Honestly, reading through this, it feels like we’re all looking at a project that just… didn’t take off like we hoped. You know, those big, ambitious plans that sounded amazing at the time? Yeah, that. And now, we’re left with this situation where we’re basically saying, “Okay, let’s cut our losses and move on.”
And honestly? I get it. We’ve all been there. You put your faith in something, maybe throw some resources at it, and then it just fizzles. And what I appreciate about this proposal is it’s not about pointing fingers. It’s about being responsible.
We’re talking about our DAO’s money here, right? Money that’s supposed to build something awesome for all of us. And when things aren’t working out, we gotta be grown-ups and say, “Alright, let’s reel it in.”
I mean, the whole “transparency” thing? That’s huge. We’re a community, not some shadowy backroom deal. We need to know what’s going on, where the money’s going, and what we’re getting for it. And when a project isn’t giving us that, yeah, we gotta step in.
And I like that they’re not just saying “screw everyone.” They’re talking about severance for the regular folks who were working on the GCP. That’s decent. We’re not trying to ruin anyone’s lives, just get our funds back where they belong.
So, yeah, I’m voting for this. It’s not fun, but it’s the right thing to do. We need to show everyone that we’re serious about being responsible with our DAO’s money, and that we’re gonna keep things open and honest. Let’s learn from this, and make sure we do better next time.
…I have a question, is GCP currently also giving grants to gaming projects? If so, how much was spent on grants already? and are these gaming grants different from the ones the @Arbitrum Foundation reported in their recent transparency report, or are these the same gaming grants the AF has given out? If they are the same, who is giving out the gaming grants after all? if they are not the same, how do you coordinate this gaming grant giving activity?
Our transparency report is for the year 2024 (i.e., January to December) prior to the GCP being in a position to issue grants or investments. So the grants will be unrelated. GCP will be taking the lead on investments & grants for blockchain gaming. AF will be coordinating with them whenever it is necessary/needed.
Hey @stonecoldpat
Is there a source where we can track all the recipients of the grants mentioned in the Transparency Report who have received funding?
I wasn’t here when this was initially discussed and approved last year, so I might be missing something, but the main problem I see is exactly this. An initiative of this magnitude should be managed by experienced and qualified people AND with proper infrastructure. The GCP received the amount of funding equating to a very large Series B. It should be treated with the same level of professionalism, scrutiny and output expectations.
As I mentioned in my private message to @thedereksmart, it is inappropriate to make accusations that grants are going to non-appropriate parties without any tangible evidence. It harms the reputation of the GCP program. We have a maximum politeness policy that focuses on constructive feedback.
If there is good feedback in the post, then we welcome the poster to publish it, but it should remove any aspects that violate our code of conduct.
Well, I pointed out that it was a tongue-in-cheek joke - and explained the context. But that post too was promptly deleted. And so, nobody will actually know the context or what this is even about as all the related posts have now been deleted. Not sure how else to address this.
We don’t know the poster and don’t know who in the admin suite is replying, but why don’t you just redact the specific sentence you took issue with? It was a fairly lengthy post.
What do you consider to be “good feedback”? Isn’t that subjective? So, that means, even if I re-posted it and removed the original joke that had it removed, it will likely suffer the same fate for an unrelated reason.
Thank you @NathanVDH for the continued dialogue and collaboration on the GCP program. The GCP stakeholders and Nathan have had an open line of communication to address concerns and improve transparency.
Nathan - looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can build better programming together, these type of conversations are immensely useful when it comes to fostering a healthy DAO ecosystem
This proposal is at the very least, important and sets a precedent for discussing future clawbacks.
Given the GCP’s challenges in meeting its objectives and providing clear reporting, retrieving these funds could allow for their reallocation to initiatives with a higher potential for impact and we are generally in support.
Retrieving unutilized funds reinforces the DAO’s dedication to prudent financial management, ensuring resources are directed toward effective and transparent initiatives.
Taking decisive action in response to underperformance can rebuild trust among stakeholders, demonstrating the DAO’s responsiveness to community concerns.
Opportunity for Strategic Reallocation: Recovered funds can be redirected to projects that align more closely with the DAO’s current priorities and have a higher likelihood of success.
However, it’s important to note and see
Potential Disruption to Existing Projects: An abrupt clawback may negatively impact ongoing projects under the GCP, potentially leading to sunk costs and wasted efforts.
Administrative Challenges: The process of reclaiming and reallocating funds could be complex and resource-intensive, potentially diverting attention from other critical DAO activities.
