# Chance Studios, Inc. - Final Grant Report **URL:** \ **Category:** Domain Allocator Offerings (prev Questbook)\ **Created:** [July 23, 2026, 8:13pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/chance-studios-inc-final-grant-report/31093 "2026-07-23T20:13:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![chancelive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/35a633/32.png) [@chancelive](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/chancelive)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2026, 8:13pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/chance-studios-inc-final-grant-report/31093/1 "2026-07-23T20:13:24Z")
1. **Executive Summary** 2. **Performance Against KPIs** ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/3X/4/5/45aefd3d88230a64ce96da8e6e24600dc8a694ec.png) 1. **Qualitative Impact & Community Feedback** 2. **Financial Summary** 3. **Future Plans & Continued Ecosystem Alignment** 4. **Additional remarks** ---
**Author:** ![MconnectDAO](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/mconnectdao/32/16356_2.png) [@MconnectDAO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/MconnectDAO)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 3:47am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/chance-studios-inc-final-grant-report/31093/2 "2026-07-24T03:47:34Z")
I appreciate the detailed narrative around Chance’s GTM, creator strategy and off‑chain business metrics. From an Arbitrum DAO perspective, I see a few gaps I’d like to highlight point‑by‑point: 1. The report focuses on views, paid users and social reach, but does not provide Arbitrum‑specific on‑chain metrics (new Arbitrum wallets, tx count, or contract‑level volume attributable to this grant). 2. While you mention that “ownership and settlement layers live on Arbitrum”, there is no public dashboard (Dune/Flipside/Arbiscan) linked where the DAO can independently verify how much activity actually occurred on Arbitrum as a result of this campaign. 3. The Questbook proposal contains a clear budget breakdown (media buying, 2 creators at $2.5k each, $1.5k credits + $1k amplification), but the final report does not map those line items to performance per channel (e.g. CAC, conversion to on‑chain Arbitrum users, retention). 4. As it stands, the grant appears to have primarily subsidized Chance’s GTM and creator network growth, with Arbitrum’s chain‑level benefit stated in narrative form but not evidenced through measurable KPIs. 5. For future Questbook / Arbitrum grants, it would be helpful if grantees included: This kind of reporting would make it much easier for delegates to assess whether marketing‑style grants are delivering tangible value to the Arbitrum ecosystem, beyond off‑chain traction for the underlying product. @chancelive@Arb_Junior ---
**Author:** ![MconnectDAO](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/mconnectdao/32/16356_2.png) [@MconnectDAO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/MconnectDAO)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 3:50am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/chance-studios-inc-final-grant-report/31093/3 "2026-07-24T03:50:44Z")
The grant clearly helped Chance’s GTM and creator growth, but for Arbitrum DAO the budget justification is incomplete, because Arbitrum‑specific value (on‑chain metrics and dashboards) is missing. Without that, delegates cannot confidently say this spend was fully justified for the Arbitrum ecosystem. @chancelive ---
**Author:** ![Arb\_Junior](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/arb_junior/32/16472_2.png) [@Arb\_Junior](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Arb_Junior)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2026, 8:41am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/chance-studios-inc-final-grant-report/31093/4 "2026-07-24T08:41:53Z")
@chancelive I appreciate the transparent and detailed Final Grant Report from Chance Studios. Going from projections to **2x+ actuals** across Paid UA, Creator Referrals, and Organic users, while delivering $1.3M in organic volume and 1.9M views shows strong execution. The team’s focus on creator partnerships (CoolTrainerRyan, TwiceBakedJake, etc.) and rapid iteration during Open Beta is exactly the kind of momentum we want to see in the Arbitrum ecosystem. Thank you for the clear financial breakdown and future plans. Positive: This report is still one of the better ones in terms of clarity, results delivery (especially doubling KPIs), and financial transparency. **Weakness:** It reads more like a **company marketing update** than a **DAO grant impact report**. In the Arbitrum ecosystem, delegates increasingly want proof that grant money drove _on-chain activity_ on Arbitrum, not just off-chain growth that _might_ benefit the chain later. Questions: 1. Do you have (or can you quickly build) a public Dune Analytics dashboard for Chance’s Arbitrum activity? 2. Can you quantify how many of the 1,000+ paid users became active on Arbitrum (wallets connected, transactions made)? 3. Of the $1.3M organic volume, how much was settled/processed on Arbitrum? 4. What are the top 3 milestones and timelines for the official launch? 5 Can you provide a mapping of the original Questbook budget items to the final outcomes achieved per channel? ---
