more than the last edited proposal and 15M (150%) more than the amount approved on Snapshot.

@Djinn

• Program Administration & Operations - $25m
  • Council Members (5): $600k
    • 30k each member per year
    • 80k for investment committee representative
  • MultiSig Signers (5): $180k (the multi-sig holding the total sum will have signers from the Arbitrum Foundation and Offchain labs - these individuals will not be paid)
  • Team Salaries: $18m
  • Marketing and Infrastructure: $2m
    • Includes website standup, conference spend, travel expenditure, and other costs
  • Legal / Compliance: $3m
    • Expecting usage for vendors, entity setup, adjustments for fast evolving regulatory environment
  • Proposal Authors and Contributors: 100k ARB

The funding for operations will be calculated at the USD value of ARB at the time of the Tally vote setup (5/21/24). In the case of overfunding, the program will return any funds to the DAO treasury.

The difference between what was proposed in April/May and this latest version lies mainly in four points:

• A Marketing Infrastructure budget of 2M is created.
• The legal budget is tripled, from 1M to 3M.
• A 100K compensation for drafting the proposal is proposed.
• GPC Team budget went from 10M to 18M

We believe that some figures are not correct. Correct us if there are any errors on our part.

The proposal mentions 600K for the Council and breaks it down into 30K per member per year (5 members) and 80K for the Committee Representative.

30 * 5 * 3 = 450

80 * 3 = 240

450 + 240 = 690

The other option is that the budget for the Committee Representative is for the 3 years, which would be 450 + 80 = 530.

In neither case does it amount to 600K.

As I mentioned above, the overall cost is claimed to increase by 5 million, but the added expenses for the April/May issue amount to 4.1 million.

Calculations show that 23.8 or 23.9 million is requested (depending on the Committee representative’s budget) instead of the stated 25 million. What is the reason for this discrepancy?

25M ARB represents 12.5% of the program’s cost, which we believe is somewhat high compared to other large programs due to administrative fees. For example:

• The STIP had a cost of 94K ARB on an expenditure of 50M, a cost of less than 1%.
• The LTIPP had a cost of 435K ARB on an expenditure of 45M, a cost of less than 1%.
• The STEP estimates a cost of 300K ARB on an expenditure/investment of 35M, a cost of less than 1%.

Note: We understand that these incentive programs are also of different durations, the administration lasted approximately 6 months. In addition, the number of administrators varies between proposals.

Of the total cost, several aspects are unjustified.

The budget for the GPC TEAM has been added and is estimated at 18M ARB. This is more than 100% of the originally requested and approved amount on Snapshot for the total cost, . considering that the GPC team consists of 7 people, we are talking about more than $70,000 per month average per member (18,000,000/36 months/7 members). However, it does not explain how much will be paid to each of these roles. Moreover, both the responsibilities and KPIs are very generic and difficult to monitor.

An investment committee was also created, which was not in the original proposal. Why is there an additional budget for the members of this Investment Committee when they are part of the GPC team, which already has a budget of 18M ARB or the Council which are paid positions?

Why is there 180K allocated for the multisig when: 1- the foundation provided a multisig, and 2- there is a proposal to control the multisig and avoid adding such unnecessary costs?

You are proposing 2M for Marketing. This was also not in the original proposal and has not been justified within the proposal. This proposal asks for 10% of what you are requesting but has received a lot of criticism and questions.

Why did the legal compliance budget go from 2M originally, then to 1M, and now to 3M?

Finally, the explanations given about how the DAO can “hold accountable” the GCP team are crucial but definitely insufficient. You are requesting an 18M ARB budget for salaries. It is mentioned in a generic manner that “regular transparency reports” should be submitted.

This should be much more detailed, explaining precisely what the DAO should expect to see in these reports. Additionally, this commitment to transparency should be included in the proposal.

In conclusion, we have followed the proposal since its inception and agree that gaming is important for Arbitrum to take the lead in this market. But the changes in the proposal have been significant. We also know that there have been people working on this proposal for quite some time so it is possible that we have missed some information, if so do not hesitate to tell us if there has been an error or if there is any information that has already been published.

[Djinn]

Hey Axlvaz - thanks for the in-depth questions and feedback.

A lot of the changes had to do with further discovery and feedback from both potential team members and industry professionals that come from venture / gaming / legal after the Snapshot vote.

Another major change was the extension from 2 years to 3 years after discussing heavily with investors in the gaming space and DAO stakeholders. Their concern was that gaming is so long tail for quality titles that 2 years would be a little too short of a time period to see the best results - which makes sense given how resource heavy game development is.

• A Marketing Infrastructure budget of 2M is created.

We realized that we had 0 budget to attend conferences for BD, sponsor events, digital efforts etc.