Judging by the responses both private and the views to the now-hidden original post, it appears that some people did find value in the post - despite it’s length and copious amounts of snark.
Below is a revised version sans the snark and the tongue-in-cheek humor. I still have the original which I will be converting to a Medium article. So, if anyone is interested in it, do feel free to send me a DM or ping me on Telegram.
=======
I don’t even know where to begin, but since no-one is likely to say the quiet part out loud because God forbid someone wants something from someone who is in the [Web3] mix, here goes…
First, I have been involved in the gaming industry for over four decades now, made - and survived - many partnerships, trends, downturns etc. All while being an indie who just loves building games and tech. So, needless to say, I know a thing or two about, you know, gaming and game dev.
My foray into Web3 started back in 2021 when I deduced that Web3 represented a blue ocean opportunity for gaming. I have written tomes (1, 2, 3) about what I see - and believe - will be the failure of Web3 gaming - and why. While very few paid attention (Even though I’m a well-known legacy white hat dev, I’m not a AAA game dev - so who cares what I think, right?) to the alarm that myself and other legacy game devs were sounding,
I supported - and still support - the idea of the GCP since day one and continue to follow it’s progress mostly because @Djinn is one of the most accessible and forthcoming people in the space. Bar none. I can never imagine a time whereby I would show up in the GCP spaces or pinged him on TG about a material update, without him responding.
When the GCP first appeared - even as my own ApeChain DAO was on the verge of it’s own collapse (which it incidentally came to mere months later) - I made my opinions and suggestions known here. And in those I outlined everything that I personally knew and have experienced in my 40 yr track record as a gamer (first) and a game dev (second) - and why I believe that the GCP is doomed to fail if lessons learned as well as tried and proven methods weren’t adhered to. Key to those are this missive.
Note that in that post above, I provided an outline of the legacy steps that us devs, publishers, and distributors take in making a determination on how to go from funding a game to GTM to release.
While they didn’t have to take this level of advice, from what I can tell this past year - and 9 months into the GCP kick-off - none have been adhered to. Instead we have this:
While I realize that’s a more high-level list - and btw I have had discussions with Djinn about specifically this - the fact remains that even at a macro level, industry best-practices are to be followed. To the extent that projects still fail, at the very least, adhering to such practices tends to not only de-risk but also allows outside-the-box thinking which then augments such processes in order to find what fits, what works, and what’s less risk.
The GCP has thus far failed to yield tangible results in this regard - but not for the reasons pointing to any one person or reason but because, by nature of being related to games and game funding, it was doomed to fail from the start. Why? Because, guess what - who else here thinks that it’s a good idea to not make priority hires people who have:
Designed, developed, managed, marketed or shipped a game
or
Managed a game dev team or game dev studio
Yes - Greg is moonlighting - and he’s awesome; but you literally need people with the aforementioned experience and expertise in a full-time role because despite what Web3 will have you believe, the role of a [gaming] BD person means that person has a track record of experience and skills which encompass gaming. That person is able to talk to devs at a peer-to-peer level, understand the project, the process, the tools etc. This issue is precisely how Web3 ended up with so many failed gaming ventures - failures which eclipse even the failures of trad gaming as a whole. And all because most Web3 BD people have zero or near zero actual gaming or game dev experience.
Another peeve. The Gaming Catalyst website isn’t reflective of the aspirations - and not even in a funny ha-ha kind of way. Go look at it. An $85M fund with copious amounts of disposable cash, paid for what doesn’t appear to look like a game-centric funding initiative.
My cursory observations:
No mission statement (no, the two linked docs aren’t that)
Nothing that even remotely says “Oy! We’re totally attracting the cream of the gaming crop”
Literally NO information about WTAF the GCP is. What it does have are the usual talking point fluff words that are rife in Web3 because apparently we’re all idiots now who don’t read anything
No links back to this discussion forum which contains a lot more data/info on GCP than a barebones website
Not a single - not one - image, link or ref that says “This is about gaming! Go call mom!”.
No team links, bios, expertise, tasking etc. Which goes back to the same transparency issues that all have been complaining about for months now. An $85M fund operating in the shadows with no “point man” (no - that’s not Djinn) is absolutely why everyone should be asking the questions now being posed. NOTE: This was Jan 13th when someone else asked.
To me, that website doesn’t say “We’re totally serious about gaming!”.
