Hi @NathanVDH,
I’m David Bolger, a member of the GCP council. I am also Head of Gaming & Consumer Partnerships at Offchain Labs. I am replying here from my POV purely in my capacity as a council member on why I think this proposal is detrimental to the growth of Arbitrum.
I’d like to highlight some key context that I think is not accounted for in this proposal.
The Strategic Importance of Gaming for Arbitrum
The gaming audience is one of the largest consumers of digital assets, with global gaming revenue exceeding $185 billion last year (source). This audience already has a strong appetite for digital ownership, making blockchain technology a natural fit.
Arbitrum has become a key hub for gaming projects, with significant network effects benefiting the broader ecosystem, including DeFi, RWA, and consumer applications. Maintaining a dedicated investment strategy for this sector is essential to sustaining and expanding Arbitrum’s position in the market.
The Reality of Blockchain Partnerships
Having worked in the blockchain partnership space for the past three years, I can confidently say that no chain can remain competitive without allocating financial resources to attract and support builders. The industry is fiercely competitive, with rival chains routinely offering grants ranging from $5M to $100M. In some cases, single deals from competing chains have been rumored to exceed the total GCP allocation (currently valued at $85M).
Arbitrum DAO has consistently taken a more disciplined approach, prioritizing sustainable investment over excessive grant spending. In my view, the GCP is a key pillar of this strategy, and shutting it down would severely limit Arbitrum’s ability to continue to compete for top-tier partnerships.
Balancing Speed and Diligence
While faster execution is always desirable, maintaining oversight is critical to responsible fund allocation. The GCP council, with input from the Arbitrum Foundation as observers, has maintained rigorous oversight over the GCP. This includes direct engagement from at least two council members in candidate evaluations and final interviews.
To date, over 50 deals have been put forward to the GCP, yet fewer than 5% have reached the final stages—demonstrating a clear commitment to due diligence. While this approach has led to some frustration within the ecosystem, it ultimately ensures that treasury funds are allocated effectively, rather than distributed indiscriminately or carelessly.
Treasure Chain
Treasure chain taking a deal with another ecosystem does not define Arbitrum’s gaming strategy. There are currently over 25 gaming-related chains building with Arbitrum’s tech stack—more than any other blockchain framework. Additionally, traditional gaming industry giants such as Ubisoft, Square Enix, and Tap Nation are developing on Arbitrum. I am also extremely excited about the pipeline of projects which the GCP currently has in its final stages. The ecosystem’s growth is robust and diversified and not reliant on any single project.
Final Thoughts
Rather than shutting down a program which has strategic value, we should continue refining and expanding sustainable growth initiatives.
For anyone seeking further insights, I’m happy to discuss this topic in more detail on a call or via text. Please feel free to reach out to me on Telegram (@david_cocora).