**Author:** ![chancelive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/35a633/32.png) [@chancelive](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/chancelive)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2026, 8:10am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/chance-studios-inc-final-grant-report/31093/5 "2026-07-28T08:10:47Z")
## **Chance on Arbitrum: the on-chain picture** First and foremost, we sincerely appreciate the sharp and concrete feedback. You are on point that our original report led with growth and reach metrics and initially underserved the on-chain story. That is on us Chance to fix, and the good news is that the on-chain activity is the strongest part of the picture as Chance isn’t a web2 app that happens to touch a chain. Every economically meaningful action a Chance user takes is executed and settled on Arbitrum. Below is the full picture of Chance on-chain activities, all independently verifiable on Arbiscan and Dune: ### **What Chance has done on Arbitrum (since March 2026)** - **1,114 unique wallets** active on-chain - **105,403 transactions** settled on Arbitrum - **103,443 contract events** , which cover card mints, pack pulls, buybacks, deposits and redemptions - **$2.37M** in gameplay volume (GMV), of which 100% are settled on Arbitrum - **~$7.2M** in gross on-chain USDC settlements across the full lifetime of our contracts Every pull, buyback, and redemption carries an Arbitrum transaction hash. There is no off-chain settlement layer we fall back to. The chain is the ledger. ### **How to read the volume figures (so nobody is misled)** We want to be precise rather than impressive, because these numbers measure different things: - **$2.37M, Gameplay GMV.** The total value of packs pulled. This is our core economic activity (Note that this is the total gross USDC gameplay GMV without filtering for team, testing, sponsored-partner pulls, etc. The organic volume during our open beta period was $1.3M) - **~$0.5M, Net new user deposits.** Real money that entered the system (fiat to USDC via our on-ramp) - **~$7.2M, Gross on-chain settlement.** Every USDC hop, in and out. Because our game economy recycles capital (a user deposits once, then that balance moves on every pull and buyback), inflow and outflow are nearly identical. This is throughput, not funds raised. We call it out explicitly so it can’t be mistaken for a deposit figure. All three are real. They simply answer three different questions: what did users play with, what money came in, and how much did our contracts settle. ### **Verifying this independently: one important note** Chance sponsors gas and relays transactions on behalf of users (a meta-transaction pattern), so from the address on the raw transactions is one of our two relayer wallets, not the end user’s. If you count distinct transaction senders, you’ll see a handful of addresses and undercount our users by roughly 100x. The correct way to count real users on-chain is by the recipients of the collectibles NFTs, which gives 1,114 wallets and matches our own backend to within about 2%. ### **Contracts (public, verifiable - contract, followed by its role)** 0x19ffde04d16fbc2c99b4b521d3105e27146a55df : collectibles NFT, the graded cards users own (count unique holders here) 0xe2e342269b09001a209914683fa1a9c3c10a2355: coupon and settlement, where fiat on-ramp deposits land on-chain 0x807bd6edf00e17e9f2ce0a8d0156fc8227c541e9: gameplay (current), pulls and buybacks 0xf53574e2bf2001294dd0d0d9ccef603f3b1c7a42: gameplay (earlier generation), carried the bulk of settlement in the launch window 0x87cb6a27d421fb3a930bb52c6232ee6ed5c4590c: gameplay (earlier generation) We’ve deployed multiple contract generations as we’ve iterated. The figures above span all of them, so no activity is dropped or double-counted. ### **What’s next** We took the feedback seriously and are turning this into standing infrastructure, not a one-off table: 1. A public Dune dashboard for Chance’s Arbitrum activity (wallets, transactions, settlements volume, redemptions) that the DAO can check independently at any time. We’re glad this bar exists. Chance is one of the more on-chain-native consumer apps in the ecosystem, and we’re happy to be held to it. * * * ## **Grant milestones: what we committed to, and what we delivered** The grant was structured around paid-user milestones, where a paid user is defined as someone spending $50 or more. Because all spend settles on Arbitrum, every one of these is verifiable on-chain rather than self-reported. ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/3X/9/a/9afcd98aee29b8f95e1c53b41bc93b2fcb77ac5c.png) Every paid user in the count above spent $50 or more in real money, and all of it settled on Arbitrum (roughly $2.18M in real-money gameplay spent across those wallets). ## **How the budget mapped to outcomes** The grant funded three channels in Phase 1. What we actually executed went beyond the original plan: we shifted creator compensation into platform credits rather than cash to conserve runway, and we scaled paid media well past the initial test. ![image](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/uploads/arbitrum1/original/3X/1/6/1612d3b5e65f41c7ec1d0c57beef528213f9cf6c.png) (Channel-level marketing outputs are exact; the on-chain result is the shared aggregate outcome, since web analytics and the on-chain ledger are not joined at the individual-user level. We flag that rather than claim false per-user attribution.) ### **The key point on scale** **The $40,000 grant funded only a portion of the total marketing investment behind these results.** On top of the grant, we committed significant additional resources from our own balance sheet across all three channels: an extended engagement with our growth agency, creator partnerships funded in platform credits, and paid media well beyond the initial test. We deliberately over-invested because the channels were working. The important part for this DAO is that every dollar of that combined effort, grant-funded and self-funded alike, drove activity that settled on Arbitrum. The grant was a catalyst that we matched and exceeded with our own capital, and the entire result is visible on-chain. * * * ---
**Author:** ![Arb\_Junior](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/arb_junior/32/16472_2.png) [@Arb\_Junior](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Arb_Junior)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2026, 12:01am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/chance-studios-inc-final-grant-report/31093/6 "2026-07-29T00:01:00Z")
Well done, Chance Studios team. This report stands out for several reasons: - Honest self-reflection and quick iteration when feedback was given. - Excellent on-chain delivery: 1,007 paid users, 105k+ transactions, 1,114 unique wallets, and $2.37M Gameplay GMV — all settled on Arbitrum. - Clear financial transparency, including how they adapted the budget (shifting creator pay to credits and scaling media). - Strong milestone over-delivery (2.8x and 1.7x on key paid-user targets). - Professional tone, verifiable data (contracts + commitment to Dune dashboard), and clear explanations of volume metrics. The grant acted as a true catalyst - they matched it with their own capital and drove real activity on Arbitrum. This is the kind of outcome the DAO wants to see from growth grants. Strengths: - Very good KPI over-performance and on-chain proof. - Smart execution (agency use, creator strategy, content production). - High transparency on contracts, relayer mechanics, and volume definitions. - Clear “What’s Next” section with commitment to ongoing public dashboards. Future Improvement (Minor): - Long-term retention metrics and post-grant momentum would strengthen future reports. - The Dune dashboard being live would be the final cherry on top. Final Questions for the Team: (On-Chain & Dashboard) 1. What is the 30-day and 60-day retention rate for the grant-acquired users (on-chain activity)? 2. What are the top 3 product or growth priorities for the official launch and next 90 days? 3. Are there any new Arbitrum-specific features or partnerships in the pipeline? 4. Of the 1,007 paid users, roughly how many came primarily from each channel (media, creators, organic)? 5. How has gameplay volume and transaction count trended in the weeks since the Open Beta? Looking forward to the official launch and continued growth on Arbitrum. Keep it up! ---
**Author:** ![Anzus\_GemWallet](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/anzus_gemwallet/32/16624_2.png) [@Anzus\_GemWallet](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Anzus_GemWallet)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2026, 1:39pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/chance-studios-inc-final-grant-report/31093/7 "2026-07-30T13:39:07Z")
Great to see this level of activity on Arbitrum. From a user’s point of view, can the collectibles or USDC be withdrawn to an external self-custody wallet? I think giving users that option would be useful, especially if they want to manage their assets outside the platform.