Let me rewind a bit. How did the GCP program lose someone like Andrew Green? NOTE:While I know how/when/why this happened, being old school I have always respected the boundaries of confidentiality. And so, my original comment wasn’t designed to point the finger at the GCP as being responsible for his departure nor to delve into anything that would cause me to divulge private & confidential material. All that I can say to this - in the interest of clarity for those inquiring - is that Karel leaving and then Andrew - who he nominated - later following him to that venture, made sense. Especially since the GCP was obviously not up and running, and its scope and premise likely didn’t fit with what Karel envisioned for his platform. It happens
Read the entire GCP update thread, then accept this challenge: List the names, bios, and GCP tasking for everyone associated with the program. No cheating.
It’s not on the website or in this forum. But it’s in the transparency report which, at a glance, still appears to be incomplete.
From what I’ve observed, most questions asked of the GCP receive a resounding “Yes”. Then mostly nothing happens which is what leads to all the calls for transparency and such.
Thus far, the DAO hasn’t gained anything by way of funding the GCP. There have been far too many issues - all of which go back to my original points: they’re seemingly over their heads because setting up something like this is no small feat.
And when it comes to DAOs, they tend to [consistently] fail because most people would never support the idea that voting on important and financially material things should be down to the size of your bags rather than the merits of the proposal. Even in corporations, the number of shares held tend not to have any material effect on the number of votes which can be used.
The GCP has a rumored “66” deals in the pipeline, yet still there hasn’t been a single - not one - announcement about any deal, team, product, project or even the tooth fairy. And no list. I can almost guarantee that if/when that list is ever made public, that there would be even more questions and arguments because all involved would have their own opinions about what is a good or bad deal. That despite the fact that the success and failure of a project - as we all know - has very little to do with the team or the project, but more to do with the PMF. And timing. And luck. That’s why even the best and well-funded teams with the best products continue to fail. Especially in gaming. Mostly in Web3.
Not to mention that, despite the intent and best efforts, the first transparency report isn’t all that transparent because to me it just reads like pages of words and phrases on a road to: “Thus far we haven’t achieved much anything impactful”.
I challenge anyone to change my mind. I’m the guy who writes design docs, technical specs, engineering frameworks - and manages teams of engineers who, more than anything else, hate documenting anything and will avoid it like the plague if they could. And so, it is easy for me to decipher what constitutes an informative data-driven report. Yes - of course anyone of us can ping Djinn or Chris about anything, and immediately get a response. But why go through all that trouble when most of the inquiries are better served in either an FAQ (e.g. on the website) or in such a report? Plus, it saves time while reducing drama.
When gaming teams can go deploy on other chains - including ARB - without having to wait around for months on end to get an answer let alone funding for their project, guess what happens when word gets around. Serious teams don’t have time to wait around or wade through a convoluted process when they have projects to build and require the funding to do so.
While I still support the idea of the GCP - as I always have - I can no longer support it in it’s current form because, on-going [gaming] trends aside, I have come to believe that the odds of success aren’t currently in its favor.
Giving money to the deserving few shouldn’t be a challenge. But for too long and too often, Web3 has routinely funded the wrong teams. And so, Web3 needs to stop rewarding failure after failure because the end result is that programs like GCP will not only find it challenging to curate worthy projects and teams but will also have an uphill battle in achieving success. Gaming is hard. Very hard. And that’s why gaming routinely requires specialist handling and expertise for any team and/or project to break out, let alone be a success.
At this point, my recommendation is for the GCP to wind down and let the ARB Foundation put those funds into gaming via already established processes and procedures which are doing a lot better and have thus far served the ARB [gaming] community (I’m not in it and I don’t hold any tokens) in more ways that one. Why mess with what already works? Why take the risk and the additional costs to setup a new fund when - as most of us said from the start - it could have been done within the scope of pre-existing ARB programs? Though the foundation doles out game funding in grants and not investments, I don’t think it would have taken a year for them to retro-fit that program with an investment option. To be honest, having followed GCP from the start, never in my wildest dreams did I think that over a year later not only would there not be a single funded project but also not a single word about the curation of said projects. To the extent that most of us just moved on to other chains, similar to what Treasure ended up doing.
Djinn, Karel and co had a dream, and Djinn has done his utmost, put his best foot forward and stuck to what he wanted to build as per his vision. But in a world where even the best laid plans of mice and men tend to fall apart at first contact with reality, the unfortunate result is one of timing and opportunity.
To try and to fail is no disgrace. What matters is whether or not you are brave enough to get up and do it again - differently. I would know. I’ve been there, done that - got the scars and the derision that comes with the territory.
Since this is really up to the voting whales, if the GCP is to continue - I feel that radical changes need to be made. What those are, I don’t know because most of what’s done and pending still need clarity in order for outsiders like us to make an informed determination.
