Proposal: [Non-Constitutional] Funding for Into the Dungeons: Machinata - a PvP Digital Miniature Game V2

[JoJo]

I am voting “For” on this.

I already expressed the right way, imo, to look at this:

@JoJo

This is a development grant. Because you are asking for a grant not to incentives a product that already exists but to create one. It’s not, as most think, a problem of gaming vs defi grant imho.

And, I still believe in this:

@JoJo

This is a gap that we have and that we need to address in general. It could be partially mitigated if the questbook program, now almost out of funds, will be renewed. But we need a development grant program for the dao. This is the can of worm you are opening with this request, and I am glad you are doing it because it’s something we need to solve sooner rather than later.

But the more I think about it, the more I think that forcing the hand of the DAO by moving forward on this vote, even with an approval, will be more beneficial than anything.

And I will vote for, despite the issue that I will highlight here:

1. Milestone: they are not well specified. Not because they are not well written, but saying “I will implement X” is just no enough. Implementing X could result in an MVP or in a system that can take you up to mars. How do you evaluate the success of a milestone? We need a specification by use cases, as in any software development project. Specification of the functions that will be included, an high level view of the implementation, and the outcome. Would dare to say that a use case diagram (for people who have done software engineering in their life) might be needed
2. Milestone evaluation: by saying “After the milestones above have been met and confirmed by the DAO” we are basically DAO sourcing the evaluation of milestones that, as stated above, are quite subjective, just because there is no specification. So, to me it could be reached, and another might have the opposite view. This is a more complex problem in the sense that delegating to a commission is a way to remove some friction but also introduces centralization. So, something to broadly discuss.
3. There is no timeline. We don’t want necessarily fixed or too strict timeline in development grant, but we still need a reference point.
4. (and this is gaming specific). I have played a lot of games in my previous life, used to review games and so on. It feels like we might have less people “knowlegeable” in gaming than in DeFi. But then again, i suspect that a lot of people talking this or that about DeFi have actually a limited understanding of DeFi in general, so is probably a non-issue.

After all of the above, people might think why voting for? Answer is simple: the game, as it is, looks quite good to me. The team is there and has shown the commitment to push it and to publicly participate to feedback discussion. And also, while there are a lot of gaps in the application, I think that moving it forwar will be a very very very good learning experience for the DAO. Worst case scenario, we will learn how to put down better specifications for development grant. Best case scenario, we will be able to create a Development Grant Program.