So, if I understand the latest posts correctly, the plan is to retain the status quo while ensuring transparency and disclosures via more…reports?
As a gamer and game dev, I tend not to lean towards any chain or any game, but instead looking at the long-term overarching picture of gaming as a whole because gamers have always gravitated towards games and communities that hold their interest. Web3 gaming is no different from any other gaming sector, except for the fact that thus far it has failed - miserably - to attract core gamers. Instead we have Web3 gaming dominated by gamblers and speculators who are more focused on making money than they are in engagement. The mistakes there have already been made and there’s no going back. But what if we had the chance to change that - for the better?
IMX, AVAX, Treasure, XAI et al - across all chains - are all siting on catalogs of underperforming games. We refer to that as the “Steam Enigma”. And collectively, millions have been thrown at breaking the cycle of Web3 transient gaming engagement. That has thus far failed to yield tangible results because Web3 gaming engagement is transient by nature. When you flood an ecosystem with a lot of games, UA aside, the end result is that breaking out presents an insurmountable challenge for teams - regardless of funding, experience or clout.
Anyone paying attention - and who understands the metrics - already realizes that the era of token funded games is at an end. That’s just not going to work as it once did - unless of course the teams are more focused on token-funded raises so they can get an early exit while abandoning the games when the music stops and the speculators have all moved on post-TGE.
Djinn, Karel et al came up with the idea for the GCP at a different time in the gaming cycle. A year ago, sentiments were high, the outlook seemed great - and Web3 gaming was supposed to be taking off. Then it didn’t. Most of us who actually do this for a living - right here on this forum - said that gaming has its swings and misses and that the risks were high. And so, the GCP needed to ensure that it was positioned to take steps in mitigating those risks and that throwing money at gaming was never - ever - a guarantee of success.
Every single day there are well-funded gaming teams either closing, being sold or downsizing their teams. That’s not a fluke, it’s a sign of the times ahead.
All that is to say, I still maintain that the GCP has to make the hiring of people with actual gaming and game dev experience a top priority. And they need to be in the intake team so that even before it gets to the council there is a good chance that the team and project have been thoroughly researched, vetted and the due diligence solid. Which is what I had originally assumed was being done. Turning it into a VC model isn’t going to yield the expects results because lets face it, how is that different from what came before - and has subsequently failed?
Build a better mouse trap.
Currently, as per the current transparency report, we have this structure. Image courtesy of the GCP - Strategic Update (March 2025)
According to that chart, from what I can tell, the GCP is still missing about 6 positions. And nowhere in there is the mention of any position that is “gaming” related. So, where are the gaming people? The people with actual gaming and game dev experience? The people who, when speaking with a gamedev team, understand precisely what is being conveyed, relayed and planned about a project? Every single successful games publisher, licensing distributor or funding team, either has such a person on staff or bring them in at some point - even if they are external. If such people are defined as being a part of pre-existing roles (e.g. Content Lead) in that chart, then that brings me to this…
Another point to consider. While the Project Review process as outlined in the transparency report is solid enough, Screen One and Two are the ultimate points of failure. And so, that’s where the focus needs to be in terms of a proper and all-encompassing due diligence into a project’s chances of success. Yes, while 90% of game projects will ultimately fail to yield the expected results, “failure” is relative to the investment made. Meaning, is the GCP looking for a 2x, a 10x or a break-even?
The GCP grant from the Mar 2024 startup was a 200M $ARB ask.
On Mar 15, 2024 $ARB was trading at around $2.00. Today, it is at $0.33. That’s an 84% drop. And so, as of this writing, the 200M ARB grant to the GCP fund is $66M.
This means that the value and number of inaugural GCP projects are ultimately affected - especially when you take into account the costs of running the GCP project.
To wit: Off The Grid, a standard-fare AAA game with Web3 elements, raised $82M. It’s still in early dev, and the token TGE is today. Before that, we had Shrapnel.
That the GCP says they have already signed 66 projects makes it all the more important for the interested/vested parties to get insight into what those projects are, what they cost, the expectations, the ROI tracking etc. Given the above post by the ARB Foundation, they’re obviously aware of these projects, have confidence in them etc. All said and done, I see that as a good sign.
However, I still have concerns about the viability of the GCP actually signing 66 projects within a span of 12 months even though it clearly wasn’t staffed to any meaningful degree during that period. That’s not normal and is completely outside the norm. Was it rushed? Were corners cut? Were projects signed because of the pedigree of the team sans normal DD etc?
Lastly, it is my understanding that the GCP lacks the infra and team to lead a funding round. So, what is the play here? Do teams have to then first get a funding lead before engaging with the GCP investment team?
In conclusion, I still believe that the GCP should be setup as a third-party game distribution studio structure, staffed with experienced gamers/gamedevs because this Web3 version of a VC inspired fund is the very same playbook that has seen very little success in Web3 gaming.
To be clear, I still support the idea of the GCP because its success means that Web3 gaming will have a chance to prosper in some way. While most of us have since moved on for one reason or another, the fact remains that any Web3 gaming win is a win for all of us who are vested in the sector. And most of us aren’t transient in gaming. We’ve been here since the beginning.