With any such radical changes, Djinn, alongside his stellar cohort, Rick, can then build an operating team of full-time people who have GAMING AND GAME DEV EXPERIENCE.
I also feel that there is no need for a council because despite best intentions imo it’s really just there to give whale bags some degree of comfort while spending money with currently zero ROI. Too many cooks and all that.
Follow some - if not all - of the guidelines that I outlined before.
Put the whole GCP program on chain alongside a robust project in-take web form - complete with a counter showing the number of intake, the status, a brief description etc. But if that’s going to be done, why not just roll it back into the pre-existing ARB grants program?
Anyway, the goal is to build a lean, mean GCP program, with complete transparency - and which operates in an efficient manner.
Seeing as it’s gaming related, though it still stands a 90% chance of failure, all it takes is one or two hits to see a meaningful ROI. Then again, due to gaming and current game funding trends, that’s just saying when the whales voted for an $85M (originally $200M) fund that’s likely to lose 90% of its funding due to how gaming metrics tend to play out, they basically voted to set $76.5M on fire. They could very well have just bought $ARB and burned it. Same end result.
That is all. Please don’t hate me.
ps…
In the past three months alone, game studios and projects that raised over $300M in an avg of 14 months, have failed and shutdown. And the recent GDC - regardless of all the nonsense you see online by the usual larping suspects - is a wakeup call that says gaming will continue to decline and that Web3 gaming - for all intent and purposes - is on life support. Anyone who believes - even for a minute - that the general failure of trad gaming means those devs and projects are going to spill over to Web3 - is a fool.
Really great to see the GCP members start to directly address many of the concerns being raised, such as transparency, progress, use of funds, etc.
There’s signs that the GCP actually has been productive, and the initiative may not be in need of being fully wound down.
The question does remain about ROI though. This amount of money(not just money spent but potential money to allocate), Human Resources and effort spent into any other initiative in the DAO such as DeFi initiatives, or the OpCo, gets significantly more scrutiny and requires much more reporting and transparency showing progress, often has milestones for funding, etc.
So I do think Nathan brings up good points and there are many signs that the GCP could do a way better job in those areas.
The Game Developers Conference (GDC) 2025 saw a significant presence from Arbitrum, which deserves commendation for its impactful contribution.
We acknowledge that the concerns stem from the lack of measurable results despite the significant ARB funding allocated to this initiative. However, it is important to recognize that venture and early-stage investing are inherently challenging and often require substantial time to yield meaningful outcomes.
While Treasure DAO has been a key early supporter of the GCP, it should not define the entire Web3 gaming landscape on Arbitrum.
To ensure accountability while allowing the initiative to succeed, we propose that GCP establish clear milestones and implement a phased clawback mechanism if these milestones are not met. This approach would maintain oversight without prematurely winding down the initiative. Ultimately, we hope to allow GCP the necessary time to deliver results that align with the long-term nature of venture investments.
The following reflects the views of GMX’s Governance Committee, and is based on the combined research, evaluation, consensus, and ideation of various committee members.
Thanks @Djinn for engaging with me on this in good faith. I’m grateful for everyone who contributed to this thread, and all those who have taken the time to engage on this important topic.
Based on the recent announcements from the GCP, conversations with GCP employees and members of the Oversight Council, I think the GCP, while it certainly suffered a slow start, has the makings of a program that will return value to tokenholders - which should be the guiding principle of this DAO. I appreciate that the model of the GCP is unique, but it doesn’t make it immune to tokenholder sentiment. To make sure we can continue forward, I’d like to propose a series of measures that the GCP and other service providers to the DAO should follow:
Monthly Updates and Biannual Reports: Provide Monthly updates covering high level investment, grants, operations, financial, and hiring progress. In addition, provide detailed biannual updates that include performance metrics and qualitative insights, similar to a shareholder letter or LP update.
Revenue Generation Strategy Explainer: Present an explanation (blog?) of how successful investments will generate returns. For example, outline whether returns come from a percentage of sales, equity stakes in SPVs, lump-sum exits, or evolving revenue streams. It has personally helped me to understand the strategy of the GCP on that front, and I think this will be a valuable explainer for other DAO members.
Hiring of a DAO relations partner: The recent hiring of Atomist as the GCP’s DAO relations partner is key. We want to let the GCP team run their business, but clearly there needs to be someone in charge of informing the DAO about the strategy, the challenges, and the current state of DAO-funded programs.
Contingency Measures: It would be useful for future programs to themselves establish what they would consider to be a failure of their program. Clarify clear conditions under which funds may be clawed back or reallocated if milestones are not met. This creates expectations on the DAO’s side and would (at least personally) increase delegate confidence that programs are responsible for their own success.
