Currently, the GCP is behind schedule and the promised reports and processes are long overdue. Since transparency is key, it’s important to make sure that every dollar goes where it’s supposed to. It makes sense to let the GCP continue to operate with the funds they have, and then allocate more money when they show progress.
To summarize, the GCP needs to show good faith and substantial action, and DAO members have a right to know how the funds are being spent. If the requirements for transparent and effective oversight are not met, further budgetary withdrawals are justified.
Individual immature suggestions
- phased allocation: large sums of money can be allocated in quarterly or half-yearly installments, and released after the GCP reaches the set operational goals, to ensure that the funds are used for actual progress.
2. Regular reporting system: In addition to quarterly reports, more frequent updates, such as monthly newsletters, can be required to keep DAOs more up-to-date on the progress of the program.
3. Clear target nodes: Setting clear time nodes and milestones for the GCP makes it easier for DAOs and the community to assess progress, so that if there are delays, the causes can be more easily identified and resolved. I think everything is centered around the principles of compliance, transparency and implementability.
As someone who launched a similar gaming initiative back 2021, funded from a DAO, I want to share some perspective on the GCP concerns. The reality is that setting up a compliant, well-structured gaming fund is incredibly complex and time-consuming when done right.
When we launched Game7, it took us nearly 9 months just to establish the proper legal framework, compliance procedures, and operational infrastructure before we could begin receiving the capital. And that was with a dedicated full-time team that was unpaid until the funds were received.
Looking at GCP’s scope and the additional complexity of receiving funds from a DAO, their timeline might have been too optimistic initially but not unreasonable (coming someone who managed to it before.)
What I’m seeing in their updates isn’t lack of progress - it’s evidence of thorough, responsible execution. They have a huge responsibility and ensuring the structure is designed appropriately takes time. The team is clearly focused on building sustainable infrastructure rather than rushing to deploy capital, which is exactly what you want to see as a community member who care about the longevity of ARB. Council member transitions, while disruptive, are normal in nascent organizations as roles and responsibilities become clearer when you start executing on the vision.
My suggestion to the community would be to focus more on the quality of the foundation being built and its long-term sustainability in driving value to ArbDAO rather than the speed of deployment. From my experience, the projects that took time to establish proper governance and operations ultimately delivered far better results than those that rushed to deploy capital (I also had a VC fund in the past and saw many funds act reckless with capital.)
The gaming ecosystem needs thoughtful capital deployment, the industry is still nascent and quality capital allocators still have a massive upside to capture in the next 5-10 years.
Let’s give the GCP team the runway they need to build this the right way.
Just my 2c.
2 Likes