This program comes with high expectations, and we have to put our best foot forward to get in front of the best studios and compete with other networks for top of funnel attention.

There will be professionals handling the marketing efforts, and we want to make sure they are well equipped with resources from day 1, without having to constantly come back to the DAO for funding requests.

• The legal budget is tripled, from 1M to 3M.

This budget changed as a result of more due diligence with legal professionals and venture folks who have spent time navigating through compliance / legal.

Legal setup is included, and some estimates showed a range of 100k-500k for setup depending on the structure.

If we put a thesis of 50-100 games funded by the GCP, with a typical compliance/legal fee of 10k-20k per, the dollar amount would already start to bump up against the 3m number over 3 years.

• A 100K compensation for drafting the proposal is proposed.

It’s been a 6+ month effort with 100s of hours between different DAO members to get this passed. Given the amount of time, we thought it was fair to ask for the 100k ARB. A program of this size takes time and resources to create - happy to ask folks for notes on time etc if really needed.

I think this is a broader question too of how we incentivize proposal authors to create great proposals for the DAO and there have been many ideas thrown around to create a better system so happy to chat on this.

• GPC Team budget went from 10M to 18M

Some of the increase came from the change to a 3 year program, but scoping was overall was done with the help of potential venture and operational candidates from top firms that we are trying to recruit.

A single venture partner in the gaming space that has a great network / experience can easily command a base salary in the high 6 figures - this is without incentives for performance.

Delphi Digital had an independent analysis of staffing costs based on the known needs for the program that came to about $3-4.5m per year.

This is not including a compliance officer (300-500k a year potentially) and other team needs that are not known as of now such as additional marketing, bd, other roles. We want to be smart and give ourselves buffer room to equip the GCP team with the largest change of success.

Our estimates were higher than Delphi’s, specifically on producer and CTO roles, with totals ranging from $4m - $6m per year for staffing costs.

Regarding programs like STIP - remember that those programs do not have a full time staff and is not considered an investment entity, both which substantially increase the cost.

• For the investment committee members, there is not additional pay to anyone on the committee that is a GCP team member.

We assumed one member of the DAO would be an investment committee member out of five members.

80k * 3 = 240k
30 * 4 * 3 = 360k
240k + 360k = 600k

It might have been a little confusing how the cost breakdown for council members was structured, will see if we can tidy that section up a bit.

All really good questions, I will reach out to you to schedule time to review any additional feedback!

[pedrob]

@Djinn

If we put a thesis of 50-100 games funded by the GCP, with a typical compliance/legal fee

gmgm. Reading this the following question came to my mind. Is there any plan regarding IP management? Is it the intention of this proposal for the DAO to retain full or partial IP rights over the games it is investing in? Or is the intention for the games to be open source? Will there be any exclusivity imposed to ensure deployment only on Arbitrum, preventing them from moving to other chains? Or how this will be handled?

Thank you

[Djinn]

Hey hey Pedro, thanks for the questions.

Intellectual property - we would empower games to own their own IP

Exclusivity - 100%, if we invest in a game to build on Orbit or the general Arbitrum ecosystem, the investment is to stand up the game here - not other places. There may be unique cases where a game is in multiple ecosystems but it would be a rare case.

I’m assuming that in any agreements, there would be clauses to denote what happens if a game / studio breaks terms

[thedevanshmehta]

I have voted FOR the proposal after due consideration. I was a little torn about this one for several reasons, but overall the importance of standing up a gaming vertical overshadows these concerns. I have spoken to the GCP team and have confidence in them adequately resolving them.

1. Creation of offchain legal entities: I am skittish about the recent move by many proposals in the dao (AVI, M&A, GCP, OpCo) to incorporate on their own but be funded by the DAO. We see enough disputes and business partners screwing each other over in the real world, its probably much easier to do this to a DAO. How do we know that any upside from these investments will be returned to our treasury?

This makes the agreements signed with the Arbitrum Foundation very important. @Djinn did mention they are exploring various ways to ensure profits get streamed back to the treasury through creation of separate wallets.

2. Compensation : @axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth has separately raised concerns over the 18 million compensation amount. I too was concerned about it given the @Delphi-Digital report recommended 4 million, and i feel implementation budgets need to become less politicized and more bureaucratic (following recommendation of ARDC rather than coming up with it on their own).

After speaking with the GCP team, i found that there is no carry in this proposal so we need higher amounts to compensate for it, and their role goes beyond investment to marketing support, liquidity provisioning, & other support functions that make such roles necessary. Our benchmark should be Immutable and Ronin, not the general VC structure. Delphi also got involved late with the GCP proposal, in the future i would like proposals to follow their recommendations.