I would add this to the already present system of checks and balances that the GCP has, namely its DAO-approved oversight committee composed of OCL team members, the AF, and key delegates. I would like to also state that I don’t think that the accountability benefits of a transparent deal flow will outweigh its strategical downsides. We want to set up the GCP to succeed by operating within a predictable and investment friendly environment.
I think these measures would go a long way to restore investor confidence fully in this program, and I hope they can be useful for future initiatives. If these measures are agreeable to the GCP, I recommend not moving this proposal forward to a vote to avoid any further reputational damage and make sure that we’re giving the best chance to this program.
Hey Nathan, appreciate the open conversation and opportunity for us to have constructive dialogue.
The above makes sense - and I think they strike a balance between the need for operational efficiency / excellence and also transparency. We will continue working with you and other delegates to make sure we both address the asks above and any other requests that can enhance this program’s future success. The onboarding of Castle Capital and growth of our team will only ensure that we will be even more proactive on addressing feedback.
As a last note, I want to give a quick shoutout to the wider gaming ecosystem including OCL, AF, builders, advisors, delegates, and investors that have been working in the trenches with us over many months to ensure that the program is successful. We know that transparency can be improved, but the Council, AF observer, and other close stakeholders can vouch for the fidelity of work and momentum going into this program behind the scenes. This momentum will only become more clear as the next months/quarters proceed. Thank you to all the contributors (you know who you are!).
This proposal represents the nuclear option to claw back funds from a DAO-approved program and we are thankful that all community members, contributors and delegates, took the proposal seriously from the onset. It appears there is a resolution in sight that will result in the proposal not going forward for a vote, but there are still a few lessons that we as a community should take from this experience.
Less twitter, more discourse. It is our understanding that the proposal’s origin comes from this twitter post. We should be mindful that most interaction in our DAO occurs on this forum, on telegram and on governance calls. If a delegate, or contributor, is having an issue with a DAO-approved program, then we should keep the discourse amongst ourselves and attempt to find the best possible resolution before publishing nuclear-like proposals.
Constructive feedback. There are many people lurking the forum and telegram chats who will read comments at face value. They do not understand the nuances of comments and will quickly skim the discussion to figure out what is happening. This can result in miscommunication if comments are distracting in any way. We should hold everyone to exceptionally high standards to ensure communication is constructive, maximally polite, and focused on the matter at hand. This will help us to continue attracting the best contributors to our DAO.
Unnecessary media attention. All eyes are on the ArbitrumDAO. This thread has had >1k views over the past 4 days. When a proposal is published to the forum, it can, and will, be picked up by the media. Within a few hours, several outlets including TheBlock, Leviathan News and Cointelegraph published a story. The problem is that outlets often have misleading titles which are misinterpreted by readers. As a result, in this case, many external people were under the impression that the GCP funds were guaranteed to be clawed back and the program would end, which is not true.
Harming GCP’s efforts. Unfortunately, the media attention has led to practical operational issues for the GCP. It has interfered with ongoing and potentially future investments as projects (and co-investors) are now unsure whether the GCP is at risk. It has also harmed on-going recruitment efforts as quality candidates are now more reluctant to leave their current jobs for the GCP as headlines indicate that the DAO will dissolve it. It will take time for the team and program to recover which is unfortunate given the positive outcome from GDC last week.
Faith in GCP Council. The ArbitrumDAO elected 5 members to serve on the oversight committee of the GCP. They are tasked with approving budgets, hiring plans, treasury management, evaluating deals, providing strategic direction to the GCP program, and overseeing performance reviews. This is all accounted for in the GCP’s bylaws. Everyone should allow the GCP council to perform their job and use them to get your questions answered.
Transparency. All DAO-approved programs should seek to be transparent, whenever possible, with the community. If there is a delay for an anticipated disclosure, then the team should clearly communicate it with an updated timeline. We recommend all programs to appoint a dedicated individual (or team) focused on DAO relations that can support disclosures alongside help manage relationships with the DAO. In this case, there was already an on-going negotiation with CastleCap to support the GCP program prior to this proposal becoming public, but unfortunately it was not completed on time.
We (the Arbitrum Foundation) have been heavily involved with the GCP Council and the GCP Team to help it become operational. It is now in a good position to start carrying out their mandate as an essential function of the wider Arbitrum Gaming front and we believe they should be allowed to do so. Let’s support the team alongside all other DAO-approved programs to ensure that Arbitrum continues to win.
